The post Filled Up (And Running Over) – Ephesians 3:14-21 appeared first on Shepherd Project Ministries.

The post Daniel Chart appeared first on Shepherd Project Ministries.

Read SPM’s review of 42 here!

Narrator:  “Baseball is a democratic thing.  It doesn’t know how big you are…it only knows how well you play.”

Narrator:  “There were 400 players on the Major League base ball roster, and all of them were white.  That number dropped to 399 and that one [black] man stood apart.”

Clyde:  “Have you lost your mind?  Think about the abuse you’re gonna take.”

Mr. Rickey:  “There’s no law against it.”

Clyde:  “No, no – but there’s a code.  Break a law, they’ll think you’re smart.  But break an unwritten law …”

“Money’s not black or white.  It’s green.”

“Take that hose out of the tank.  Go on!  We’ll get our 99 gallons of gas somewhere else.”

Re: Robinson:  “Got a quick temper.  Why he was court marshaled?”

Mr. Rickey:  “Wouldn’t move to the back of the bus.”

“You see?”

Mr. Rickey:  “I see he resents segregation.  If he were white, you’d call that spirit.”

Mr. Rickey:  “He’s a Methodist.  I’m a Methodist.  God’s a Methodist.  You can’t go wrong.”

Mr. Rickey:  “One question is, can you control your temper?  A black man in white baseball.  Can you imagine the anger?  The vitriol?

Jackie:  “You want a player that does have the guts to fight back?”

Mr. Rickey:  “No, no, I want a player who’s got the guts NOT to fight back.”

Mr. Rickey:  “Your enemy will be out in force and we cannot stoop to his low ground.”

Mr. Rickey:  “Show them by being a great baseball player.”

Mr. Rickey:  “Like our Savior, you gotta have the guts to turn the other cheek.  Can you do it?”

Jackie:  “You give me a uniform, you give me a number on my back, and I’ll give you the guts.”

“We’ve been tested, you and me.  We’ve done everything the right way.  No, the Robinson’s can’t stay at the hotels, they should at least stay somewhere that means something.”

“You know how at the plate you wanna see the ball come in slow?  You wanna be prepared for these questions.”

“Is this about politics?”

“It’s about getting paid.”

“Huh.  That’s practically superhuman.”

Hop:  “Super-human?  That’s still a n***** out there.”

Mr. Rickey to Hop:  “You will either manage him fairly or you will be unemployed.  Now I realize prejudism is a part of your cultural heritage.”

“What do you serve when a hero’s coming to dinner?”

Jackie:  “Oh no.  I’m just a ball player.”

“Huh!  You try telling that to all those little boys out there playing ball.  To them you’re a hero.”

“Jack’s got a thick skin.  He’ll be OK.”

“What about you?”

“I’ll get one in a hurry!”

Little African American Boy prays:  “Please God, please let Jackie Robinson show them how we can do it.”

“What are you doing?  You can dance with him later.  Work the play.”

“But he didn’t do anything?!”

“Oh mama, yes he did!  He discombobulated the man!”

As they were leaving town due to racial danger, Robinson tells the driver, “Well, why didn’t you say so? [why they were leaving]  I thought I was cut from the team!”

“I want you to know I’m pulling for you.  That’s all.  If a man’s got the goods, he deserves a fair chance.”

Jackie:  “Mr. Rickey, Why you doing this?”

Mr. Rickey:  “I’m in the baseball business.  You and the other negro players I hope to put together can win the World Series.  And that means money.  You believe that, don’t you?”

Jackie:  “I don’t think it matters what I believe, only what I do.”

“He might be superhuman after all.”

Jackie to his child:  “My dad left me when I was 6 months.  I don’t remember nothing.  Nothing good.  Nothing bad.  You will remember me.  I’m gonna be here with you till the day I die.”

Mr. Rickey:  “What do you think about the Bible?  It says love your neighbor about eight times.”

