missionary musings

community, autonomy and the resurrection

2011-10-31T00:23:00.002+02:00

over the last couple decades society has experienced a huge disconnect. you can see the recognition of this trend in just about any sociological work you'd care to get your hands on. perhaps the most famous example of this is a book called bowling alone by robert putnam. the title comes from the anecdotal evidence that today there are many more people who bowl than a couple decades prior, but less who bowl in leagues. the illustration is meant to show the fragmentation and isolation of individuals in modern society. putnam blames this tendency primarily (though not exclusively) on technology. he is not the first to write of the isolating effects of technology, nor will he be the last. it is probably one of the great ironies of the 21st century that though we are drowning in a plethora of connections, we feel the lack of connectedness ever more acutely. however, to try to blame this shift on TV or the interwebs is a huge over-simplification. certainly the high mobility and transient nature of modern society is another large factor. we feel isolated because we move every few years to new places where we know no one and actually are socially isolated, at least for the first while. people rarely factor in how much social capital it will cost them to get that better job to increase their financial capital. another one of those millenial ironies i suppose.

at some point we started defining what it was we were looking for with the word "community". we worked on that for a while. but once we realized that flinging a buzz word around wasn't helping us to create it, we did the most logical thing we could think of to help the problem: make a new buzz word. that word today is tribe. our shallow attempts at building "community" had ended in largely superficial solutions and just weren't enough. we needed something with some more depth to it. we had accomplished our goals for "community building" and were still left with a deep sense of isolation. hence, we came up with "tribe". we now attempt to create "tribe" in our companies (not to slam seth godin. he has some really interesting ideas.), tribes on the internet and tribes on tv. the idea of tribe really does shoot at what we're all actual hungering for. a deep, meaningful inter-connectedness. cause the simple problem is, we're devastatingly lonely.

here's the thing: tribes (i mean real tribes, like the ones that wear hollowed-out vegetables for underwear and don't have iphones) are deeply interconnected because of a very obvious but perhaps overlooked prerequisite: they NEED each other. in a tribe there is a real, unglamorous dependence on one another for survival. the connection they experience is not voluntary. it is mandatory. if the tribe doesn't stay totally inter-dependent, they die. whether that's cause there's not enough food or cause another tribe destroys them makes little difference. therefore they exist around a common purpose: the preservation of the tribe. this highest goal is the same for each member.

this should already be enough to see why modern, individualistic society can never (that's right, NEVER) experience real "tribe" or "community" or whateveryouwannacallit without a radical shift in values. the fact of the matter is that since the days of descartes, we have put the ultimate value in western society on our individualism and autonomy. if you ask any modern, western urbanite "who gets to define your purpose in life?" you will most likely hear a single, oft-repeated answer: i do. (isn't it ironic that in the attempt to be unique, people end up being clones of each other?) as long as we continue to define the most important aspects of our lives autonomously, we will never experience tribe for one very simple reason: we don't believe that we actually need each other. if real tribe requires a true dependence on others and we are out there defining the essence of our lives through independent, autonomous decisions, how will we ever develop a true sense of tribe? short answer: we won't.

i should insert here that in more traditional societies today (and even in western society a long time ago) there is no such delusion of autonomy and independence. people are solidly convinced that they are not independent of each other. historically this sense of tribe has been provided by, well, the tribe. the family. people were really dependent on each member of the family to contribute to the family's survival and prosperity. along with this the common goal was the family's continuation. modern society has largely shunned this goal as being too small for our life's purpose (and rightly so.) despite being told by the materialist worldview that we have no other purpose than to propagate our own DNA, we refuse to believe it.

the dilemma we have is that on the one hand we want a real sense of tribe and inter-connectedness. on the other hand we want to maintain our autonomy (or at least freedom) and not make that inter-connectedness itself the only common value. now, you may have been thinking "what does the resurrection have to do with this?" the answer is: everything.

Christianity is a uniquely historical faith in the sense that it depends entirely on historic facts: the death and resurrection of Christ. every other religion, while having historical details, is not even close to dependent on its own history. that is why all other religions are, in essence, philosophies and rules. Christianity, however, is news of an historic event. the upshot of this is that since it is news, it doesn't come like a bolt from the blue. no one can just intuitively "figure out" the gospel, the same way you can't just meditate your way to knowing what's on the 6 o'clock news. the gospel can only be received from another and passed on.

in other words, the historical nature of the gospel automatically creates tribe among those who receive it. each person is literally dependent on others to tell them this news. there is no way of receiving the gospel except through the community of faith. this initial dependence establishes a paradigm for the rest of the Christian life: it cannot be lived alone. we are dependent on others in the tribe to receive the gospel and dependent on them (though not in an exclusive, unhealthy sense) to grow further in the gospel. this is why the Bible describes the Christian church with terms of deep inter-connectedness, such as, "you are all one body and members of one another." on the other hand, the Christian community, while preserving the inter-dependence of tribe, keeps freedom in tact. ultimately, you must make the choice to enter this tribe by receiving the gospel. the tribe of the Crucified is about much more than self-preservation. the goal (one which is sure of coming to pass) is nothing less than the coming of the Kingdom of God to the planet. big enough goal? the solution for our dilemma of wanting tribe yet also wanting freedom and bigger purpose is resolved in the gospel community of Jesus.

sadly, many Christians, while acknowledging the historicity of the resurrection of Christ and even agreeing that the gospel must come through others, deny its consequent paradigm: that growth in the gospel must occur in community. this denial is rarely an out-right renunciation as much as it is evident in Christians' choices to avoid real community, to keep their relationships at church superficial or worse yet to come, sit through service like they would a TV show and leave with absolutely no interaction. too many Christians are content to be a "body" with others in name only. if this is the case with us, we need to recognize that though we assent with our lips, we are contradicting the consequence of the historical resurrection of Christ with our lives.

playground restoration

2011-10-06T02:25:00.000+03:00

This summer our church took on some community service projects. One that we've completed was the restoration of a playground near our house. As the Lord provides opportunities and resources for these projects, we hope to continue to reach out in this way to our community. While the group of volunteers from our church was working on this playground, many people approached with amazement and asked why we would do this. It was a blessing to share with them that Jesus loves our city and He told us to. In a land where far too often people are happy to get ahead at the cost of ripping others off and the government is primarily concerned only about maintaining power for itself rather than caring for the public, it is truly counter-cultural to serve in a self-sacrificial way. We believe God is using these projects to reach and convict hearts about the reality of the gospel. If you'd like to be involved in sponsoring a project, please contact me, or visit our church's giving page. Below is our vision statement for these community projects and a few pics of the playground we restored this summer.

Vision for Community Service Projects

As we enjoy the free grace and love that Jesus shows us, this necessarily births in us a desire to share that grace and love freely ("freely you have received, freely give." Mt. 10:8). It is in allowing that grace to not only pierce our hearts but to be reflected through our lives and joining in His work to bless others that our enjoyment of Jesus is multiplied.

God came and gave grace to us who were undeserving and ill-deserving at great cost to Himself. We not only recognize but image that fact in serving others who have not asked for or earned it and at our own cost (of time, talent, and treasure). God "makes the rain to fall on the just and unjust." (Mt. 5:45) In this active thanks for His grace, we are further rooted in it, as where our treasure is, there our heart will be also.

Through these projects, we seek to live in love in a way that is received as such by those we serve. The most loving thing we could do for a person is to share the gospel with him. However, if he is not open, he will see it as us just trying to cram our opinion down his throat. If we show our love in a tangible way, it will give such a person cause to ask why. Scripture itself says "let us not love only in word and tongue, but in deed and truth." (I Jn. 3:18)

The culmination and goal of this is particularly to reach the world. It is these projects as an outworking of our own delight in Jesus, a manifestation of grace and a tangible act of love that is one way we seek to reach the world with the gospel. These projects will not themselves preach the gospel. However, they are a powerful witness that we as Christians have a truly self-sacrificial love for others and do desire the good of those even who reject us. Our hope is that these projects will be compelling in themselves as a manifestation of the reality of the gospel and open doors to share of the One who is the true Servant. “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven.” (Mt. 5:16)

Now the pictures...

before:

in process:

after:

how love heals shame

2011-09-10T01:16:00.001+03:00

this post is an excerpt of the sermon from 1 Cor. 13:7a, "how love heals shame".

the audio is available in russian here.

shame is an experience common to every human on the planet. charles darwin, in classic materialist fashion, defined shame primarily in terms of the physical expression: casting the eyes downward, lowering the head, blushing and a slack posture. interestingly, no matter what part of the world a person is from, these are universally accepted signs of this universally experienced condition. to clarify what we’re talking about it's helpful to differentiate between shame and guilt. the difference has been stated very well in the following way: “guilt is a sense that my actions are wrong. shame is a sense that i am wrong.” it’s interesting that even when a person denies guilt over certain actions, the sense of shame is much harder to escape. a person might completely deny the existence of “moral standards”, and yet they may still go through life with a sense that “i’m not right”. but where does shame come from?

the theme of shame runs throughout the whole Bible. we see it from the very beginning. in the garden of Eden God created Adam and Eve. Gen. 2:25 says that they were both “naked and unashamed”. but in ch. 3 they fall into sin, disobey God and all of a sudden, there is a change. the very first result we read of after they eat the forbidden fruit is that “the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings. ” the very first result from sin mentioned in the Bible is shame. it was the direct result of sin. it wasn’t just that they thought their action was wrong. they thought that they were wrong and had to hide themselves, so they sewed coverings. when God calls to Adam, Adam says, “I was afraid because I was naked; and I hid myself.” they didn’t just wipe their mouths from the juice of the forbidden fruit to hide their action. they tried to hide themselves. this is shame, not just guilt. shame is the fear that "someone will see me as i really am and reject me because i am disgusting". they realized that now, in a real sense, they themselves were not right. and their immediate reaction was to create a covering, a way to hide their own shame. think about it: was there anything sinful in the fact that they were naked? just adam and eve were there, a man and his wife. no! the problem was not their nakedness. but their shame caused them to try and hide themselves. the act of covering oneself as an expression of shame is well-known to all of us, even when that shame has nothing to do with a directly physical cause.

the picture of nakedness as an illustration of shame continues throughout Scripture. essentially this is something we associate with nakedness anyway. almost everyone has had the nightmare where you show up to school and you forgot to put on clothes and you're standing there in your undies or naked and everyone is laughing and you’re just dying of shame. (even if you haven't had that dream, the concept is so ubiquitous that you're sure to have seen it in a movie or two.) but along with this picture of nakedness as shame in Scripture, clothing nakedness is a picture of the covering of shame.

now, in the sense that we’re fallen, sinful people, that shame is appropriate.* we should have a sense that we aren’t as we should be, because we aren’t as we should be! we were not created to exist in the condition of sin and alienation from God! but at the same time, it’s impossible to constantly live in shame. it will lead us to despair and depression. in fact, in some cases, the horror of the conscious realization of shame is so strong that it's a motivating factor in suicide. and so we attempt to “heal” our shame in one of 2 ways:

1) we sew fig leaves for ourselves. that is, we attempt to hide our shame under that which we’ve made with our own hands. even if we refuse to admit guilt over a specific action, if we try to justify it or even if a person denies the existence of moral standards, we still go about life trying to cover our shame through our works and accomplishments. we attempt to cover who we are with what we do. that might be accomplishments in business or wealth, perhaps in popularity or relationships or sex, or even in religious accomplishment and devotion. we feel that we are wrong on some level and attempt to cover that with the work of our hands. only it doesn’t work.

think about the story in Eden. if the fig leaves had really covered their shame, why did Adam and Eve hide in the bushes after they had made themselves a covering? it becomes obvious that, although they attempted to deal with their own shame through their accomplishments, it didn’t work. if it did they would’ve been standing in the middle of the garden in confidence. see, whatever accomplishments we try to heal our shame with, it will never work. we will only make matters worse. there are 2 (at least) major down sides to making your underwear out of fig leaves. first, it's a very temporary solution. the fig leaves would quickly wither and Adam and Eve would constantly have to be renewing the fig leaves. secondly, if you’ve ever felt a fig leaf, you know that they feel like sandpaper. there's a mental picture for you: sandpaper undies. you think that was comfortable? nope! that’s why they don’t sell fig-leaf underwear. ;) they weren’t made for a covering!

when a person attempts to cover their inherent sense of shame, that “i’m not right” with any accomplishment, first, it doesn’t last for long. that temporary sense of relief from shame will soon disappear, like all fig leaves, and you’ll have to find another covering. that’s why a person who uses, say, material goods to mask his shame has to keep getting more. the old leaves fade. that’s why a person who uses romantic relationships to mask shame has to keep getting more, changing partners, etc. second, whatever you’ve made your “covering” from shame will begin to irritate you and you’ll hate it in the end, cause it wasn’t made to cover your shame! that’s why people who try to use their families to cover their sense of shame end up leaving their families, or crush them under heavy demands and resentment. that’s why people who use religious duty to cover shame often harbor a mild contempt for God and are very irritable. whatever you are trying to cover your shame with today, the sense that you’re “not right”, be sure that it won’t last and you’ll hate it in the end.