Jackie:  “God built me to last.”

“If he’s man enough to get my job, then I figure he deserves it.”

“If Robinson can help us win (and everything I have seen says he can), then he is going to play. …  And think about this:  He is only the FIRST.  Oh yeah.  More will be coming and they want to play.  You better start worrying about you jobs.”

Jackie:  “You been there for me more than anyone else.  ‘Cept Ray and Rickey, and that’s what scares me.  I don’t like needing someone to be there for me.”

“I need Durocher.  He’s the only one who can handle this much trouble.  In fact, he loves it.”

“It’s all right.  He can take it.  God built him to last.”

“These men have to live with themselves.”

“You don’t have a right to pull out from the backing of people that believe in you.”

Jackie:  “Do you know what it’s like?”

Mr. Rickey:  “No.  You do.  You’re the one living the sermon.  40 days.  In the Wilderness.”

Jackie:  “Not a g** d**** thing I can do about it.”

Mr. Rickey:  “Sure there is. Get out there and hit.  Score.  Win this game for us.”

Jackie:  “Thanks.”

“For what?  You’re on my team.  What the h*** else am I supposed to do?”

Jackie:  “I don’t care if they like me.  I didn’t come here to make friends.  I don’t even care if they respect me.  Got enough respect for myself.  But I don’t want them to break me.  They came close today.”

Mr. Rickey:  “Sympathy.  It’s a Greek word.  Means to suffer.  I suffer with you.  That manager [Philadelphia], he’s doing me a favor.  He’s creating sympathy on my team.  Philly means city of brotherly love.”

Mr. Rickey:  “What do you do with your team is your decision, but my team will be there with Jackie Robinson.”

Mr. Rickey:  “You think God likes baseball, Harold?”

Harold:  “What’s that mean?”

Mr. Rickey:  “It means someday when God asks why you did not take the field and you say it’s because of Jackie Robinson, it might not be a sufficient reply.”

“They’re just ignorant Jackie.  If they knew you, they would be ashamed [of themselves].”

“I just like to play ball.”

Mr. Rickey:  “Oh I understand.  I bet Jackie Robinson wants to just play ball too.  I bet he wishes he wasn’t leading the league in Hit-by-Pitch.  Thank you.”

PeeWee:  “I got family up there from Louisville.  I need ‘em to know.  I need ‘em to know who I am.”

PeeWee:  “Maybe tomorrow we’ll all wear 42. That way they can’t tell us apart.”

“You’re the bravest guy I ever saw.  You’re leading us.  You’re afraid to take a shower??  [Said puzzlingly.]  Come on.  Take a shower with me.  That came out a little wrong…  As a team.  Why don’t we shower together?…”

Jackie:  “Hey – stop.”

Mr. Rickey:  “I was passing a sand lot.  Little white boy – he was pretending he was you.  Little white boy pretending he was a black man.”

Jackie:  “Why did you do this, Mr. Rickey?”

Mr. Rickey:  “Had a victory over fascism in Germany.  It’s changing.  Had a victory over racism in America.”

Mr. Rickey tells a story of seeing someone in baseball “laid low, broken” because of racism and he “didn’t do enough to help.”  He explains to Jackie that “something was broken in the game” for him at that point.  But Jackie, “You, you let me love baseball again.  Thank you.”

About Jackie:  “The man flat out has guts.  He’s complicated everything but himself.”

“Working together is how you win.”

“The number ‘42’ is the only number retired by baseball hall of fame.”

The post 42 – Movie Quotes appeared first on Shepherd Project Ministries.

In our culture where the celebrity has usurped the hero in terms of our praise and adoration, in a time where we are so skeptical of those who might deserve our praise, always waiting for the catch, the fall, that we bypass the issue altogether by elevating those whose flaws are evident to all, those who have no real merit to speak of in the first place—it’s in these times that a movie like 42, which heralds the true character and strength of a few men who changed history, is so unspeakably refreshing.

It’s the story of Jackie Robinson, the first African American to play professional baseball, and Mr. Rickey—the man who broke all the rules and recruited him.  It’s a story about breaking down the walls of racism and segregation, but it’s also bigger than that.  It’s a story that challenges us to think about what it takes to make a lasting difference in the world.

Excellence

There may have been a lot of other people who might have wanted to see the walls of racism broken down, especially in professional sports.  So, why were these two men the ones to make that happen?  Excellence.  If Mr. Rickey had not had a position of authority, his dream to change things would not have had a lot of impact.  As a respected manager of a pro-league team, however, he was able to make the decision to incorporate an African American on the team, and to force others (like his coaches who didn’t like the decision) to comply and do so with grace.

Mr. Rickey was very, very careful about who he chose to be the first, the pioneer African American in pro-baseball.  He had to choose such a gifted, talented athlete that his ability as a baseball player would eclipse his color as a man.  He also had to choose someone whose character was strong enough to withstand the persecution that would come.  As he told Jackie, “I want a player who’s got the guts NOT to fight back.  Your enemy will be out in force and we cannot stoop to his low ground. Show them by being a great baseball player.  Like our Savior, you gotta have the guts to turn the other cheek.  Can you do it?”  Jackie was chosen because of his excellence – as a man and as a player.  There were plenty of men who were excellent in one area or the other, but Jackie was excellent in them all, and that was the difference.

Faith

One of the problems in the younger generations in the American church is that they don’t often see how their faith relates to their every day life.  How does being a Christian affect them as an accountant, or a scientist, or an artist, or a business man?  42 does a beautiful job of showing how faith can be (should be) an integral part of everything we do.  Mr. Rickey is constantly referring to the Bible and his faith as he navigates very difficult situations, and helps others to do so as well.

In one instance, he tells Jackie “You’re the one living the sermon.  40 days.  In the Wilderness.”  In other words, he’s encouraging Jackie to identify with Jesus and his 40 days in the wilderness where he was tempted and tested by Satan.  In another situation, when an opposing coach is refusing to play the game if an African American is on the field, Mr. Rickey asks him, “Do you think God likes baseball?”  Of course, the coach is confused by this, and Mr. Rickey explains, “It means someday when God asks why you did not take the field and you say it’s because of Jackie Robinson, it might not be a sufficient reply.”  Another time he challenges what someone believes about the Bible, reminding them that it does say to love your neighbor about 8 times (and then he leaves them to think about how they might need to apply that to their racist approach to baseball).  He has a very practical, every day approach to his faith and expects to live his faith in every area of his life, even his work, and he challenges others to do the same.

Purpose:  Built to Last

Jackie comments that he was “built to last.”  Of all the things in the movie, that made the biggest impact on me.  Jackie had a sense of purpose in how God made him.  God made him strong.  God made him an athlete.  God made him steady, with an inner strength.  Jackie had a strong sense that he was made for a purpose, “for such a time as this” (Esther 4:14).

In the book of Ezekiel, God tells Ezekiel that the people of Israel “are not willing to listen…because all the house of Israel have a hard forehead and a stubborn heart.”  But then God talks about Ezekiel.  “Behold I have made your face as hard as their faces, and your forehead as hard as their foreheads.  Like emery harder than flint have I made your forehead.”  God made Ezekiel just as hard and stubborn as the people of Israel, so that he could speak to them and get through to them.  Jackie was made like Ezekiel.  He was made with a physical ability which gave him the platform, but he was also made with the emotional and mental and spiritual fortitude to withstand the persecution and opposition he would face.  He was built in such a way that he could last through the fiery trials, and Jackie knew that.  He lived with that sense of purpose.

Vision

Jackie asked Mr. Rickey why.  Why did he decide to bring an African American on to his team, knowing the hornets nest he was going to kick up as a result.  Mr. Rickey made a comment or two about how it was going to change baseball and how the African American player was going to better the game and win him championships and therefore money… and that was all true, but it wasn’t the real truth.  It wasn’t the real reason Mr. Rickey was so passionate about breaking down segregation in baseball.