2) the second approach is to pretend you aren't naked. to just deny the existence of shame. to attempt to be very proud in your wrongness. but the fact of the matter is, even people who theoretically deny a sense of shame will still ultimately act out of it. you might pretend you're not naked, but if you go outside in the winter, you're gonna realize it. one interesting example in our culture here in Ukraine is «civil (common-law) marriage». people will say that there's nothing shameful about living together and having sex outside of marriage. and yet they'll most often call the person they're in fornication with «husband/wife». why do that? if it's really not shameful, why are people attempting to cover it up under the name of marriage? the truth is we can deny shame all we want, but it will still be there and we'll still act out of it.

so here's the problem: how can shame be healed? how can we get rid of that sense that «i am wrong»? if we can't cover it over with our own accomplishments and we can't effectively pretend that shame doesn't exist, are we doomed to remain in that sense of shame forever? no!

now we look at the healing of shame. let’s return to the story of Eden. Adam and Eve had sewn their fig leaves to cover their shame. but then God came and called them. when Adam confessed to hiding because of his shame of nakedness, God asks, «who told you you were naked? did you eat the fruit?» once God had clearly convicted them of sin, pronounced the result of sin in the curse, and as Adam and Eve were leaving the garden, God sacrificed a lamb to make them a covering for their shame. but here's what we maybe don't think about: in order to accept God's covering for shame, His healing of their shame, they had to take off their fig leaves. they had to stand naked before Him in the reality of their shame, not hiding it, not denying it, but confessing their shame and only then was God free to cover their shame for them.

the fact is that a person can never cover their own shame, no matter what achievements they try to use. the reason for this is that the healing of shame takes place as much in the undressing as it does in the covering. the healing of shame is in having someone see you in all your shame and, knowing you as you are, then cover your shame. the healing takes place when God says “I see you as you are, your shame, and I will accept you and cover your shame.” it’s not just the covering, but that He gave the covering, knowing what we were like without it.

well, that’s a beautiful story for Adam and Eve, but are we so lucky as to have God offer us the healing of our shame? YES! the other condition we need to notice in that story is that for Adam and Eve’s shame to be covered, the lamb had to lose it’s covering, have it’s skin ripped off. it had to die. of course, some animal could not truly heal the deep shame of fallen sinners. it was a promise that one day the Lamb of God, Jesus, would come to heal our shame. His skin was flayed off with a roman whip. He hung completely naked, bearing our shame, before the crowd that ridiculed Him. He lost the covering of His honor and blessing and was rejected by the Father on the Cross. that was the price of our shame. but in doing so, He gives us His covering: the rich robes of His righteousness.

if we will take off our fig leaves before God, stand spiritually naked before him admitting that we are “not right”, open our shame to Him, not hide or deny it, then He will cover us with the very righteousness of Jesus, the Lamb of God. He will see who we are and accept us and cover us anyway. and in that we will find the true healing of our shame. He will declare “you are right”. this is what it means to be "righteous"; right before God. this is why the Bible can boldly promise that “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.” (Rom. 10:11) it is with this sacrifice of the Lamb of God in mind that Isaiah prophetically writes in ch. 61, “I will greatly rejoice in the LORD, My soul shall be joyful in my God; For He has clothed me with the garments of salvation, He has covered me with the robe of righteousness, As a bridegroom decks himself with ornaments, And as a bride adorns herself with her jewels. ” here we also see the hint that we are not dressed in just any clothes, not even in His righteousness in a generic sense, but that the robes of salvation are a wedding dress. in Revelation 19 at the return of Christ we see the Church, those who have received Christ, and it says, “Let us be glad and rejoice and give Him glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and His wife has made herself ready. And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.” Christ doesn’t merely heal our shame but clothes us as His bride in His righteousness. shame is the fear that someone will see me as i really am and reject me because i'm disgusting. the gospel is the assurance that God sees us as we are and accepts us anyway because He is beautiful. the gospel heals shame.

* there is an "illegitimate shame" which is the result not of our sin, but of others' sins against us, be that mockery or physical/sexual abuse, etc. this shame is not something that is our "fault", and yet we still need to see that it is in Christ that this kind of shame is also healed.

the gospel destroys rudeness

2011-07-26T00:49:00.000+03:00

this post is taken from the sermon "Love Is Not Rude" from 1 Corinthians 13.
the audio version is available in russian here.

today we’re gonna look at what rudeness is, why we are rude with others, and how to uproot rudeness.

first of all: what is it? sociologists and psychologists define rudeness as a “violation of human dignity” (we could clarify, usually a minor one, otherwise it’s called something different.) it is essentially a lack of respect and attentiveness to others, for the feelings of others, possibly for the rights of others. it's not usually an intentional cruelty, but a result of you considering your own thoughts, opinions, feelings more important than the other person’s. rudeness is the manifestation of selfishness and pride in our relationships. when we’re rude to others, we’re essentially saying “the way i act, communicate, understand, is right and anyone who doesn’t like it can just get over it.” when we are rude with others, we show that what is of greatest importance is ME. i did this to my wife just the other day. we were having a conversation about something, and i answered her rudely. not cause i was mad, not trying to be cruel, but as she was honest and expressed that i had hurt her, she pointed out totally correctly that in our conversation, my opinion was more important to me than she was at that moment. totally right. i had to repent.

think about when we're usually rude: when were in a rush, late (i know i do this) and someone gets in our way, we brush them aside or bark at them. what i'm saying is “my obligations/plans are more important than you, so i'm not gonna consider your feelings.” when we are upset, angry, etc., we can easily pour out our rudeness on another. we are essentially saying that our situation or feelings are more important than the other person. again, it's not that it's intentional cruelty (usually). rather, it's based on our pride. love doesn’t do this! do you?

here it says “love isn’t rude”. we can state it positively, though here it’s stated negatively: “love always counts the thoughts, feelings, opinions of others as just as important as it’s own.” in fact, more important. this is why Scripture says “let each one esteem others better than himself.” do you REALLY consider others above yourself? do you consider ANYONE better? if you haven’t noticed, this is incredibly difficult! because it applies to ALL people: those who are very different from us, very sensitive in comparison to us, and those who are rude to us! love doesn’t write anybody off, thinking “well, they’re just strange and that’s their problem.” maybe they are strange. so are you! that conclusion is back to saying that “my feelings, preferences and strangeness are more important than theirs.” probably the most difficult to not be rude to those who are rude to us. how hard is it when someone is rude and insulting not to answer back w/ the same? very! because when a person is being rude to us, it’s actually a subtle attack on our worth as a person. that person is implying that you aren't as important as he is! our lack of assurance flares up and we are rude back, trying to prove our worth by belittling theirs. the reason we are so outraged is we are terribly afraid that they might be right, that we aren't as important, that we have no worth.

see, ultimately, rudeness towards others is an attempt to establish our own worth at the expense of another's dignity. the reason we feel compelled to prove our worth at the cost of someone else is because we are unsure of our worth. when we feel our worth is under attack, we defend it viciously namely because we ourselves are not sure of it. this is why we also tend towards rudeness when we are accused of something. we defend ourselves, being rude to the accuser and attempting to justify our worth.

but here there is a danger of a false conclusion: “okay, so we should only ever say things that are pleasant to hear and sweet and could never offend someone.” too many christians think that this is how love treats others, how we should, maybe some of you. not so! understand, Proverbs says a lot about sweet words that are spoken from hatred (flattery) and also how sometimes sharp words/rebuke is the evidence of true love. read just one place, ch. 27: “Open rebuke is better Than love carefully concealed. Faithful are the wounds of a friend, But the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.” if you are so careful to never say anything to offend, and you are focused on saying only sweet things and that’s most important, you need to know you’re not loving others. you’re loving yourself. you’re flattering others, probably to gain acceptance from them and you don’t care about telling them the truth, helping them grow. so ,what you need to see is that "rudeness" as we've defined it here (from an attempt to establish our own worth at expense of another) is NOT the same as offending someone out of love. in fact love, at times, demands that we speak strong words or we are not really loving. rudeness is not the same thing as severity. what is the difference between these two?

well, if you’re still unsure that love must be severe at times, let's look at how Jesus spoke to the pharisees. Mt. 23:27-33 is Jesus "rude"? you say, “well, it was probably offensive.” yes, it was, they killed Him it was so offensive. but is it rude? have to look at the motive: is He saying this out of a desire to prove His worth at the expense of theirs? not at all! on the contrary, He is saying it so they can find their worth in the grace of God, but for that to happen, they have to abandon their mentality of "worth-by-works". rudeness to others ultimately flows from the underlying belief that my worth is bound up in my thoughts, feelings, actions and that those are of more importance than someone else. Christ was never rude, though He did, because of love, at times speak strong words that caused offense for those who didn’t want to receive them.

now, we talked about those who are afraid to offend and prone to flatter others, lie, etc. some are on that extreme. others of you are on the other end: you’re not afraid to say anything that could offend. if the other extreme is powdered sugar, you are vinegar. and you would take the passage from Mt. and try to justify how you offend people. you’d say “see, i’m just being a prophet like Jesus. i tell it like it is.” no, you’re probably being a jerk. especially, if that’s your usual approach to people. you see, Jesus was also very gentle and patient and loving with people, especially those who were broken sinners. He was even often kind to Pharisees. but this was an instance where Jesus spoke some hard truth, some strong words and conviction, NOT because He was trying to prove his own rightness and worth, but to draw the Pharisees to repentance. but if that’s your usual approach, you’re just a jerk, rude. you care more about proving yourself and being right than about others and you’re not walking in the truth of the gospel. before you apply your “strong words” to others, check your heart before God to see if it’s cause you actually care about helping them, or you just want to prove your own worth. a doctor from time to time will cut a patient to help him, but a psychopath will cut anyone without discretion for his own sick pleasure. how do you use cutting words?

Jesus was never rude, never cut another down to lift Himself up, prove worth. He always considered the other person, was attentive to their feelings/thoughts and put them above Himself. this is what it means that Jesus came as a servant: one who considers the other above Himself. He was not afraid to offend in love, though He knew they'd respond only with rudeness (and a lot worse), and yet He didn’t turn to rudeness in return. why? because He had heard the Voice of His Father "THIS is my beloved Son, in whom is my delight". His worth was solidly grounded in the Father's love for Him. He didn’t need to prove His worth at cost of others. therefore, He was ready to try to point others to their worth in God, though they would respond with rudeness (and deliberate cruelty). He was willing to go to the Cross and give his life, that they and we might break free from the trap of basing our worth in competition and our works. you see, the Cross of Jesus itself is the final and only statement we need about how much we are worth before God; so much so that He would give His one and only Son, the Beloved, so that we could be His children. our worth is confirmed at the expense of Jesus, not by our comparison, but by His own willing sacrifice for us.

when we see that and cease to base our worth on what we do, what we think, our feelings and opinions, then we will also cease to live in rudeness, attempting to compete w/ others. we won’t need to do that anymore! we don’t have to establish our worth at the expense of others, because Jesus established our worth at His own expense! if we are still living in rudeness to others and competition, it is a sign that we are basing our worth on something other than the Cross, though that is the only basis we need. on the other hand, if we believe the Gospel, that we have immeasurable worth to God as He suffered immeasurably for us, we will not turn into smarmy christians who never say anything that could offend. we, in love, will speak words of conviction when necessary, words that may be painful to the hearer, but only for their good, not for our own. not to boost our worth, but that they would root theirs in Jesus instead of themselves. not only this, but we will be free from the rudeness that results when we try to defend our guilt. the Cross tells us we ARE guilty, but that we have been forgiven. that we need not defend and justify ourselves, in fact we MUST NOT justify ourselves, because He has already justified us.

now, one can find the rare individual who, for reason of personal success, popularity, religious performance or some other false basis, is supremely confident of their own worth. (the Pharisees were in this group). their attitude may grow to a pride beyond the simple competition of rudeness because they consider themselves in a higher class than most people. this kind of pride breeds a patronizing condescension towards others which may be mistaken for true mercy when it is an extreme form of pride. it is actually a settled form of rudeness that thinks it has already proved it’s worth over others. the attitude of “how sad that you’re so far below me.” there are some so-called Christians that have this very attitude towards unbelievers or others they see as far below them spiritually and it passes for mercy when it is not at all. it’s a sign you’re a Pharisee. but the Gospel destroys this kind of condescending. we are made confident by the Cross that we are of immeasurable worth to God, but at the same time the Gospel humbles us because it says that this worth we have is God’s gift, not what we’ve earned. that others around us are of just as much worth because Christ died for all men. the Cross therefore destroys rudeness and it’s worst form, condescension, setting us free to truly consider others better than ourselves.

mirror or portrait?

2011-05-17T00:41:00.002+03:00

we are currently studying through 1 Cor. 13 and before we got into the definition of love presented there, we had to deal with an all-important question: who is this text primarily about? you or God? in fact, this question should be asked and answered by every person about the whole Bible. who is this book primarily about? to use an illustration, do you see the Bible as primarily a mirror or a portrait? many christians see the Word of God as being primarily a mirror to examine ourselves, to note and attempt to fix our shortcomings and faults. but this understanding of the Bible will ultimately lead to despair, because we are focusing on our own wickedness. and if we are in despair, we will never be transformed. the effect (probably sub-conscious) is a growing resentment and distaste for reading the Word. and with good reason! who would want to spend large amounts of time standing in front of the mirror bemoaning all their faults and attempting to pop spiritual zits? and though we may continue to do it out of a sense of duty or guilt, it will not transform us.

but if we see that the Bible is primarily a book about God, a portrait of His glory and beauty, the effect will be the opposite. it will not lead to despair in ourselves but joy in God. which in other words is worship. the effect of this is that we will be transformed into His image, since Scripture says we always become like what we worship. our attitude toward the Bible will also become one of growing desire and thirst for God's glory rather than resentment. and conviction and transformation will come by way of contrast and thanksgiving, rather than by macabre navel-gazing.

now, the Bible does use the analogy of a mirror about itself in the book of James. however, the comparison there is that a man who sees himself and goes away and forgets what he saw is like one who hears the Word and does not do it. but though this "mirror" aspect does exist, it is not primary. in fact, the Bible says in John 1 that "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld His glory... no one has seen God at any time; the only begotten Son has revealed Him." so we see in the nature of Jesus Himself, who is the Word of God, that His primary mission was to reveal the glory of God to us. it should be no surprise then that the Bible, the written Word of God, has this very same, primary purpose.

how do you view the Bible: mirror or portrait?

kirk cameron, salvador dali, jrr tolkien and Jesus

2011-02-14T03:34:00.003+02:00

it's possible that the mere combination of those names has left your head swimming and you're thinking "what in the world could they all have to do with each other?". in a word: art. in four words: the gospel and art. i recently taught on the gospel and art and how the two relate to each other. i'd like to suggest each of the first three men in the title as a paradigm for different approaches to art in light of the gospel.

first it's worth stating that there are basically two views in the world, two answers to the question: why art?

the first answer is the answer of modern western society, so proudly roared by the MGM lion (until he filed chapter 11 bankruptcy): ars gratis artis, or "art for art's sake". the highest purpose in art, it is said, is self expression. art should have no didactic purpose, no lessons or messages, lest it be decried as cheap propaganda. this view looks at art through the lens of art and so folds in upon itself. the abstractionist movement took this concept to new heights when things like a plain, black square, soup-cans, or an unmade bed were unabashedly paraded as masterpieces. even classic aesthetics were not most important. of course, the catch in this approach is that to say there is (and should not be) any didactic purpose in art is to engage in didactics: it is to say that the most important thing, the only acceptable goal in art, is the glorification of self. it is the absolutizing of the individual. propaganda at it's best, i'd say.

the more classic answer to "why art?" was "for the sake of beauty." as far back as aristotle, aesthetics were seen as something objective and as the purpose of art. often aesthetic beauty was even tied to moral beauty. this view attempted to look at the world through the lens of art.