Mr. Rickey tells a story of seeing someone in baseball “laid low, broken” because of racism and he “didn’t do enough to help.”  He explains to Jackie that “something was broken in the game” for him at that point.  But he tells Jackie, “You, you let me love baseball again.  Thank you.”  Mr. Rickey was always bothered by racism, whether in Germany, or in America – racism tainted what he loved.  He had a vision of change and victory over racism… and baseball was one place he could do something about it.  The thing is, as he began to do what he could do, by effecting change in baseball, it set a domino into motion that began to affect a lot of other dominoes.  Things he couldn’t have done began to happen, and change began–all because of baseball.

Faithfulness

I’ve already mentioned that excellence got them there.  It was because of excellence that Mr. Rickey was in his position, and it was because of excellence that he chose Jackie to be the first African American baseball player.  Excellence didn’t just get them there, however, it kept them there.  I’m calling this faithfulness.  They had to do the work, faithfully, consistently.  The proof was in the pudding, so to speak.  Their way to fight against the hatred, the animosity and racism was to win.  It’s hard to argue with results.  If Jackie hadn’t been as good as his other teammates, then it wouldn’t have mattered.   Jackie had to be better.  He had to be such a winner that other teams would want him on their team.  This meant not quitting when the opposition got heated.  This meant not taking the easy route.  This meant not fighting back.  This meant being having an attitude of faithfulness—faithful to the game, to his character, to his God, to the other African Americans he represented, to Mr. Rickey who had faith in him, to his teammates who were thrown into this with him…  He had to be steady…and he had to be amazing—and that is where the real battle was one.

Attitude and Action

A dear friend of mine (and an AMAZING horse trainer), Henry Elam, says, “Don’t ask, ‘Why me?’  Ask, ‘What can I do to make it better?’”  That’s how Jackie lived.  He didn’t feel sorry for himself, he simply lived with that attitude of, “What can I do to make it better?”  He applied that to parenting (promising his new baby that he would never leave, the way his father left him), to baseball, to relationships and teammates, to racism…  He felt like in the end all that would really matter was what he did.  So he worked hard to do things that mattered, to do the things that would make things better.

There are so many other beautiful moments in this film.  Moments of character, of love, of power…moments where men stood up for something and made a difference.  (Who can forget PeeWee standing with his arm around Jackie in that game, saying maybe someday they’ll all wear 42 so no one can tell them apart?)  I won’t try to dissect them all, but I hope I’ve gotten the conversation started, at least.  I sat in that movie thinking about the men who made such a profound difference in the world through something as benign as baseball.  It wasn’t a political move, it wasn’t a religious platform—it was just men doing what they loved, with character…and doing it to the glory of God, and it was world-changing.

Questions for Discussion

• Are there areas in your life in which you would say you truly are excellent?  What areas in your life would you like to become excellent?  What can you do to become excellent?
• Is faith part of every area of your life?  Why or why not?  If not, how can faith become a part of every area of your life?
• Jackie felt like God built him to last.  How has God made you?  What purpose do you think God may have had in mind when he made you?
• As you look at your life and at the world around you, what are the things you see that are “broken”?  What things would you like to see change?
• What can you do to make it (or them) better?
• How do you think that you can impact the world by doing the things that you love, and doing them well?
• What character qualities stood out to you in the movie, 42?

Click here to read a collection of quotes from 42.

Review by Stacey Tuttle

The post 42 – Movie Review appeared first on Shepherd Project Ministries.

Joel Richardson’s theory that the coming Antichrist will be an Islamic ruler has been stirring up all kinds of interest in the evangelical Christian world recently.  I’ve had several conversations, emails and comments on our website about Richardson’s books, especially in light of an article I published recently arguing that the 4^th kingdom of Dan. 2, the 4^th beast of Dan. 7 and the goat of Dan. 8 are all referring to Alexander the Great’s Greek empire.

If it is the case that these three prophetic descriptions are all focused on the Greek empire – and I believe that the biblical evidence for this is quite substantial – then it would be a significant mistake to infer from Daniel specific statements about the nature and circumstances of the coming Antichrist.  However, Richardson’s arguments depend in part on reading Daniel in precisely the way I am saying they cannot be read.

If the portions of Daniel which are being taken as predictions of the coming Antichrist were actually describing the Greek empire (or even the Roman), then these prophecies were giving specific details about events that were fulfilled before Jesus’ birth rather than about events that are still to come in our future.   This does not necessarily mean that Daniel has nothing at all to say about “end times.”  I am not arguing for what is called, in technical terms, a strictly preterist interpretation.  On the contrary, I believe that many prophesied events from the Bible – and from the book of Revelation particularly – have not yet come to pass.  But I do not think that the book of Daniel and the book of Revelation are necessarily speaking of precisely the same events, in spite of the fact that the book of Revelation uses a fair amount of language that is quite similar to that of Daniel.

It is my belief that when the book of Revelation uses similar language to that found in Daniel it is not referring to precisely the same prophesied events but rather to prophetic patterns that recur at significant points in history; that is, when Daniel foresaw coming events in which the enemies of God’s people did certain kinds of things, he was foreseeing real events that happened over the next few centuries but which were completed (or mostly completed) by the time of the coming of Christ.   However, several of these events followed a certain pattern that will be repeated again before Christ’s return.  Therefore, knowing that these patterns would be repeated, the book of Revelation borrows language from Daniel not because it is describing precisely the same events but because it is saying that the same sorts of things which preceded the first coming of Christ will also happen before his second coming.

Richardson, on the other hand, along with many other Christian teachers like him, believes that much or even most of Daniel is directly describing historical events that are still in the future even from our perspective; that is, most of Daniel has not yet been fulfilled and will only be fulfilled in the “end times” before Jesus returns.  In Richardson’s opinion, Daniel and Revelation use similar language because they are describing precisely the same events…events which have not yet happened.  Operating from this perspective, Richard interprets much of the book of Daniel in light of the book of Revelation.  For instance, he interjects the language of “Antichrist” back into Daniel, though the book of Daniel never uses that term or any other term with a similar meaning.  While it is possible that Daniel was describing the Antichrist, it is also just as possible that he was describing an individual who arrived on the scene before Jesus and acted in certain ways that the coming Antichrist will later emulate.  It is my considered opinion that what Daniel predicted about this individual was clearly fulfilled by Antiochus Epiphanes.  As I have detailed in my recent article on the kingdom prophecies in Daniel, the internal and external evidence most strongly supports the interpretation which identifies Daniel’s 4^th kingdom as Alexander the Great’s empire…an empire which fragmented into four factions, multiple kings and even a North and South kingdom (Dan 11).  One of these kings that emerged from the divided kingdom was Antiochus Ephiphanes, whom Daniel describes as the blasphemous “little horn” (Dan 7 & 8).  Again, however, it is quite likely that the coming Antichrist will act in similar ways, which is precisely why Revelation borrows much of Daniel’s language when speaking of the Antichrist.

To read Daniel’s predictions as being almost entirely focused on the still-to-come Antichrist rather than on Antiochus Epiphanes does two things.:

First, it removes our ability to affirm the clearly miraculous nature of Daniel’s prophecy.  The details Daniel gives which were fulfilled by Antiochus Epiphanes are numerous and precise.  The fact that Daniel wrote these details several centuries before the events he described is very strong evidence of the divine inspiration of the book of Daniel.  On the other hand, if these details are understood to be pointing only to the coming Antichrist, then we lose our ability to offer such evidence because, in point of fact, very few of Daniel’s most specific prophecies have actually been fulfilled yet.