each of these approaches encapsulates an important part of the light that the gospel sheds on art. the story of the very first Artist and His very first masterpiece gives important insight into this question. in Genesis, we read of God creating the universe with all of it's glorious stars and planets, trees and flowers, birds, fish, animals and the like. God's refrain upon creating these things is a recognition that "it was good". not "well, I think it's nice, but then again, beauty is in the eye of the beholder." we find in the very creation an undercurrent of a true and objective aesthetic value. however, that is not the end of the story. the great favor the abstractionists have done us (whether you like soup-cans or not), was to underscore the question: "and who gets to define beauty?" as it turns out, there is only One who can: God. the point that is thrown back in the face of modernism's classic aesthetics is that aristotle or da vinci have no more right to define beauty that malevich, warhol, or pollock. they are absolutely right. the abstractionists have removed man from his pedestal as the ultimate judge of beauty. man never did belong there. but God always has. therefore the gospel approach to art on the one hand recognizes there is an objective beauty in the universe, of which God is the source and judge. however, in humility we should also realize that no one person has the monopoly on that definition, just as no person can exhaustively define God, and therefore our approach should be to discover or strive for beauty in art, rather than arrogantly proclaim we've monopolized it (and bottled it up for sale in christian bookstores.)

but how should we as believers in Jesus "do art"? the truth is that, despite the supposed aversion to didactic messages in art in modern society, no art lacks this element. another (and far more aesthetic) way of saying this is: all art tells a story. whether its a song, painting, dance, movie, book, etc. so the question we are really asking when we say "how should we do art?" is "what story should we tell?" as christians the answer to this should be obvious: the gospel. the narrative of creation, fall, redemption, restoration through and for Jesus Christ. (not that every work of art has to capture all of these aspects at once to be formed by the gospel.) the question then is how do we tell the gospel in and through art? i suggest there are 3 main ways that christians attempt this. here's where we get back to the figures from the title who epitomize each approach:

1) kirk cameron: now, i watched growing pains in my childhood just like any 30-ish american. but for the sake of illustration, i'd like to focus on a little series of "christian" movies called left behind in which cameron was the lead. to continue the lens analogy, this approach is looking at the gospel through the lens of the world (not of art). that is, in order to get our message across, we are willing to stoop to popular forms of art (usually movies more than anything). we try to "copy" the world's forms to get unbelievers to hear our story. this approach is, first of all, mercenary. there is no real value in the art produced. rather, it is just a means to an end. i'd argue that's not even a biblical approach. when God made the first flowers, He didn't say "well, that'll be good one day if it leads someone to pray the sinner's prayer." nope! He said it is good in itself. it has intrinsic value and worth as art, as a small reflection of God's own beauty and glory. secondly, this approach produces bad art. art is merely a means to another end, and so, because it is second priority, ends up being second rate (no offense to those of you who really think the left behind movies are flawless examples of cinematic mastery.... pfwhahaha! sorry, that's too funny. okay, honestly, i think you're nuts. :) lastly, this approach rarely even accomplishes our mercenary goal, because the art produced is a) bad, so people who aren't being paid to go by their youth pastor are likely to skip it and b) blatant (notice that these kinds of movies almost always have someone uber-schmaltzy sharing the sinner's prayer with an open Bible or something to that effect), so an unbeliever who does wander in is doubly turned off (by bad art and blatant "propagandizing".)

2) savador dali: dali was a surrealist artist in 20th century spain. though he was raised catholic, he was, as far as we know, not a christian. however, he did not escape his upbringings as, at the very least, themes in some of his art. one of my favorite paintings of his is corpus hypercubus (pictured at the top of this post). the second paradigm, illustrated in this painting, can be described as looking at the gospel through the lens of art. in this approach the gospel is blatantly the subject, but it's different from the first approach, in that the art itself is valued and actually adds something to the presentation of the gospel. dali's painting shows Christ on the cross, yet the cross is unusual. it is actually a three-dimensional representation of a hypercube, a four-dimensional figure. in using this figure as the cross, the statement is that the death of Christ transcends human understanding. all art in this second category could be considered "devotional art." but when this kind of art is done well, it draws unbelievers much more than the first approach. for something to be good christian art, it first has to be good art. any art which is intended to be used for devotional purposes should most likely be done in this second approach (hymns, illustrated bibles, etc.) interestingly, catholics, orthodox and anglicans (and sometimes non-believers) tend to be better at this approach than many evangelicals. perhaps it is because they have a continued tradition of devotional art, where we as evangelicals (and our predecessors) have taken iconoclasm to an extreme and rid ourselves of artistic appreciation and ability all together.

3) jrr tolkien: if you don't know by now, i will tell you: the lord of the rings is by far my favorite fiction book ever. tolkien was a devout christian (catholic) who actually led cs lewis to Christ. tolkien used a very different method than the first approach in his creative writing. rather than looking at the gospel, he used the gospel as his lens to look at the world. tolkien was fascinated by languages, mythology, ancient culture and in writing his masterpiece, choose to look at that part of the world that interested him through the lens of the gospel. it is no coincidence that the lord of the rings is the best selling single fiction story of all time (after a tale of two cities). a little investigation shows how the story echoes the gospel: aragorn, the peasant king, rises from humble obscurity to be the king of the whole realm. gandalf, the human who is more than human, fights a demon, falling into the abyss and at last defeats him on the mountain top. in the fight he loses his life, but it brought back to life as a glorified gandalf. the whole story echoes the gospel, which is why people are so drawn to it. it is subtle and so doesn't push away non-christians. it is great art and so reflects the glory of God. the art, therefore, that has the most potential to reach the hearts of people who do not know Christ is when we look at the world through the lens of the gospel, make great art to the glory of God and allow Him to use those hints of the Great Story in our art to draw many to Himself.

i'd love to hear people's thoughts on this, especially if you are an artist of some form yourself.

(btw, an audio version of this teaching is available in russian here.)

how to make an idol (and how to destroy it)

2011-01-22T03:19:00.002+02:00

there's lots of things i've wanted to write on lately, but just not had the time. in our sunday services we've been studying 1 Corintians for a while now. recently we studied chapter 10:1-14 where Paul lays out for the Corinthians the topic of idolatry. we had a lot of feedback and real heart-searching on this topic in our home fellowship discussions so i thought i'd post the main thoughts from the sermon here:

Paul begins the section by drawing a parallel between the nation of Israel and the Church. figuratively speaking, Israel also had a baptism both in water and Spirit. they, too, partook of bread and drink as a form of unity with God. Paul goes to the trouble to make the analogy lest we miss the point: Israel was no less God's covenant people than the Church and nevertheless they entered into idolatry which led to death.

the Corinthians, like us, were probably inclined to think, "of course i'm not an idolator, i recognize that Jesus is Lord, i'm baptized, take communion, etc.". Paul's point is, "so did Israel but it didn't make them immune from idolatry". The fact is that idolatry doesn't mean theoretically pronouncing you have settled on a new favorite deity. As the Israelites did, we might acknowledge the true God the whole time, but when it gets down to how we live we run after idols. idolatry is putting anything or anyone in the place Jesus should have in your life. it is, despite what you claim to be the case theoretically, turning functionally to something else as your savior. much of what you make your functional savior has to do with how you define your personal hell. if being alone is hell to you, you're likely to make relationships (romantic or otherwise) into your savior. if your hell is being seen as worthless, your savior might be achievement, be it professional, academic, etc. it is fair to say that the essence of any sin is idolatry. martin luther implied this when he said that if we humans would keep the first two commandments, love God and avoid idols, we'd never break the other commandments.

in every sin there is a false god and a false promise. for example, in fornication that god is sex and the promise might be "you'll feel loved, accepted when you give yourself to these people". if it's drunkenness, the false god is alcohol, and the promise is "come unto me, you who labor and are burdened, and i'll give you rest." sins don't "just happen" or "the devil made me do it". to be sure he plays his role as tempter, but there is something in us that buys the lie before we enter sin. without identifying that, "just don't do it" will most likely be small comfort and smaller help when we continue to be drawn back to the same mudhole.

it is important to deal with not just the action but the lie and the false god offering itself as a solution if we truly desire to be free of that sin. it's worth mentioning as well there are often multiple layers of idols. i'll use an example of a man i know who has now recognized this pattern in his life. this man is a binge drinker. he would get clean, stay clean for a few months and go right back at it. he went through an extensive rehab program and within 5 months of finishing, was in the next binge. at the latest episode, after he got off the binge, i went to see him and asked him what it was that kept drawing him back to getting drunk. what was the lie? his answer: "to escape". escape what? the conversation revealed that he had been fleeing a sense of frustration, even depression, because he wasn't able to make as much money as he longed for at his job and not able to significantly increase his material status. this is a perfect example of dual-layered idolatry: on the surface, the man's idol is getting drunk, escaping. but the deeper truth is that he had put material prosperity in the role of savior in his life. when that false god let him down (mammon is a cruel idol), the next false god, alcohol, popped up offering consolation by getting smashed. we need to be aware not only of the idol in any given sin, but also the possibility of that idol as a consolation after disappointment from the first. without realizing and repenting of the root idol, that man might get clean of alcohol but will always come back (or find a new consolation).

but if the root of sin is idolatry, the root of idolatry is lust. Paul mentions this in the passage, "let us not lust as they did". lust is not merely sexual desire. the greek word in the NT literally means to pant after, to long for. it is lust, ultimate desire that turns a thing into an idol. what we must see is that the things we make into idols are in themselves good. sex is good, created by God for enjoyment and intimacy in marriage. but when made a god, it rips hearts and lives apart. wine is a blessing of God (as the OT often talks about), Jesus himself used it as a symbol of blessing in His first miracle. but when it's put in the role of a god, it breaks apart families, stability and everything good. cs lewis writes "they are all in themselves good, but when lifted to the level of a god, they become demons." idolatry takes a blessing of God and puts it in place of God, which turns that blessing into a curse.

now, Paul lists 4 stories from the desert wanderings of Israel in this section to show us ways that idolatry begins and how it leads to death.

1) the first story mentioned is that of the golden calf. Moses had gone up on the mountain of Sinai to receive the Law. after some time the people grew impatient and demanded that Aaron make them a god. Aaron makes the golden calf and the people being to have a drunken, gluttonous orgy in front of it. Moses comes down and stops their wickedness. as a result 3,000 people die.

the first path Paul points out to idolatry is impatience. the fascinating thing about the story of the golden calf is that Aaron told them "this is the Lord who brought you out of Egypt." they had convinced themselves that this was the real God, though in reality they had created a false god of convenience because they weren't willing to wait. too often we allow our own impatience to lead us into idolatry. we make a decision based on our own logic and impatience, rather than waiting for God. the worst part is we then convince ourselves that this is "God's will", when somewhere deep down we know it's not.

2) the second story Paul mentions is when Balak, king of Moab, sent the women of Moab to the Israelite camp to sexually entice the men of Israel and through their fornication to worship the false god Baal. the Israelites fall for it and as a result a plague breaks out that kills 24,000 people.

in this case, the road into idolatry Paul brings out is loneliness and the false god is human relationship (in this case sexual, though not always.) because we are empty and haven't allowed Jesus to meet our deepest heart-needs, we turn to people to seek the love, intimacy, close communion we lack and end up with a false god. often that false god is a romantic/sexual relationship, though possibly it might be seeking to be loved by many people (popularity).

3) the third story is when the Israelites made a long journey and grew weary on the way. they began to complain against God and that He brought them out of Egypt at all. God sends fiery snakes among the people and many of them die before the plague is stopped.

in this case, the road to idolatry is through discouragement. they were facing a difficult time and allowed that to create bitter resentment in their hearts. in this story, there is no visible idol the Israelites are worshiping as a result, but it is idolatry nonetheless. in their complaining, as with any complaining, there is an implication: "i deserve better." their idol was their own self-righteousness, expressed in complaining. when we allow a trial to cause us to complain against God, we are implying that we deserve better, when in reality the only thing we deserve is eternity in hell. we know too well how easy it is to allow a trial, some discouraging situation to be the door to complaining. what we need to realize is that this is a door to worshiping our own worth.

4) the final story is the story of Korah and his rebellion against Moses. Korah thought that Moses and Aaron had too much power and wanted a slice of the action. his statement was "aren't we all holy to the Lord?" God destroys Korah and the small group that rebelled with him, causing the ground to split and swallow them alive. rather than fear and repent, the people of Israel the next day accuse Moses of killing God's chosen people. a plague breaks forth and 14,700 people die before it stops.

the final road to idolatry here is independence from God's authority; rebellion. this is perhaps the most deceptive path because it sounds really spiritual to say "i don't want to follow any man, but God alone." well, that sounds spiritual, but if God has told you to follow someone's leadership in a given area and you don't, it's not spiritual, but proud. we can at times allow our love of independence and autonomy to lead us into the idolatry of worshiping our own pride. we lie to ourselves and convince ourselves we're being spiritual, but really we're being rebellious. (there are plenty of caveats here like if the given authority is contradicting God's Word, or if they are attempting to lead outside of their sphere of proper authority, then rebellion is actually something God might rightly call us to.) but the point being that we allow a pseudo-spirituality that thinks we need no one to lead us to the idolatry of our own pride.

so what do we do with all this? are we just doomed to be "perpetual idol factories" as John Calvin put it? no. there is hope. in each of these stories, the plague and death that came as a result of idolatry didn't stop on it's own. in the golden calf incident, Moses went to pray for the people, saying, "if You do not pardon them, blot my name out of Your book as well." in the case of the Moabite women, when a man and woman had come to commit fornication right in the tabernacle, Aaron's son took a spear and thrust it through the two, putting an end to the plague. in the case of the snakes, God directed Moses to make a brass serpent, lift it up on a pole and all the Israelites who look on it would be healed. in the rebellion of Korah, Scripture says that Aaron took the censer with incense and stood between the dead and the living and so stopped the plague.

each of these stories ends with a picture of Jesus. not only did Christ in response to the death we brought through our idolatry pray "blot Me out.", He was blotted out of the book of life, the book of God's favor on the Cross. He did not pierce those who were guilty with a spear, but was Himself pierced with spear and nails, the One who was innocent, to stop the plague of our idolatry. He literally came between the dead and the living in dying and rising again. and, as He Himself prophesied of His own death, that as Moses lifted up the brass serpent in the wilderness, so He would be lifted up. brass was a symbol of judgment, the serpent a picture of evil and sin. Christ was lifted up on the Cross and bore the judgment, became sin for us, that we might be freed, healed from the death of our idolatry. the answer to overcoming the idols in our lives is to see this amazing Savior, the one true Savior. not merely to know the story, but to believe that He has done everything already to set us free. to be so enraptured with the beauty of such a Savior as this, that our hearts are satisfied in Him and seek no second-rate substitutes.

i didn't actually intend this to be a transcript of the sermon, though it more or less came out that way. so for those of you who don't speak russian (which it was taught and recorded in), now you have a chance to hear it. if this strikes a chord with you or perhaps reveals some new things about your heart, or you just have a question on something here, please feel free to comment. have you allowed one of these roads to lead you to idolatry?

social media detox

2010-11-09T00:09:00.002+02:00

so this last week i took a complete break from any and all forms of social media (facebook, twitter, blogs, etc.) there were a number of reasons i felt like i needed this detox, one of which is a seriously disturbing new york times article on how social media affects your ability to focus. another was a documentary i watched about some effects of constantly being connected, but ultimately i just wanted to unplug. after a week w/ no social media i came to a few conclusions:

1. experience lines up with research from the article: social media really does mess with your ability to focus. i found myself at the beginning of the week randomly wanting to check in during studying or some other task i was doing. by the end of the week i was already much more single-track and able to stay focused without that random impulse to check a billion different snippets of whatever (the previously linked NYT article explains how social media can actually create a chemical addiction in the brain). this probably ought to seriously trouble anyone who is concerned with productivity in themselves or their employees.