Second, reading Daniel in this way fosters what I believe to be an improper –and ultimately dangerous – hermeneutic.  The arguments I have advanced in my previous article are based first on careful reading of Daniel in its entirety along with consideration of its cultural context and only secondarily checked against the historical events that interpretation seemed to be pointing to.  The arguments Richardson advances appear to be based on reading a series of theological assumptions  and modern events back into the biblical text.  While I respect much of Richardson’s work, I do believe in this respect he must be challenged.

To be fair, Richardson is no theological maverick for approaching Daniel in this particular way.  The belief that much or even most of Daniel’s prophetic material has not yet been fulfilled has been a relatively popular interpretation in certain Christian circles for at least a hundred years now.  And let me be perfectly clear:  this belief is not without biblical foundation.  I am not suggesting at all that this point of view cannot be show to have some support from Scripture.  However, I do not think that any interpretation which finds in Daniel detailed prophecies about the coming Antichrist – while ignoring its literal fulfillment in the centuries between its composition and the first coming of Christ – is able to stand up under careful scrutiny.  For those kinds of details we must turn to the book of Revelation.

I don’t have any serious objection to much of what Richardson says in his books.   I object to his use of Daniel to support his point about an Islamic Antichrist, but I am not inherently opposed to or even doubtful about his theories in general.  And, to be fair, there is much in his books that I find quite laudable.  Of particular note, the section called “Formulating Our Method of Interpretation” in his book, Mideast Beast: The Scriptural Case for an Islamic Antichrist, is a very reasonable and balanced approach to prophetic interpretation.  He is to be commended for it.

However, as numerous conservative scholars have demonstrated and as my own recent article Rome or Greece: Interpreting the Fourth Kingdom in Daniel 2 indicates, there is considerable objective biblical evidence which cannot be reconciled with Richardson’s interpretations of the material in Daniel.   While this by no means proves that Richardson’s theory about an Islamic Antichrist is false, it does seriously undermine a significant plank in his argument, leaving the burden of proof to rest all the more heavily on the other parts of his argument.

The post Joel Richardson’s Use of Daniel in Arguing for an Islamic Antichrist appeared first on Shepherd Project Ministries.

I can’t seem to find the word “Lucifer” in my Bible anywhere. Isn’t that Satan’s real name? If it’s not, where did we get that name for him?

In common discussion, the terms Devil, Satan and Lucifer all refer to the same being. If you want to be technically correct, though, you should probably stop using the word “Lucifer” at all because its not a biblical term.

Let me explain:

In the King James Version of the Bible, Isaiah 14:12 says: How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

The use of the word “Lucifer” here is a strange, because the original Hebrew term it translates is helel which means “morning star” in English. But for some reason the translators of the KJV chose not to use the English translation but to insert a Latin term instead; i.e. lucifer is the Latin word for “morning star.” It makes sense that the Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible would use this term to translate the original Hebrew helel, as both words refer to the same thing, but the KJV translators’ decision is far less easy to understand. My best guess is that they either didn’t know for sure what the Hebrew helel meant (this is the only time it occurs in the Hebrew Bible) or that they didn’t feel they had a good English equivalent.

To be fair, the KJV was not the first English translation to use a Latin term here. John Wycliff’s translation, which dates back to the 1380′s, did the same thing, so the KJV translators had a precedent for their translation decision. However, if you look at any modern English version besides the New King James (which follows its parent translation here), you will not find the Latin word “lucifer” but rather the English phrase “morning star” or, in some cases “daystar”. And it should be noted that this is not only a modern preference. Some of the oldest English translations of the Bible use “morning star” instead of “lucifer”. Even the 1537 Matthew’s Bible (which predates the KJV by about 80 years), while still employing the term lucifer, explicitly indicates that this is not a proper translation but rather is a Latin substitution. (By the way, if you want to see a very cool online version of a very old English translation, check out the 1537 Matthew’s Bible)

So, while there are some KJV-Only believers out there who claim that modern English versions are watering down the Bible and cite the substitution of “morning star” for “Lucifer” as evidence, the fact is that this “morning star” translation goes back even further than the KJV in some cases.