2. NO ONE uses email anymore for personal interaction. seriously. i think its only use is for business these days. upon reflection, i find this to be somewhat troubling, but not because i'm old school and think the newspaper or printed books or the postal system should never be trumped by e-formats (though i really do think there's something different about holding a book in your hands. call me sentimental. :) i think what it says is we are losing the art of communication. we try to trump quality and depth with volume (always a bad philosophy in my view). it is a rare skill to fit anything meaningful into 140 characters. i also believe the way we present ourselves is different when we think "the collective web-consciousness" is watching than we do in a real, personal interaction with one or a few people. this inevitably leads to a degree of superficiality (that hopefully does not take over how we relate in general). i wrote a lengthy blog post on this idea a couple years ago (back when facebook had less than 100 million users if you can imagine that! :) you can find it here. (however, social media is very effective and time-saving. then again, so is a microwave, but i question the side-effects both might cause with over-exposure.)

3. most of what gets posted on facebook or twitter is, well, trivial at best. :) no offense to anyone. i post as much as the next guy. but seriously, read through a couple scrolls of your facebook homepage or twitter feed and ask yourself what that really added to your day. i'm guessing the majority (not all) of the time the answer is "not much".

4. detox is a good thing. i do not plan to quit using any of the forms of social media i'm plugged into. it is very convenient and like i said, no one uses email anymore. plus i use it to get church info/resources out. however, i think i'll probably continue to have occasional detoxes so as not to be over-exposed to the social-media-radiation that is the 21st century. if you can't remember the last day you didn't check facebook, twitter, your blog feed, etc. that may be a good sign it's time for a break. seriously, take a day, two, a week, whatever and just unplug. read, pray, enjoy real communication with living people. you'll be glad you did.

you might be a pharisee if

2010-10-22T03:12:00.000+03:00

i've been reading through the gospel of matthew lately and recently came to chapter 23. this chapter always blows me away and challenges me each time i read it. it's the chapter where Jesus goes off full-force on the pharisees and "woes" them in one of the most passionate and what must've been emotion-filled moments in His earthly ministry. i thought i'd take the "woes" and put them into a list form (how pharisaic of me :) and re-phrase them to a more modern context as a way to allow the Holy Spirit to challenge the pharisee that dwells in all of us. so, you might be a pharisee if:

1. you consider yourself a spiritual authority qualified to dictate to others. you see yourself as the mediator between God and men.
2. you talk a lot about God but do not live it out.
3. you like to tell others what God expects them to do but aren't willing to do it yourself.
4. you do your religion so that others will see you and praise you.
5. your spirituality is defined by external things (think bumper stickers, keychains and other Jesus-paraphernalia, christian radio on the pre-set buttons, etc.) rather than by inward reality of relationship with God and love of others.
6. you come to church to be seen there by others rather than to meet with Jesus.
7. you crave recognition from people for whatever ministry you might be doing.
8. you really love whatever title it is you have in the church and want people to use it as much as possible. (i.e., "Pastor" is now your new first name).
9. you present Christianity as an exclusive club rather than open to anyone. people who are not in your clique can't come in: people who don't dress like you, talk like you, vote like you, etc. can't really be "good Christians".
10. your religion hasn't made you any more compassionate or generous toward the needy/broken.
11. you pray long and sing worship loud because others are listening, not because God is listening.
12. when someone new comes into the church, rather than rejoice for God's grace, you set about to "fix" him. you burden him will all of your legalism and turn him into a graceless, obnoxious zealot (like yourself).
13. you have falsely dichotomized your life into spiritual/secular categories. you relegate God to a certain corner of your life, not seeking to know Him in all of life.
14. you are strict and hung up on the little external matters of obedience (smoking is the unpardonable sin, your movie collection would be approved by mickey mouse and your vocabulary sounds suspiciously like ned flanders') but you are completely content with your own greed, lack of grace to others, indifference towards those who are suffering, and pride and contempt in your heart towards anyone who doesn't follow your rules.
15. you are very careful to hide your self-indulgence under a thick layer of looking holy. as long as you can schmooze at church with the right people, you think you're getting away with it. (you're not.)
16. you compare yourself to people in much harder situations than yourself (divorced, single-parent, unemployed, abused, recovering addict, poor, etc.) and look down on them and tell yourself you'd do better in their shoes, though you've never been in them.
17. lastly, you might be a pharisee if anything on this list made you mad. :)

happy repenting!

the Holy Spirit's cross

2010-09-29T03:02:00.002+03:00

[this post has been revised from the original version for greater clarity]

... is me. (before you get out the heresy sticks to beat me with, a) it’s an illustration and b) read the whole explanation :) i've recently been praying over some challenging ideas from In the Name of Jesus (which if you have not read, it's a must). the Lord has been convicting me on a lot of things through this. one of these is how i often allow deep and intimate prayer to slip between the cracks of a thousand other things i think i have to do, the majority of which are completely unnecessary and none of which are more important than He whom i sacrifice for them. as i have reflected on and been challenged concerning the source of my ministry, the source of my identity, there was a phrase from the book that struck me, "my lack of contemplative prayer... was a sign that the Spirit was being suppressed."

"how exactly could i be capable of suppressing the Spirit?" i thought. as i considered the Cross, it all became clear (as usually happens when we focus on the Cross). when Christ was on the Cross, His greatest suffering was not physical. there has been many a sermon on the much deeper spiritual anguish Christ endured beyond His bodily wounds. sometimes this is posed in a strictly individual sense: that Christ, the sinless Lamb of God suffered the spiritual anguish of becoming sin for us (2 Cor. 5:21). while that's true, the Gospels themselves paint a slightly different picture of the source of His anguish. they record that right before His death, Jesus cries out, literally screaming while He’s suffocating "my God, my God, why have You forsaken Me!?" what rent Jesus' heart, what caused Him such agony that He is screaming with His dying breath were not the nails, or crown of thorns, but His separation from His Father. it was nothing less than the rending of the eternal unity and fellowship of the Godhead. it's something we will never be able to fully comprehend in this life or the next.

but here’s where we come in. God has put His Holy Spirit in us. the third person of the Trinity has taken up permanent residence in those of us who believe in Christ. this is, in some sense, another incarnation of God. (put those sticks down and let me finish! :) obviously not that Christians become God in any sense (sorry, mormons), but that God is now dwelling "in the flesh"; as Scripture says, our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit. (1 Cor. 6:19) now, i think because we as Christians are so familiar with the idea of the Spirit of God living inside us, we don’t really contemplate what that means. i believe this relates especially to prayer. we typically see prayer as being a sort of point-A-to-B communication from us to God (or both directions if we’re really spiritual. :) however, we forget that the desire and ability to commune with God is obviously not from our own selves originally, but from the Spirit of God in us (as “no good thing dwells in our flesh”). prayer, if truly inspired and begun by the Spirit of God in us, may be said then to be not merely A-to-B (us to God), but A-B-C, from the Holy Spirit through us to the Godhead. for the sake of not writing out a whole phrase to explain it each time, I’ll call this “A-B-C” communication: “transcommunion” (copyright! :) - that is, the Spirit of God communing with the Father and Son through (trans-) us.

how does all this tie together? in this: similar to how the Incarnation of Jesus placed Him in a position where He could be cut off from the Father, so in the Spirit's indwelling of us, God has opened Himself up to another breaking of His fellowship; specifically the breaking of the Holy Spirit’s transcommunion in us with the Godhead. the Bible says that we as believers in Christ are capable of "grieving" or "quenching" the Spirit. but what does that mean? i figure it's like this: the greatest joy and delight God has is His own glory, enjoyed eternally among the members of the Trinity. when Christ was incarnated, He was cut off from that eternal bliss because of our sin and experienced the anguish of separation at the Cross. now God dwells "in flesh" again; the flesh of those who believe in Jesus. but sadly we once more subject God to deep grief in hindering His fellowship through us by our sin. the Spirit in us, who longs above all things to enjoy unity with the Father and Son, is kept, as it were, at a distance from the transcommunion He desires with the Godhead by our lack of prayer, by our decision that our work, our comfort, our games, our glory are more important than His divine fellowship. it's a sick irony. our self-seeking and neglect of God was the cause of that awful rupture in the Trinity at the Cross. now our same selfishness causes a break in His transcommunion because through prayerlessness we deny the indwelling Spirit the intimacy He desires to have through us with the Godhead. we cut off our own fellowship with God and so we cut off the Spirit's who dwells in us. in that sense, we become a "cross" to the Holy Spirit in breaking His fellowship through us with the Lord. to use the biblical phrase, we "grieve" the Spirit in us.

you may or may not be squirming as you read this now (though i hope you are :). the fact is, it makes us uncomfortable to think that we could have this kind of effect on the Godhead. we like to think that He is completely impervious and unaffected by our neglect of Him. though in no sense does He depend on us or "need" us, yet He has chosen of His own will to make Himself vulnerable to us. He has willingly linked His own being with those of us who have received Christ, even so much as to be in us. but maybe this thought of our hindering the fellowship of the Godhead* is uncomfortable for us most of all because we like to think that our prayerlessness doesn't really affect anyone except maybe ourselves (and even that we try to talk ourselves out of). when we choose to neglect intimate fellowship with God we tell ourselves, "well, i might be a little less chipper today, but i'll manage." but the truth is it’s not merely an issue of “i’m not in the mood to pray. i can get by without it.” this would be a logical statement (though not an accurate one) if prayer were strictly A-to-B. but when we realize that it’s primarily the Holy Spirit in us who desires that communion with the Father and Son and who is prompting us to pray, then this statement becomes out of place, irrelevant, absurd. the question then becomes, “if the Holy Spirit has taken up residence in me and desires above all to enjoy fellowship among the Godhead, and that through me, who am i to stand in the way?” the truth is that not only do we affect ourselves negatively when we neglect fellowship with God, we affect everyone around us negatively (and i don't just mean with a bad mood, but by stopping our ears to the ways the Spirit would want to use us to bless others that day). what is most unsettling though is to realize that not only do we affect others by our lack of intimacy with God, but that we grievously affect God Himself. He has put His Spirit in us so that He may draw us into the glorious fellowship of the Trinity, not so we can be the roadblock in His transcommunion. i know it's something i am guilty of and am glad that God is convicting me of it so that i can repent and allow His Spirit to rejoice through me in the fellowship of the Godhead; a decision i am glad i make each time i do.

"Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own? For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God's."
- 1 Corinthians 6:19-20

[ * footnote/disclaimer: i am not implying that we as individuals or even as the corporate church as a whole are capable of "stopping" God's fellowship among Himself. this complete rupture happened once at the Cross and never again. the Spirit, however, is grieved over the loss of fellowship through us with the Godhead. this loss of “transcommunion” is on a subjective and personal level as concerns us. this does not equate to the Spirit being deprived of union with the Godhead on an objective and complete level, in as much as the Holy Spirit is not bound exclusively in the Church in the same way that Christ was bound in His body at the Incarnation.]

serving the city

2010-08-30T16:29:00.000+03:00

this ukrainian independence day (august 24th) we continued the tradition we began last year of a church picnic / beach clean-up day. our desire in doing this is to "seek the good of the city" (Jer. 29:7) and to show people the love of God in a very tangible way. we believe that such community service is a vital part of reaching the city for Christ. we have also been going out this summer and doing street witnessing every week, but the fact is that those whose hearts are not yet open to the gospel, though it is the greatest "good" we could do them to share Jesus with them, do not yet perceive it as such. in taking on projects to practically do good on a level people who are not yet saved can recognize, we are able to show them the love and care of God in a way they can understand it. since in ukraine there is really no concept of "littering" or "pack it in, pack it out", the parks and beaches all look about like this:

after a little of this...