In summary, the word lucifer is simply a Latin term meaning “morning star.” Its use to translate the Hebrew helel in Isa 14:12 and the interpretation of that passage as a reference to the fallen angel we know as Satan has created a popular conception that Lucifer is the Devil’s proper name. But it’s not. The Bible does not tell us anything about the Devil’s “real” name before he rebelled against God.

The post How The Devil Got His Name appeared first on Shepherd Project Ministries.

I entered pastoral ministry when I was 22.  This was supposed to be a temporary thing, the briefest of sojourns… but my being allowed to think so was an act of grace.

As a child, I didn’t dream of growing up to be a pastor.  In fact, I can’t remember ever giving it a single thought, but I’m certain that, if I had, it would not have been high on the list.  Rather, like many pastors today, my journey into vocational ministry was a little bit like Barna’s frog in the kettle:  it caught me slowly and by surprise.

This was probably a good thing; if it hadn’t happened so gradually, I would have probably run screaming in the other direction.  Ignorance may or may not be bliss, but it is nearly always a mercy.

I’m not saying I had no idea what was happening.  There were plenty of times along the way when I found myself asking suspiciously “what’s happening here?” but in the end, the realization that I was a pastor still came as a surprise.  I can remember waking up once when I was about 30 and thinking to myself, “Am I really a pastor?  How did that happen?”

The Great Adventure

Just in case you’re wondering, my first plan for my life involved flying jet fighters, specifically the F-15.  I grew up in an Air Force family and was obsessed with the F-15.  How could I not be?  It was very cool: loud, fast and capable of blowing all kinds of stuff into tiny bits.  Who wouldn’t want to be in charge of something like that?  Unfortunately, I failed a vision test when I was in 4^th grade and that was the end of that plan.  Nowadays you can get your eyes re-shaped by lasers and still qualify to be a fighter pilot, but back then, plans of flying the F-15 could be pretty conclusively derailed by a school nurse with a messed-up alphabet chart.

My second plan was physics.  I don’t think it was a conscious thing, but I guess I figured, “Hey, if I have to wear glasses, I might as well go full-nerd.”  In this plan, I was going to work at a particle accelerator, taking tiny bits of matter and smashing them into even smaller bits.  Now that I think about it, blowing things into tiny bits was a recurring theme of my early vocational planning.

I decided to modify this plan when I realized that I’m not really all that great at math and apparently this is a non-negotiable for physicists.  Don’t get me wrong:  I’m pretty good at the whole theory of math, but the actual working out of real problems in order to get correct solutions…not really my thing.

In retrospect, I think what attracted me to physics in the first place might have been the theology of it:  the workings of such an intricate, mind-bogglingly huge universe understood through the lens of simple, elegant principles that have God’s fingerprints all over them.  In any event, a year of high-school calculus was enough to make me seriously reconsider the advisability of a career in quantum physics.

My third plan was rock star.  Well, Christian rock star anyway, although I wouldn’t have called it that if you had asked me back then.  See, when I was 18, I went on this retreat and had a very profound experience which led me to understand that God wanted me to be a Christian musician.  That’s probably an overly careful way to say it; the fact is, I think God told me precisely that.  You need to understand something right now, before we go any farther together in this book:  I don’t use that kind of language lightly.  For me to say “God told me,” something pretty dramatic has to happen.  In the course of my journey with God, there have been only a tiny handful of experiences so unmistakable that I have felt comfortable using that kind of language to describe them.  But, this was one of those few experiences.

What God had to say to me that day was a little surprising since I wasn’t much of a musician at all back then, Christian or otherwise.  However, a startling (one might even say miraculous) development of ability followed immediately after the experience, so I was pretty sure I now had a path and a plan.