(and by little i mean over 1,000 gallons (4,000 liters) of trash collected...)
the beach looked like this:

we had quite a number of people stop us and say, "this is great! i wish everyone cared about our city like this. why are you doing this?" we were able to answer them simply "because Jesus loves this city and we love Him." a few of the responses were ones of shock: "really!? you guys are from a CHURCH!? that's the kind of church i'd visit." our desire is to take on other community improvement projects as God leads us and resources allow. one thing we've had on our hearts for a long time is to repair some of the dilapidated playgrounds around the city and in so doing serve the mothers and young children that play there. please pray with us that these seeds of simple service would grow in people's hearts to the glory of God.

eco-indulgences

2010-08-22T01:55:00.001+03:00

on my very long flight back from america, i couldn't help but notice an ad for the next stage in development of earth worship. now delta has teamed up with the nature conservancy to add a "purchase carbon offset" option when you buy your airline ticket. what this works out to being is essentially an "indulgence": you know you are about to commit transgression by jet fuel in purchasing an airline ticket, however, in order to placate your guilty conscience and appease the wrath of mother earth against you for such a heinous crime, you can now purchase ahead of time a "carbon offset", or as i like to call it, an "eco-indulgence". (copyright! :) of course, just as the indulgences of the popes were really just excuses to line their pockets and licenses for people to sin, i can't see how buying a "carbon offset" is much more than an excuse to continue polluting "guilt free" and i can't help but wonder who's pockets are getting "greener" off the green guilt-trip. i'm all for being a good and responsible steward of the creation God has entrusted to us (for a fascinating, Biblical basis and approach for being "green", listen to this.) but the avatar-esque, can't-breathe-without-feeling-guilty-for-your-carbon-output mindset has led to a very interesting brand of religion.... and like any religion has led to its own brand of self-righteousness. and in this case, i guess righteousness is for sale.

ukraine is a land like no other (except maybe russia :)

2010-06-08T02:49:00.000+03:00

from time to time as i walk around the experience that is my life in ukraine, i run into things that i realize are very bizarre to people who are not from here. since i've been living here for over 8 years now, i have to force myself to remember that these things strike most foreigners as very odd, since i have just come to accept most of them (granted, not all of them). so for your education and amusement purposes, just a few pictures from the last month or so:

this picture probably doesn't explain itself well unless you've seen one before. for those not familiar with ukrainian ritual, this is a funeral. you'll notice that the crowd is gathered right outside the apt. building. no, this is not a wake. the body is in the coffin right there next to the stairwell (didn't get a close-up out of respect for the friends and family of the deceased). the colorful bars off to the left are the playground equipment (abby was swinging on an incredibly squeaky swing before we made her stop so as not to provoke the ire of the crowd). the most interesting part about this is if you live in the stairwell where the person died, you get to walk right up to and past the coffin with bags full of groceries as babuska's cry over their loved one. this might all seem very tasteless, but i have to say i prefer it. death here is not tucked away and denied the way it is in america (or i imagine western europe?). it's right there in your face (outside your kitchen window, actually) ... a reality to be reckoned with. it is not disguised and sanitized: no funeral homes, no formaldehyde (hence same or next day burials) and a simple pine box.

on a similar note: the morgue. (don't ask me why i was there).

these are shots of our local morgue. the first shot shows that in the waiting hall, there is a typewriter from i'd guess about 40+ years ago. i'm not sure if they're keeping it around until it attains "antique status" and then hock it to provide for a lock on the door to the "dissection hall" (seriously, there wasn't one. just a sign that said "no entrance without permission!"). or maybe it's just a statement that the typewriter itself has met it's end. ah, modern art... nah, probably the first option.

the second picture is a soviet style plaque of a woman weeping over the grave of a loved one. the great part is that these metal figures are nailed onto the door of an old wardrobe. you can still see the old hinges at the top. nothing says "our condolences" like dismantled furniture.

next, a sign on the doctor's office door:

the working hours of the doctor in this particular section of the hospital are from 8:00 until 14:36. yes, that's right, 14:36 (2:36pm). the funny part is i'm willing to bet he never sticks around that late anyway.

the last picture would be the funniest if it weren't real. below is the sign that you see as soon as you step onto the property of a certain church here in ukraine:

for those who don't read russian, it says: "we do not allow: smoking, drinking alcoholic beverages, improper language, walking on the grass, picking flowers, walking dogs, leaving trash." seriously, is that really the first statement you want to make to visitors? if i were not a Christian, i'd turn around before i ever hit the door (i'm a pastor and i almost turned around anyway). sadly, this sign typifies the attitude and bent of the majority of churches in ukraine; in a word, rules (and mostly petty ones at that). it's all about what you cannot do, about ridiculous codes, and little to do with the heart of Jesus. the sad part of course is that this is the way a lot of Christians present themselves to the world (not just in ukraine either) and the way a lot of non-Christians perceive the church (ned flanders, anyone?). the fact is a lot of "Christians" have no idea who Christ really is (and pass their ignorance on to non-Christians). i bet if they let Jesus make the sign at that church, it would say something more along the lines of, "we do not allow: self-righteousness, arrogance, gossip, walking on people, picking fights, barking at others, and trashing your neighbor." the more Christians i meet here, the more convinced i am how desperately this country needs to hear the Gospel of Grace: that Jesus didn't come to make more Pharisees, but to rebuke them, and to make lovers of God instead.

four principles for christian unity

2010-05-03T14:17:00.002+03:00

(if you're confused as to why there is a picture of bacon here, a) keep reading but b) why not!? :)

a few weeks back, we went through Romans 14:20-24 and looked at how to deal with your convictions and those of other believers. i thought i'd share the principles from that passage on how to rightly hold and use your personal convictions as a Christian and how to treat another person in his convictions:

1) "all things indeed are pure." in other words, if the Bible doesn't say something is sin, you can't universally define it as sin. if the Bible is silent on a particular issue, or gives freedom, or doesn't set forth a specific stance, then no Christian (no matter how insightful he thinks he is) has the right to declare it as sin for all people. there are plenty of things the Bible does say are sin, and pride is one of the most often repeated. as soon as you take any of your personal convictions and try to force it on others, you have become a proud pharisee. this includes areas like drinking alcohol, birth control, watching harry potter, eating bacon, playing cards, listening to secular music, using electricity (thanks amish! ... and no, i'm not worried about offending them. they shouldn't be using the internet anyway. :), etc.

2) "whatever is not from faith is sin." if you are personally convinced God doesn't want you to do something which the Bible is silent on, don't do it. for you it would be sin! the reason it would be sin is not cause the thing/action itself is wrong, but because, in as far as you are convinced, it would be disobedience to God, and that is sin. keep your convictions. live by them. just don't force them on others because then you'll have a much bigger problem than eating bacon and watching harry potter.

3) "it is good not to do anything by which your brother stumbles." that is, if the option is between using your freedom to do what you want and serving your brother, go with the later. we are given great freedom in Christ, not so we can do what we want, but so that in surrendering it for others, we may become more like Him. the Cross of Jesus proves without a doubt that serving others is more important than standing on your rights. but does that mean we have to stop drinking coffee, eating bacon, watching TV and using electricity just cause it might stumble someone?

4) "do you have faith? have it to yourself before God." to serve others with our freedom doesn't mean that we become as strict as they are. it does mean that we use our freedom with discretion and readiness to surrender it for others. the principle is not "if this might stumble someone somewhere, i shouldn't do it." love doesn't exist in "theory", only in practice. the principle is: "if this does stumble the person i'm with right now, then in his presence i will refrain." use your freedom in places and ways it won't stumble others (at the least just before God... it won't stumble Him if you eat bacon. :) does this mean we stop using freedom all together? no. does it mean we surrender it for the good of those who are stumbled by it? yes.

if Christians would all apply these simple Scriptural principles, there would be a lot less petty fighting and contentions among the body of Christ.

one disclaimer should be mentioned at this point: if a person is attempting to set up their own convictions as law for others (which really means they are trying to set themselves up as god), we should contradict and break their convictions boldly. if they are contradicting the will of God through their man-made convictions, we should ignore them. Jesus often practiced this when the pharisees attempted to thwart the work and will of God by their extra-biblical convictions. Jesus' response was to boldly contradict them and continue anyway with the work His Father was doing.

well, hope that was beneficial for someone out there. feel free to share your thoughts in the comments.

ministry is a whore

2010-03-30T03:00:00.000+03:00

yes, you heard right. i've been thinking lately about this idea. it's no coincidence that the "whore of babylon" mentioned in Revelation is specifically a religious system. but why "whore"? ("and why does he keep using that awful word!?" :) first of all, it's offensive. and that makes it the right word. if we had even the slightest idea how sickening and offensive it is to God when we replace relationship to Him with a system, we might see that this word is probably not vile enough.

secondly, it paints a very accurate picture (and i'm about to get a little vivid, so be warned). a whore is, in some twisted sense, a "wife-replacement". that is to say, she gives the impression of intimacy without real intimacy. she looks like she might satisfy, she goes through the motions of satisfying, but leaves only emptiness in her wake. there is just enough similarity to distract a man from seeking true intimacy with a wife; to fool him into thinking he's got what he wants when in reality she is only drawing him further away from what he truly longs for. this is a perfect picture of religion and, too often, of ministry. it looks like we're serving God, while in reality we are replacing Him with our service. it has the appearance of intimacy, but is really only a superficial act that widens the void. it looks just enough like a relationship with God to keep us fooled, to keep us from seeking the real thing, while leaving only emptiness in our hearts. we begin to think that maybe doing all these things is spiritual intimacy, but it is only a cheap whore.

as we recently studied through the books of Kings in our Old Testament survey class, i was struck by an interesting detail. after the kingdom of Israel was divided, the people almost immediately fell into idolatry (described by God through the prophets inevitably as "playing the whore"). now, in the northern kingdom, it says that Jeroboam, the first king after the division, set up two golden calves for the people to worship. this, of course, was hearkening back to Aaron's rebellion while Moses was on Mt. Sinai when he also formed a golden calf for the people to worship. Jeroboam made the same statement that Aaron did then: "behold thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt." the fascinating thing is that this was not a claim to worship another god. it was a claim to be worshiping the true God, the God of Israel... only it wasn't Him! it was a substitute. later, when Jehu (the best of the northern kings) wiped out the false god Baal from the north, it says that, nevertheless, he left the golden calves. in all the idolatry of Israel, it seems that the idol that had the strongest hold on the people was the one that was closest to the real thing.

the interesting thing about these golden calves is that they are an appropriate picture of ministry. the very first calf was made from the golden earrings the people offered to Aaron. they literally made a god out of their own sacrifices. the "calf" or bull is a work animal. they symbolize work, productivity, etc. and, they were much easier to worship than a God who couldn't be seen, who was apt to move His pillar of fire at a moment's notice. they could always be measured (2 of them), and always kept where you want them.

this is the temptation before many Christians today, especially before many ministers. how many of us have replaced God with our service to Him? it is a subtle trap, and therefore all the more dangerous. we content ourselves to substitute true intimacy with the forms of intimacy: church attendance, ministry, perhaps even reading and prayer. we have made a god of our own sacrifices and called it the God of the Bible. ministry can so easily become that golden calf, that scarlet whore, because it looks so similar to the real thing and anyone looking on from the outside probably can't tell the difference. but we know the difference in our hearts, because emptiness is the result. it is the subtle replacement of Christ with Christianity.

as a minister myself, i believe that it is vital to understand this. if i do not constantly keep my heart in check, constantly return to true intimacy with my Savior, i will slowly allow ministry to take the place of God. ministry provides a substitute spirituality, and usually no one else knows the difference except myself and Jesus. i once heard a quote by C.H. Spurgeon that has stuck with me "the worst [temptation] is the temptation to ministerialism—the tendency to read our Bibles as ministers, to pray as ministers, to get into doing the whole of our religion as not ourselves personally..." i am convinced that anyone who is enthralled with being in ministry should not be in it. that is, if they think that ministry will somehow fulfill their longing for intimacy with God. yes, when we remind ourselves of this ever present danger, and maintain our hearts in right relationship with Jesus, then ministry is a wonderful privilege and truly presents a unique ground for experiencing Jesus. but without understanding the inherent danger in it, we will simply whore out our true intimacy with God until there is nothing left.

washing feet and loving others

2010-03-07T22:17:00.011+02:00

(btw, don't you just love that Jesus is washing feet in what appears to be a german bar, complete with beer maids? :)

well, i thought i would share a little excerpt of what we talked about in today's study in Romans. it really spoke to me as i was preparing and i hope to others as we studied today. we looked at the phrase in chapter 13, "owe no one anything except to love one another". the word "owe" in the original greek is most frequently used of financial debt. it implies an obligation. (i'm tempted to start a rant on how Christians often ignore this and are as apt to live in financial debt as the next shmuck, but i'll restrain myself. :) the thing is, Paul says there is one thing we are obligated, indebted to give, and that's love to one another.

Jesus also uses this word in a very unique way at one point (most times he uses it in the financial sense, too). in Jn. 13, right after He humbled Himself to do the menial task of washing the disciples' feet, wiping them with the towel wrapped around His waist, He says to them, "You call Me Teacher and Lord, and you say well, for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought (are obligated) to wash one another's feet." now, we get that it's a good example and all, but why exactly does Jesus choosing to humbly serve these disciples obligate them and us to do likewise?

Jesus Himself gives the answer in emphasizing His role as "Teacher and Lord". the ancient, eastern culture that Jesus lived in was an "honor culture". if a person was in a position of honor, there was certain protocol. for example, if a king were to kneel before someone else in the presence of his subjects, the subjects would also immediately kneel before that person (i'm sure we even recognize this from a number of movies.) if a rabbi, a "teacher", were to humble himself through fasting, it was expected that his disciples would do the same. if a slave were to see his master, his "lord", begin to do some menial task, he would without hesitation come along and take over that work. the subjects/disciples/slaves were never to position themselves above their master (Jesus Himself states this in Mt. 10). if their superior were to humble himself in a given way and they did not, it was tantamount to saying "i am above my master/teacher/king", which in reality is a rejection of his position as lord. therefore, Jesus says, "if I, as your Lord and Teacher, have done this, you have a direct obligation to Me to humble yourself and serve in the same way, thus honoring Me."

this is vitally important to grasp in living out the Gospel. we often think of our love and service to others as what we give to them. Jesus completely contradicts this understanding. the fact is, our love and service to others does not tell primarily what we think of them, but what we think of Christ! our attitude towards another person, as disciples and servants of Jesus, reflects foremost our evaluation of Him, not of that person. to use the the words of Dietrich Bonhoeffer in Life Together, "among Christians there are no direct relationships. all relationship exists in and through Christ... any direct relationship is ultimately sinful." that is, as Christians, each one of our human relationships is mediated by and reflects upon our relationship with Jesus first and foremost. this is why we have a debt, an obligation to love one another, because it is a question of honoring or insulting our Lord. when we refuse to love and serve another person, we are essentially saying, "Jesus, i know you think he/she is worth dying for, worth Your life, but they aren't worth mine." in this way we are boasting against, insulting our Lord and, in some sense, denying His relationship to us as Sovereign.

the reason we do such a crappy job of loving and serving people so often is in part because we have failed to realize this truth. we attempt to love a person for his own sake, and of course fail when we realize that he is not capable of sustaining our effort to love him/her. we put that pressure on him and ultimately crush him with it. this is why Bonhoeffer said that all "direct" relationships are ultimately sinful (and as sin always is, ultimately destructive). relationship to someone who is unworthy can only be sustained and empowered if it is mediated by One who has the resources to command and inspire our love on His behalf. and since there is only One who is worthy, all relationships must exist "through Christ". to attempt to create or maintain relationship directly is to ensure our failure in this endeavor and to crush the recipient of our "love" under a burden he cannot bear.

it is this understanding that led John, who recorded the footwashing scene, to later write in his 1st epistle "If someone says, 'I love God,' and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen? And this commandment we have from Him: that he who loves God must love his brother also." in other words, if a person thinks he loves God but is holding hatred, refusing to love his brother, he is lying to himself! the truth is that how we treat our brother has much more to do with Jesus than it does with our brother. in a very real sense, based on Jesus' position as Lord and His humble love, if we do not love our brother, we are not loving God. Jesus said that the 1st commandment was to love God with all your being and the second like it; to love your neighbor as yourself. as it turns out, the 2nd is so much like the 1st that we could really say they are the same commandment. loving our brother is not optional to loving God, nor even secondary to loving God. it is the same thing from a different angle. there is really only one commandment: love.

McNazis, Religion and the Gospel

2010-01-23T23:53:00.007+02:00

well, i figured i'd write about my latest adventure in a string of very unusual spiritual attacks. i was invited to teach at a men's conference for calvary chapel of kiev this weekend. i headed up to kiev on friday and as i was leaving mcdonald's, a guy, mid-twenties, rather "aryan" looking, stares at me and asks me if i've ever read mein kampf (hitler's autobiography and ideological treatise). i was shocked by the question and didn't even know what to say. he proceeded to call me a "friggin' jew" and pushed me a few times. i'm pretty sure he was on some kind of drugs. i tried to explain to him that i'm not jewish (though i do look it and would be completely proud to be jewish). he didn't listen and began to punch and kick me. i was able to block most of his swings, though he left a few good bruises on my legs from kicking. i yelled to the manager to call the police. this is all happening in the middle of a very crowded mcdonald's.... and NO ONE even stood up to help. for all their tough-guy facade, men here are generally pretty cowardly. the police arrived in a few minutes and put him in their car to take to the station.

now, besides the obvious warfare right before the conference (which actually encouraged me because it made me even more sure that God wanted to do something important there if satan was going to such lengths to stop it), there was another very interesting aspect to this event. tomorrow we will be in Rom 12:13 and discussing the phrase "given to hospitality". the word "hospitality" here in greek is "philoxenia". it is basically the opposite of "xenophobia": a fear or hatred of strangers/foreigners. interesting timing for my first ever xenophobic attack.

but the idea of "philoxenia", friendship or love of strangers/foreigners, is much wider than race. the phrase in verse 13 literally translates to "pursue, chase after friendship with those who don't belong, who are outcasts and rejected". what it got me thinking about was how so often this is the last thing people would describe christians as. in fact, it is sadly "christians" (who often for some reason that i cannot comprehend feel that fox news is on nearly the same level of spiritual authority as the Bible) who demonstrate a dislike and even disgust of people who do not fall into their club; democrats, illegal immigrants, muslims, homosexuals and the like. sure, they would not likely take to violence, but there is a certain animosity that nevertheless some "christians" hold against those who don't belong. sadly i've heard too many rants against illegal immigrants, homosexuals, democrats, and others perceived as somehow doing damage to "traditional society" coming from the "christian" pulpit.

the reason i keep using the word "christian" in quotation marks is because people who hold this xenophobic attitude (in more than the racial sense) have really very little that is Christ-like about them. the fact is that christians who avoid or even disdain those who are other than themselves, christians who do not pursue the outcasts of society/culture have really forgotten the Gospel (and may not be more than culturally christian or just religious in the first place). in the epistle to the Ephesians in chapter 2 Paul says that we were once aliens and foreigners (xenos) to the promises of God and without hope in the world. but because God is full of "philoxenia", He pursued us and brought us into His family, made us part of His kingdom. He did not shun us in high-minded disdain, but came to earth, became one of us, and humbled Himself on the Cross that we might be brought near by His precious blood. therefore, if the Gospel means that we have received this love of God as outcasts, it only follows that we would pass this along. a "christian" who is high-minded and hateful towards those who do not fit into his understanding of the world have forgotten that they are no less "alien" by nature than the one they now disdain. the Gospel must necessarily produce in us the same kind of "philoxenia" that God has shown to us in Jesus Christ, otherwise there is reason to question if we have experienced the Gospel at all and instead are merely religious.

[disclaimer: the image at the top of this article is a not a production of the national socialist german worker's (nazi) party nor of the mcdonald's corporation, neither is it meant to imply that ronald or any of his friends is a fascist (except for possibly the hamburgler) or for that matter that adolf would have clogged his aryan arteries with bigmacs. it is merely meant to illustrate my experience on friday... so now i can't get sued. :) ]

on humility in criticism

2009-12-22T01:54:00.003+02:00

just read a great blog post by tim keller of redeemer presbyterian church on our attitude in criticism and debating theology. check it out:

How Do You Take Criticism of Your Views?

ukrainian road repair

2009-12-10T14:23:00.003+02:00

i was driving up to kiev last weekend and thought i'd give everyone an understanding of how ukraine deals with road problems (very similar approach for many other problems):

rather than fixing the road, they just put up signs that let you know, "for the next 3 km, this is gonna suck." well, at least they're not pretending that these road conditions are acceptable and warning you about it. ah, ukraine, you never cease to amaze. :)

Ukraine: A Democracy at Risk

2009-11-24T22:01:00.004+02:00

i just read this article from the widow of murdered ukrainian journalist, gregory gongadze. it pretty well sums up the steep, downhill ride that ukrainian democracy has taken since the orange revolution in late 2004/early 2005 and the resulting mindset of many ukrainians as they head to the polls this january. very sad, but unfortunately true. if you're interested in where ukraine is at or is heading as a country, i'd recommend it:

Ukraine: A Democracy at Risk

abby's jokes

2009-11-17T23:02:00.004+02:00

lena is praying with abby tonight in russian and she finishes and says "Аминь" (a-meen')....

abby: "mama says 'a-meen'?
lena: "yes."
abby: "papa says 'amen'."
lena: "yes, papa says in english 'amen' and mama says in russian 'a-meen'."
abby: "oh.... abby says "oh, man!" like in cartoon (dora). "swiper, no swiping... oh, man! hahaha!"

things i missed about ukraine in the states and things i miss about america here

2009-11-08T16:21:00.005+02:00

things i missed about ukraine while in the states:

1. real food: unless you are going to a farmer's market in the states (and paying thrice the standard price) food is tasteless, especially the meat. like a wet sponge.
2. fellowship in church: i don't know if its just part of the american culture or what, but it seemed in every church we were in, that as soon as the service ends, at least 80% of the people rushed for the doors. another 15% were gone within 5-10 minutes. maybe it didn't help that we were in indiana and the colts were playing almost every week. :) here in ukraine we hang out and fellowship after service for sometimes up to an hour.
3. toilet paper: yes, that's right, i like the brown ukrainian toilet paper. its just so darn sturdy!
4. the medical system: allow me to clarify. the kids got on medicaid this time, but lena and i got turned down. when i went to the pharmacy to get a prescription filled, i was told the medicine cost $120! i passed and upon returning to ukraine found the same medicine for like $8. so ridiculous! they should destroy the whole medical funding system and start from scratch (with a completely universal system).

things i miss about america here:
1. good coffee: not that it doesn't exist in ukraine, but is very rare and usually cost more than the bux in the states.
2. cheap technology/clothes: yes, both of these things cost MORE here than in america. fortunately they are things you can stock up on once every 2-3 years.
3. wi-fi everywhere: gotta love that. here its mostly only at mcdonald's.
4. the medical system: it may be expensive as all get out, but at least they are all about quality care.
5. customer service: a concept largely lacking in ukraine. the best example in america during this trip i can think of this was the apple store. i brought my macbook in that i had for 2.5 yrs. and had just about every part on it possible replaced (under warranty so it was free). but when i brought it in for another repair this time, i told the manager about all the problems i've had with it (very unusual for macs, btw). i was hoping to get a free battery out of the deal or something. he goes away and comes back and says "we're gonna give you a new macbook". sweet! way to take care of your customers, mr. jobs! i was already hooked on macs even with the hardware problems, but they have just won a very satisfied life-customer.

cc svitlovodsk video

2009-11-04T16:13:00.007+02:00

so i've been meaning to post this video on here for a while. oddly, we have better and more consistent internet connection here in ukraine than we did in the states. this is a video i put together with pictures of people and events in our church as well as interviews with people to let them share how Jesus has worked in their lives since coming to calvary chapel svitlovodsk. the interviews are subtitled in english. enjoy and pray for us!

in addition, be sure to check out our church's website and podcast.

authentic ukrainian cuisine

2009-07-31T11:40:00.003+03:00

ok, not so much. my wife decided to use some won-ton skins we had in the freezer for the last i don't know how many months. so she whipped up some egg rolls that could seriously have been from a high-class chinese restaurant. they didn't last long. :) my wife is so talented! here's a shot of the goodness:

in ukraine, the good times never end

2009-07-23T10:57:00.004+03:00

so, my family and i were in our neighboring big city, kremenchuk, yesterday doing some shopping at the equivalent of a wal-mart. we were strolling down the office supplies aisle and were looking at the permanent markers when we spotted this:

sharpies? no, look closer. they are "skerples"! yes, that's right, a knock-off sharpie look-alike (even the logo script looks the same). but yes, it is a "skerple". i couldn't stop laughing and thought i'd share the fun with you all. i almost bought them just so i could keep laughing, but then considered it and figured they'd break in a few days, so i passed.

blowing the lid off the largest legislative crime in history

2009-07-13T00:08:00.011+03:00

i was recently reading on my friend rick's blog about the current proposed bill to audit the fed. the creation of the federal reserve in the united states (which is neither "federal", but privately owned and run for the profit of its share-holders, nor much of a "reserve", as it only has on hand a small fraction of resources to back the money it prints) has been called, "the greatest legislative crime of the ages". it is in charge of creating all of the national currency in america and yet trillions of dollars that it spends are under absolutely no oversight with no accountability to the public. congressman dr. ron paul (to bad he didn't get elected prez) has recently put forth a bill, HR 1207, which proposes to audit the federal reserve. it only seems right that an organization that controls and affects so much of the life of the nation ought to be accountable to the people of that nation, and perhaps appaling that it has not been up to this point. apparently even congress agrees, as already 55% of the house of representatives is co-sponsoring the bill. you can hear ron paul on it for yourself:

now, for those with a slightly longer attention span, here is the link to a documentary detailing the lead-up to, creation of, and consequent havoc-wreaking of the federal reserve (and other central banks). the documentary is slightly old (late 90's) but perhaps more relevant today than when it was made. make some popcorn first cause the full length documentary is as long as a lord of the rings movie, but almost as good (if not for its production quality, certainly for the information contained in it... there's even something strikingly similar between sauron and the fed; from global domination, right down to that single, floating eye. :). check out the documentary here.

to learn more of what you can do to promote this much-needed bill, check out dr. ron paul's site on the bill. what do you think, should the fed be audited? were you previously aware that the fed is NOT responsible to anyone?

the sordid tale of politics in ukraine

2009-06-29T01:56:00.003+03:00

i ran across this brief synopsis of the last dozen or so years of ukraine's political history on radio free europe and thought i'd share. for any who are curious or interested in understanding what it going on over here and how ukraine got to the place it is, this article is a really good start:

Constitutional Instability In Ukraine Leads to Legal Turmoil

d) it is written

2009-05-31T20:19:00.010+03:00

so a little while back i watched this year's best picture academy award winner, slumdog millionaire. if you haven't seen it yet, it's definitely well worth the 2 hour run-time. i'll try to summarize the basic plot (this may contain spoilers, so go watch it first before reading the post if you like surprises). a young man from mumbai gets to the final stage of the indian version of "who wants to be a millionaire?". the cops are suspicious when this boy who grew up in the slums and works a lowly job knows the answers to all the questions. the film basically explores his chaotic life and the series of unique circumstances that have given him the answers to the questions. the film opens with words on the screen:

Jamal Malik is one question away from winning 20 million rupees. How did he do it?
(A) He cheated
(B) He's lucky
(C) He's a genius
(D) It is written

the cops think the answer is A at first, but come to see this is not the case. jamal himself admits that it's not C. so basically the audience is left to determine whether it is B or D. another main theme of the movie is jamal's relationship with a girl (latika) he has known since they were both orphaned as little kids and is hopelessly in love with. he will stop at nothing to find her, and is on the game show only because he knows she watches it. the movie ends with jamal winning the game show and 20 million rupees and being reunited with latika, overcoming all impossible circumstances. at this point the answer to the opening question is flashed on the screen: D) it is written.

now, the movie is very well done (as most of danny boyle's films are), the actors are great (especially the little kids who are totally adorable) and it's set in a culture which is very "other" and intriguing for people from the west. but what is it about this movie that set it apart for a full 8 oscars including best picture? what is it that struck a deep enough chord with a wide enough audience to send this small-budget film to fame and $350 milliion box-office revenues worldwide and earned it the praise of "the feel-good film of the decade"? i believe it is the last 5 seconds of the film. no, i don't mean the dance party during the credits, but the answer to the question: D) it is written.

i honestly think that if the answer "B) he is lucky" had flashed at the end, the film would not have enjoyed near the success it did. the message of slumdog is that this young man was able to go through all the suffering in his life and that it had a purpose, that it was not in vain, that it "all worked together for good", if you like. despite overwhelming circumstances, he ends up on top and with the girl he loves, but not simply because he is lucky, but because "it is written". the chord in the movie that i think resonates with so many people (whether they realize it or not) is the desire in every human heart to know that the events of life are not simply chaos, but that they are ordained, destined by a benevolent Someone, and that no matter how bad things get, that Someone has a plan for us for good. it's ironic that the 21st-century, western world seems to value absolute autonomy above all. many people get riled when you try to speak to them about a sovereign, benevolent God from whom they are not independent, who has a plan for their life and that of the world. the idea that they are not free to create their own reality and purpose in life rubs many people the wrong way. yet deep down this is what we all long for: not simply to get lucky in life, but to know that "it is written".

the other element that put this movie over the top is two fold: that jamal will stop at nothing to be with the girl he loves. even when she has written him off, moved on with life, thinks it is impossile to ever be with him, he comes for her. finally, she escapes from her hollow marriage to a gangster who is basically just her sugar daddy and goes to find jamal. additionally, jamal's older brother (who had been working for the gangster and helped to hold latika prisoner to him) repents of his ways, and gives his life in helping her to escape. these moments also call out to another desire of every human heart: to be relentlessly pursued by One who will not give up, even when we write Him off, and the understanding that for the good plan to be accomplished, someone must give their life.

of course, these longings of the human heart, these desires that slumdog resonated to, are ultimately fulfilled in Jesus. the message of the Gospel is that there is Someone who is sovereign and benevolent, that He is the one who ordains the happenings of life. and this same God happens to also be the One who relentlessly pursues us with His love, who does not give up on finding us, even when we have given up on Him, and who Himself laid down His life to see that we should find the ultimate happy ending. maybe it's just coincidence that danny boyle was at one point planning on becoming a priest. who knows. but it is the truth that "it is written" and written by a God who loves us, who can turn the worst tragedy to good (as ultimately evidenced in the Resurrection of Jesus), which i believe propelled this movie to the list of the top-grossing 150 movies of all time. as king david wrote in Psalm 139,

"And in Your book they all were written, The days fashioned for me, When as yet there were none of them."

d) it is written.

why ukraine's problems cannot be solved by any amount of money

2009-05-12T19:23:00.003+03:00

so, i was reading the headlines and stumbled across the latest reason why ukraine's problems will not be solved by any amount of imf loans. as it turns out, yuri lutsenko, ukraine's internal affairs minister (over all the police and generally charged with "maintaining social order and safety"... incidentally probably one of the better ministers in the cabinet) got into a drunken brawl with some german police officers in the frankfurt airport and has officially offered his resignation from the cabinet of ministers. he is rejecting the claims of the german officers, but for some reason resigned anyway.

this reminded me of one time last year when my wife and i happend to be visiting her mother and she had the news on. and much to our amusement and simultaneous discouragement, we saw video coverage of the Verkhovna Rada (ukraine's parliament). took me a while to find it on youtube (archive of everything embarrassing that people wish could be erased), but here it is:

but maybe that is a faster way to decide politics: throw two senators in a UFC cage and whoever remains alive gets their legislation passed. :) of course, the sad part is THESE are the people ruling the country. no wonder we are in such a mess (despite any global crises). at least we know the only way anything positive is gonna happen is by praying for them. ;)

an interesting debate on torture

2009-05-06T14:28:00.002+03:00

just watched this on the daily show and thought it was well done on both sides. thoughts? (preferably AFTER watching the debate :)

disclaimer: the interview contains some uncensored language, so if you don't want to hear it, don't listen.

(the embed tags were broken, so you can see the debate by clicking on the links below)

part 1

part 2

part 3

some good news for crisis-wracked ukraine?

2009-04-24T14:11:00.003+03:00

i found this article the other day to be very interesting. it is probably the first article on the economic crisis in ukraine that i've read that is optimistic. though the assessments on the political part may not be entirely accurate, it is interesting to get an overview of the situation here. here are some highlights.

Together with the international financial institutions, the Central Bank has examined all of Ukraine's banks and quantified their bad debt. Compared to the West, Ukraine's share of toxic debt is small.

Seventeen Western banks have committed themselves to recapitalizing their subsidiaries in Ukraine with $2 billion this year. In addition, it is estimated that two-thirds of the country's refinancing needs this year will be met.

Thanks to early and resolute anti-crisis actions, international reserves remain reassuring at $25 billion, or eight months of imports. Industrial production increased in both February and March over the preceding month, suggesting that Ukraine might already have turned the corner (although GDP will probably still decrease by 8 percent to 10 percent this year). Even the bond and stock markets have soared in the last month.

charles darwin vs. good friday

2009-04-14T20:40:00.007+03:00

recently i've run across a number of Christian authors and teachers who, in discussing the intersection of faith and science, seem at least open to if not supportive of the idea that God somehow used evolution to create the universe and the various species. this concept, theistic evolution, is far from new. in fact, it's been around since the Origin of Species. many of my favorite authors actually hold this view. their argument typically centers around how Genesis 1 (or 1-11 depending on who you ask) is not literal but allegorical, symbolic, poetic, etc. don't worry, i'm not about to attempt to prove how scientifically, mathematically and biologically absurd darwin's evolution theory really is in this blog post (there are plenty of good books to do that). but what recently made me, let's say, concerned is the apparent disconnect in these brilliant Christian writers' minds between evolution and the gospel.

here in ukraine the church holidays are celebrated by the old julian calendar, which means that this friday will be good friday. as i've been reflecting on this beautiful tragedy the last few days, i found myself looking at the ramifications of theistic evolution for the gospel. one of the first and classic points of the opponents of theistic evolution is that if God used evolution for creating the world and the species before the fall of man, that makes Him the author of death (since the gears of the evolutionary machine grind the weak to bits and only the "fittest" survive). but what struck me was a much more specific problem.

on good friday all Christians celebrate the death of Jesus Christ, the Godman, who hung on the Cross in our stead, for our sins. we believe that His death there was a substitutionary atonement for our sin before God. but this begs the question: what in the world does the death of Christ have to do with my sin? this is where the necessary Biblical tie comes in. Scripture says that "sin entered the world though one man, and death through sin, so that death passed to all mankind." the connection between sin and death is direct and undeniable according to the Bible. it is because of this connection that Christ's death in our place was tantamount to bearing the penalty of our sin. likewise, it is also upon this connection that the significance of the resurrection of Jesus becomes clear: His triumph over death was a triumph not merely over biological decomposition, but over the power and effect of sin. these points are orthodox, Christian doctrine and nothing new.

but what is striking then is that the same men who accept these truths could turn around and say that God used evolution to create the different species. what this implies is a total disconnect between man's sin and the presence of death in the world. this raises the question: if death has nothing to do with sin, then why did Christ have to die? if darwin was right about the appearance of life, then what is it about this friday that is good?

now, i realize that these Christian authors promulgating theistic evolution are certainly NOT claiming that the death of Christ did nothing to cleanse our sin. on the contrary, i believe they are great men of God who deeply love Jesus. like i said, many of my favorite authors fall into this group. however, i think they probably got caught up in the snowstorm of scientific pseudo-evidence for evolution while not really thinking through the theological implications that such a theory puts to the meaning of the Cross. i'm thankful as we approach good friday that, though sin did enter the world through one man and death through that sin, that,

"as sin reigned in death, even so now grace reigns through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ." -Rom. 5:21

what do you think, are theistic evolution and the gospel compatible? if so, why?

desperation and fascism in ukraine

2009-03-30T15:23:00.005+03:00

(the above poster is from soviet days and translates: "beat the fascist scum!")

this article published by the Telegraph just a couple days ago tells a horrifying tale, especially in light of the destruction caused by nazi fascism in ukraine not all that long ago:

On March 15, voters in the Ternopil region of western Ukraine elected a new regional assembly. This was an Orange Revolution bastion, a region that has long sought to embrace the West and shun Russia.
But it is also has Ukraine's highest unemployment. In a crowded field, the previously little-known Freedom Party won 50 of the regional assembly's 120 seats as voters embraced its hard Right leader, Oleg Tyagnibok, who has urged the expulsion of all Jews and Russians from Ukraine. (emphasis mine)

"The problem is less the popularity of the nationalists than the universal disappointment with mainstream parties," said Viktor Chumak, a political scientist in Ukraine's capital, Kiev. "Voters are sympathising with radicals more and more as a result of the crisis."

it's pretty sad when political infighting among the powers that be is so bad that people are ready to vote in a little hitler. there might be many underlying problems causing the friction between the president and prime minister now, but the main one seems to be this: there is absolutely no concept that the goverment is enstated to serve the people. it still seems very much to be a left over sentiment of soviet times that the people exist for the state and not the state for the people. or as good old william wallace put it, "You think the people of this country exist to provide you with position. I think your position exists to provide those people with freedom."

this result is unlikely to repeat itself in the eastern and southern parts of the country where there are many ethnic russians and the majority of the jewish population reside, but still, its shameful that people anywhere would be driven to such desperate choices by the indifference of their leaders. then again, it often seems that in desperate times people are willing to accept solutions that normally they would be appalled at. perhaps pragmatism is the ultimate moral vacuum.

understanding the crisis

2009-03-12T19:18:00.003+02:00

i was recently reminded of an excellent video lecture series that i first learned about through my friend josh. the video series is basically a breakdown of the economy's breakdown. the most fascinating part about it is that is was all (except for the last couple segments)produced BEFORE the economy really took a hard nose-dive in late 2008, so its foresight is really astounding. for anyone interested check out the first session:

the rest of the sessions can be viewed at: www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse hope you enjoy!

should the right to life lead to death?

2009-03-07T23:35:00.006+02:00

you may have seen the tragic headlines this week about a 9-year-old girl in brazil who was given an abortion because she was raped by her step-father and became pregnant with twins. weighing in at only 80 lbs., the doctors concluded that to continue the pregnancy would've put the life of this young girl at serious risk and hence performed the abortion. the article explains that:

Abortion is illegal in Brazil, which has more Catholics than any other nation, but exceptions are allowed in cases of rape and when the mother's life would be endangered by giving birth....

The Catholic Church's archbishop for the area criticized the decision as against "the law of God" and excommunicated her mother, the doctors and other people involved in the abortion...

"The law of God is above any human law," Jose Cardoso Sobrinho, the archbishop of Olinda and Recife, said...
"I believe the position of the church is extreme, radical and inadequate," Health Minister Jose Gomes Temporao said on a government radio program.

"I am shocked by the radical position of this religion which, wrongly saying it is defending a life, puts another life in danger that is as important as any other."

later reports have confirmed that the vatican has upheld and defended the bishop's ruling of excommunication for those involved. now, i give serious props to the brazilian public for their strict abortion laws. also, kudos is in order for the catholic church which has held an unequivocal stance against abortion and homosexuality as sin, despite the ever-increasing unpopularity of those positions, even when many protestant denominations are willing to pander to popular opinion. however, this case certainly begs the question: "should the right to life lead to death?"

now, i'm not a brazilian doctor and i was not part of the medical conclusions, but assuming the facts are accurate, the point of the health minster is valid: are we willing to protect one innocent life at the cost of another? no matter what way you look at it, the whole situation is a sickening tragedy. but though the refusal of the catholic church to kowtow to moral relativism and the preeminence given to God's law over man's is commendable, one gets the feeling that they may be applying the letter of the law but missing the spirit thereof: namely, to protect innocent life. thoughts? comments? (and since this topic is a "flash-point", remember to keep the comments respectful... inappropriate comments will be deleted. ;)

john tetzel is not dead

2009-03-03T11:20:00.005+02:00

i know, it sounds like the title of an episode of LOST, but it's not. :) john tetzel, as some will know, was an indulgence seller for the catholic church in the early 16th century, promising forgiveness of sins for money. it was said that he even claimed that the indulgence offered by pope leo x for the building of st. peter's basilica could pardon the violation of the virgin mary. martin luther, the great reformer, wrote his 95 theses largely in response to the practice of selling indulgences, and especially to the tactics of john tetzel. one of tetzel's "ad jingles" for selling indulgences is enshrined forever in scathing rebuke in the 95 theses. his line was: "As soon as a coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs."

well, while we were in kiev to give birth to isaac (see pics here), i was in some of the shopping centers and realized that john tetzel was not dead, he had just moved to ukraine (and aparently switched allegiance from the roman catholic church to the ukrainian orthodox church). this is a "coffer" that stood by the entrance of the shopping center in downtown kiev for donations towards the construction of a new church in kiev, and i saw many identical ones in other shopping centers:

the translation of the inscription is: "place your brick in the foundation of the holy habitation and in her walls prayers will sound for you eternally". guess tetzel hasn't lost his knack for jingle-writing even after almost 500 yrs.! it's truly heart-rending that men would gladly sell out the truth of the Gospel of grace to finance their programs (and no, it's not limited to the catholic or orthodox churches!) luther also had a slogan of sorts which, while perhaps not as catchy, certainly rings loud even to this day with the great truth of the Gospel:

"Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura, Solus Christus, Soli Deo Gloria"
(by Faith Alone, by Grace Alone, by Scripture Alone, by Christ Alone, to the Glory of God Alone)

why can't the dollar stop growing?

2009-02-25T00:15:00.004+02:00

okay, so it's not so much that the dollar is growing as that the "hryvnia" (ukraine's currency) is in a death spiral. the dollar has reached its all-time high, or in other words, the hryvnia has hit an all time low. (9.26 grn. to $1) bloomberg has this article on the situation here. some highlights are below:

Ukraine’s hryvnia tumbled, closing at a record low against the dollar, after Moody’s Investors Service said it may cut the country’s rating because political infighting is hampering efforts to avert a financial crisis.
The hyrvnia has lost more than 50 percent against the dollar in the past six months as reduced demand for exports and a lack of foreign credit causes Ukraine’s first economic contraction in a decade.

Inflation soared to 22.3 percent last month, the highest level in Europe

for the foreigners here whose accounts are in dollars (myself included), this makes things comparitively cheaper than a few months back when it was still 5:1. but, though it's almost hard to imagine i'm saying this, i wish the dollar would go back down some, cause if it keeps growing, ukraine's economy might just free fall off the precarious cliff it's teetering on.

NOTE: the following day bloomberg updated this article, and outlined the newly dropped default rating. the new rating implies:

a 69.6 percent chance Ukraine will default in the next two years and 91.8 percent in the next five years.

the infection spreads...

2009-01-25T21:44:00.012+02:00

so, since most of the people whose blogs i interact with have been "tagged" recently, it was only a matter of time. i was tagged by edna silva. here's the rules:

off we go with the random/weirdness....

1. i figure i'll thoroughly embarrass myself right out of the gate (though it really doesn't embarrass me now, it did for a long time).... i wet the bed till i was... 13 i think? only fortunately my parents put me on a then experimental nasal-spray drug to stop bedwetting called DDAVP. because it was new, i had to get monthly blood tests to make sure i wasn't being slowly turned into a mutant or something to that effect. as it turns out, in 2007 the FDA banned the nasal-spray cause a couple people died from using it and a few dozen others experienced seizures. for me all it ever did was make a lot less laundry for my mom and enable stress-free sleepovers. :)

2. okay, so now that i've embarrassed myself, i'll go for shock and awe. before Jesus saved me from the pit of hell, i was into all kinds of darkness. but probably the one that people are most shocked by is vampirism. yes, my friends and i used to drink each others' blood. people usually ask why. i suppose there was some kind of demonic rush in it. so now you know.

3. i LOVE spicy food. most people that know me know this about me, since i dump red pepper flakes on just about every meal. but most people don't know the story of how it started. when i was about 9 or so, my mom grew these super-hot little peppers (maybe thai dragons?) in her garden for my dad. one day my sister dared me to take a bite of one. of course, you can't back down from a dare from your little sister, so i took a small nibble off the tip. it really wasn't very spicy to me so i decided to show off and put the whole thing in my mouth and chomped a few times and swallowed. little did i know that the heat is primarily in the seeds. soon my mouth was uncomfortable... a few seconds later it was on fire.... a few seconds after that i was screaming for my mom to help and tears were running down my face. she shoved bread, milk and probably some other food products down my gullet to try and cool the burning. finally she gave me a tums and it killed the burning out (so if you ever ingest something too hot, run for the tums ;). but after that experience i started loving spicy food.

4. i played the cello for 3 years in middle school. i was 2nd chair out of like 11 kids (there was a chinese kid named evan who always got first chair... but i didn't have a chance since he was asian. :) try not to let my pure coolness in the photo bowl you over. :)

5. i really like order. if the house is a mess (usually thanks to abby these days) i really can't relax. i'll stop and make sure most things are put in their place. fortunately, my wife also loves order, so we tidy up together. one thing i can't stand is when a couch has some sort of cover on it and people sitting on it squirm around and the cover turns into a lump of fabric half-shoved down the crack between the cusions... drives me insane. (wes, this is dedicated to you! hahaha! :) it took me a while to realize that people are more important than order... a lesson i still sometimes struggle with.

6. i was a very fat child. okay, so i apparently i didn't embarrass myself enough with the first fact. in 6th (or maybe 7th) grade i weighed more than i did as a senior in high school, and was like a foot (30 cm) shorter... in fact, now at 27 i only weigh maybe 15-20 lbs. (7-9 kg.) more than in 6th grade.... it was not a good year for me. but at least i had company. here is a pic of me and my sister as professional fat kids.

7. i write poetry. i have since like 6th grade. granted, i write much less frequently now with all the things going on in my life, but still do sometimes. one poem that i will not forget is the last one i wrote before i was arrested for dealing LSD and consequently gave my heart to Jesus. the final lines of it are:

i need something, i need someone
this tangled web of pain i've spun
i fear the worst has just begun
i beg of you on hand and knee
someone out there set me free.

i didn't realize it at the time, but i think it was actually a prayer and the Lord definitely answered it. He is a wonderfully faithful God! "God will remain true though every man be unfaithful." Rom. 3:4

i hope that was amusing for someone besides just me. so, now in keeping with the rules, i tag the following people:

rick warden
josh dykstra
wendy hoff
matthew hawkins
eulogio crespin
cara denney
stephanie markey

when innovation goes overboard

2009-01-10T13:27:00.003+02:00

okay, so its not real, but its still pretty funny....

Apple Introduces Revolutionary New Laptop With No Keyboard

the new car

2008-12-31T17:15:00.002+02:00

here are some shots of our new car. no, it doesn't exist in america. its called a dacia logan mcv. put out by renault (french company). its a 7-seater which comes in very handy for all kinds of church stuff.

celebrating the new year ukrainian style

2008-12-28T20:54:00.005+02:00

for our church's pre-new year's talent show, lena and i decided to sing a traditional ukrainian folk song called "Pidmanula, Pidvela" in full-on ukrainian garb. anyone living in ukraine will know this song. for those of you who don't, its basically a guy singing about how he was supposed to meet this girl on each day of the week and she doesn't show. the translation is something like this (attempting to keep some sense of the rhyme):

on monday you told me
flowers we will go to see
i showed up but you weren't found
you set me up, you let me down

on tuesday you told me
forty times you will kiss me
i showed up but you weren't found
you set me up, you let me down

on wednesday i was told
we'd walk among the marigold
i showed up but you weren't found
you set me up, you let me down

on thursday you told me
in sorrel walking we will be
i showed up but you weren't found
you set me up, you let me down

on friday you told me
we'd walk among the blueberries
i showed up but you weren't found
you set me up, you let me down

on saturday you told me
we'd work together, you and me
i showed up but you weren't found
you set me up, you let me down

on sunday you were saying
we'd be going to a wedding
i showed up but you weren't found
you set me up, you let me down

chorus (repeated between each verse):

you set me up
you let me down
you've turned my young mind upside down

next, the skit part we added. the guy (me) asks where she's been all week, and she tells him she's been at Bible studies and invites him to come to church on sunday. his reply is, "lena, i'd follow you to the end of the earth!" (that's where everyone cheers :) then the last refrain is our addition, where i sing:

on sunday you told me
at church service you'll meet me
i showed up and you were found!
you didn't set me up, didn't let me down!

hope you enjoy it!

is Allah the God of the Bible?

2008-11-21T21:26:00.004+02:00

a fascinating article on contextualizing the Gospel among muslims and the name of "Allah". any one who is interested in missions would probably find this fascinating (at least i did).

Who is Allah?

any thoughts?

a call to fast and pray for iran

2008-11-19T17:27:00.004+02:00

this weekend, nov. 21st-23st, christian leaders in iran are calling on believers in Christ worldwide to pray and fast. recently a law was submitted in iran that would make death the mandatory punishment for all men that convert from islam to Christianity, and mandatory life imprisonment for women. the bill has passed one vote with an overwhelming majority, but has to go through a few more proceedures to be put into effect, including a second vote. please pray for our brothers and sisters in iran to have strength of faith, courage to share Christ and, if it is God's will, for this new law to be stopped. you can read more about it here. thank you.

obama vs. osama?

2008-11-16T00:09:00.011+02:00

an interesting article from the la times on how obama's election may actually pull the rug out from under radical islamic aggression towards america (yes, pun intended ;). read the full article:

obama could change dynamics in the arab world

any thoughts? (only please spare me the "obama IS a muslim" junk, okay? ;)

for the love of gays

2008-11-14T01:31:00.003+02:00

perhaps you caught the latest public plea for the legalization of gay marriage in the united states. if not, you can read the full text/watch the video of MSNBC news anchor keith olbermann here. these are some highlights from his impassioned plea for gay marriage and mourning the passing of proposition 8 in california:

"If you voted for this Proposition [against gay marriage] ... Why does this matter to you? What is it to you? ... these people over here want the same chance at permanence and happiness that is your option. They don't want to deny you yours. They don't want to take anything away from you. They want what you want—a chance to be a little less alone in the world... What is this, to you? Nobody is asking you to embrace their expression of love. But don't you, as human beings, have to embrace... that love? The world is barren enough. It is stacked against love... tell me how you can believe both that statement and another statement, another one which reads only "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

his plea certainly asks a number of good questions. i really only began thinking about them because my friend josh posted this video on his blog with some comment. the following are excerpts from my comment on his post and on this video/transcript:

now, as for olbermann’s commentary ... i don’t live in america, so i’ve not been subjected to whatever prop 8 adds were run, picket lines, etc. i hope this allows me to look at it with less of the possible cultural bias that i might have living in the states (or ca particularly). i’d also like to think that as someone who used to BE bi-sexual (before i met Jesus), i could be less biased than maybe someone who’s been straight from day one.

my first question is, on what ideological basis is the whole idea of gay marriage being put forward?

olbermann goes off about how this issue is all about giving love a chance, etc. without questioning his definition of love (yet), how does not allowing people to marry hinder love? throughout much of history there have been situations where certain classes or races were disallowed to marry by the ruling class, or only with some heinous condition (anybody remember braveheart? :). in such cases, those people have always simply been content to be married in the eyes of God, ignoring the state because it was unjust. and i guarantee you that the slaves who were only married in God’s eyes never loved each other less than the white couples who were married legally. this is not a question of love. sorry, olbermann. (btw, that is NOT to compare the situation with slaves being disallowed marriage and gays not being granted “marriage”. the two are entirely different for reasons i’ll get to.) and we must be able to see that it is NOT even about legal rights (as olbermann highlights), since many states and politicians have offered “civil unions” which give the same legal rights without the title of marriage. what then is this ideological hurdle of “marriage” that many in the gay community are so intent on jumping? here is where we get back to the root: we cannot talk of marriage without talking of God. as olbermann himself brings “the creator” into his reasoning, i’ll assume its fair game in the discussion. but just for a moment, let take the atheist/darwinist approach:

is there a basis for homosexual marriage on a purely humanist/evolutionist level? certainly not. richard dawkins once said that the purpose of life, if there is a purpose, is to pass on one’s genes. the homosexual automatically by his choice rules himself out of the “survival of the fittest” by his behavior which, if observed by a darwinist in an animal, might simply be described as an anomaly, mutation, self-destroying defect, etc. that sounds really harsh, i know. fortunately i’m not an atheist and my worldview doesn’t constrain me to view homosexuals as any less “worthy” of survival than i am. but it should be clear that there is NO ground in any purely humanistic, sociological approach that would justify gay marriage. it is darwinistically irresponsible, socialogically self-destructive.

so, we HAVE to return to the idea of God. the declaration of independence states: “all men are created equal”. but we sometimes forget the context of the following words, “that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” ANY appeal to ANY human rights must be an appeal TO God and not in spite of Him or against Him. without God there are no “rights”, only brute force (aka, survival of the fittest). but it is then a false dichotomy to appeal to God for the rights of men and then ignore or slander God for the other moral standards He gives. (not to get into the whole “were the founding fathers deists?” discussion, but no matter what, we could at LEAST without even studying the question confine their concept of the divine to the monotheistic religions, as there is not One Creator in the eastern religions, etc. all of said monotheistic religions which mark homosexuality as sin.) so, if for any rights is it necessary to appeal to God, how then shall we define the application of those rights by turning away from Him?

on the idea of "if marriage is essentially religious, why should the gov’t have a say at all?" because marriage is a covenant which was established by God for ALL humanity. it is not that the government is to dictate to the people what marriage is, it is that God is to dictate to the government (and hence, the people) what marriage is. this is (as i think you all know) defined in the Genesis account (which again, all 3 major monotheistic religions accept) as “a man… shall cling to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” that simple phrase really defines the terms of marriage: monogamous (sorry mormons ;), heterosexual, adults (the word for wife is woman in hebrew, not girl), permanent (becoming one).

again, it is impossible and dishonest to try to extract rights from the Creator while ignoring His definition of marriage. here’s the thing: if we deem it acceptable to ignore God’s definition of marriage in legalizing “gay marriage”, why stop there? why not legalize polygamy? i mean, why limit their freedom? they’re consenting adults after all! why not legalize incestual marriage for consenting adults? why not polygamous, gay, incestual marriages? the problem is, if we deny God the right to draw the line, NO ONE can. God has given us rights, but they are derivative to the rights He has as Creator (one of which is to dictate to us what is good and right…. including the definition of a right marriage).

what is the driving force for “gay marriage” then, if not for legal privileges? are they happy to just “be married in God’s eyes?” no. then is the accusation true that there is an attempt to “re-define marriage”? i don’t think that’s the ultimate goal. any re-definition of marriage (not of unjust laws of men, but of the definition from God who established marriage) is an attempt to re-define God Himself. it is to make God in our own image. to make Him subservient to our decisions. to make ourselves the Lord. THAT is why this issue is such a big deal to people who are NOT gay and don't have close gay friends. THAT is why olbermann is practically in tears, because if he can persuade people to push through gay marriage, he will have (in his mind) re-defined God.

back to olbermann’s idea of “why do we have to stamp out love?” this is how i define love: love is seeking what is best for the other, not for myself. one of the most unloving things one can do is allow a person to continue unchallenged in sin. worse than that is justifying another person’s sin. proverbs says, “faithful are wounds from a friend, but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.” true love will not justify sin in a friend’s life. hence, olbermann is not actually talking about loving homosexuals and allowing them to love. he is talking about being a coward and “kissing deceitfully”, that is, doing what’s pleasant and nicest, not what’s best for a person (anyone with kids ought to know what i’m talking about.) allowing someone to think that their sin is right is NOT love, it is hate, no matter how nice it might look. therefore, what he is promoting in the long run is that we hate gays. personally, it is because i love those who are in homosexual life styles (and have empathy towards them) that i oppose “gay marriage”, a step which would only be a lie to them that their sin is acceptable to God. i’d much rather have them and keith olbermann think i’m “stamping out love” and actually love our gay friends, than lie to them in the name of nicety and actually be hating them. because i would want others to speak to me honestly about some sin that i held and thought was acceptable. that is what i would have "others do to me." THAT is what it is TO me. it is because of my love for the gay community that i oppose gay marriage.

“how can you talk so categorically about homosexual marriage being sin?” easy, because its a discussion about marriage in the first place, which is necessarily a discussion about God. its like if someone said, “let’s make easter the optional celebration of the resurrection of Christ or the founding of Playboy”. or “let’s make Ramadan the celebration of the people vs. larry flint trial.” again, one can’t talk about marriage without talking about something that is God’s ground. if you don’t like easter, don’t celebrate. if you don’t wanna be muslim, don’t fast on ramadan. congratulate heffner and flint all you want, but don’t call it easter. if you don’t want to be in an adult, monogamous, heterosexual, permanent union, the laws of america grant you that right, but don’t try to call it marriage.

as a final note, i will say (even NOT having seen the adds for prop 8) that i’m sure some of them were very condescending and bitter, etc. sadly, i've met too many christians with really angry attitudes towards homosexuals. THAT is not love, and hence not something Jesus would approve of. i am convinced that as Christians, we ought to love and pray for and practically serve and do good to homosexuals who are in our families, among our friends, at work, etc. JUST as zealously as we oppose gay marriage. again, we MUST remember that opposing gay marriage is actually being FOR people who are gay, seeking their good (not to oppress them), in turning them from sin to the Creator who made them and made marriage. it is for the love of gays.

can the TV get you pregnant?

2008-11-03T20:08:00.007+02:00

apparently, the answer is yes. recently a study was done of teens and their TV watching habits which stated:

"In the final analysis, teens who had watched the most sexual content on television during the three-year study period were twice as likely to have been involved in a pregnancy as teens with the lowest levels of exposure...TV-watching was strongly connected with teen pregnancy"

the article quoted the study's lead author, giving the only humorous part of the results: “We were surprised to find this link.” really? Jesus said:

"The lamp of the body is the eye. Therefore, when your eye is good, your whole body also is full of light. But when your eye is bad, your body also is full of darkness."

surprising... Jesus knew what He was talking about! we think that we can watch whatever we want and it doesn't affect us. even as believers, we justify it thinking we are "just enjoying our Christian freedom" and "its not like i'm gonna do that". not so. Jesus stated the tie between what we take in our eyes (and ears) and what comes out of our lives a long time ago and now modern sociologists have vindicated His truth with statistical studies (why is it that statistics often convince us better than God's Word?) so, next time you get ready to flip on "friends" or "sex in the city" (two shows specifically listed by the study), make sure you've got your chastity belt strapped on tight... or, better yet, consider what effect your eye will have on your body and use that remote.

happy reformation day!

2008-10-31T23:35:00.003+02:00

that's right, not only is it halloween (the most ridiculous holiday of the year), but its more importantly "reformation day". on oct. 31st in 1517 ad, martin luther nailed his 95 theses to the door of the church in wittenberg, thus marking the beginning of the protestant reformation. now there's a real holiday! here's thesis number 62 for you to chew on today:

"the true treasure of the Church
is the Most Holy Gospel of the glory and the grace of God."

making the switch

2008-10-31T14:50:00.001+02:00

yes, that's right, i'm finally bidding a fond farewell to xanga and switching to blogger. it just seems that the large majority of friends and bloggers i know are here, so it's just the logical thing to do. plus blogger gives you more format options. (the only down side is no audio uploads on blogger as far as i know. anybody?) i'll keep the xanga site going for a while with notices when i've posted here for those who are slow to change, but eventually it will be dropped. hope to see you on the new blog!

also, here's a link to a news story about finding some ancient hebrew writing on a pottery shard near jerusalem dated to 1000 bc, about the time king david was reigning. imagine that, history verifies God's Word. ;)