And as I walked the path I understood God had led me to, He used me.  I was singing in churches and at youth events and hearing from people who were genuinely touched by the music I was writing and performing, so I was confident that I’d finally understood God’s will for my life.

To be sure, sometimes I had to do things that weren’t really part of the plan:  sometimes instead of just playing music at a youth retreat I had to serve as a counselor and then someone talked me into actually putting together a leadership team and running a whole youth retreat but on the whole the music thing seemed to be working out pretty well. Fortunately, I had met this amazing girl in college, Coletta Wetmore, who was really great at that planning and leadership development kind of thing, so working together we were able to take care of that non-music stuff with a minimum of disruption to my focus on my real calling:  music.  So, as my college education was nearing its end, Coletta and I got engaged and began making plans to take a music team on staff with Campus Crusade for Christ.

The only problem was that we had to raise our own support, which takes time and, worse still, would delay us from doing the ministry we really wanted to be doing.  But then God – who I have since learned can be pretty sneaky about this stuff – provided a great temporary solution:  the man who discipled me in college told me that he had a friend who was leaving a youth pastor position at a church in Cincinnati.  Would I be interested?

At first I really wasn’t interested, but after some consideration, Coletta and I saw the advantages:  we could do the job for a year, doing actual ministry with students and living on the salary from the church while we raised support in our free time!  But after a year of full-time youth ministry, the plan changed:  our hearts had been seized with a passion for evangelizing, teaching and discipling students in the context of a local church.

So, my fourth plan was youth pastor.  We stayed at that church for three years (more on that later) and then, because we felt God’s leading to do so, applied to Denver Seminary to study for an M.Div. with an emphasis in Youth & Family Ministry.  We weren’t entirely sure how we were going to pay for my education or a place to live or food to eat, but we were confident that we were obeying God’s will, so we figured He would provide.  When I summarize the process so succinctly it sure sounds spiritual, doesn’t it?  We just sensed God moving and jumped on board!  What could be simpler…or more faithful?

The reality was much messier, of course.  And scarier.  Much, much scarier.

It’s one thing to sense God moving into your present circumstances…it’s another thing entirely to sense God calling you out of your circumstances into unfamiliar, far countries.

I think our families thought we were young and foolish.  I know my wife’s family must have thought their daughter had hitched herself to a crazy boy. But to their credit and by the grace of God, both of our families were tremendously supportive…something for which we will always be grateful.  I don’t know that we would have ever made the move if they had tried to talk us out of it.  While we might have appeared on the outside to be bold adventurers responding to God’s call, on the inside we were terrified.

I would like to say that we had no doubts He would provide for us, but that wouldn’t be true.  I can remember saying things like “Where God guides, He provides”, but it took everything I had not to follow that proverb with the words “…at least I hope He will.”

We had no idea how God would provide.  The only thing we had was a clear sense that He was moving and a conviction that we needed to get on board.

But of course it’s true:  where God guides, He provides.

As soon as we arrived in Colorado, Coletta was offered a contract as a middle school teacher.  I was hired as the youth pastor of a small church plant Castle Rock, Colorado, just south of Denver.  We were able to buy a small house, put some food in the kitchen pantry and set up shop in our new home.

Small churches can’t usually afford one-trick-pony pastors, though, so they looked at my resume, noticed some references to music and asked if I would also serve as the church’s worship pastor.  I said sure, with a couple of stipulations:  first, youth ministry was God’s plan for my life so that had to take priority and second, I was more of a singer/songwriter than a worship leader, so while I would be happy to “fill in” as the worship pastor we would need to find someone who was really “called” to that ministry as soon as possible.

Let’s fast forward this a bit, shall we?  That was almost 20 years ago and I’m still leading worship at that church.  In the past two decades I’ve stepped out of worship ministry then stepped back in.  I quit being a youth pastor at one point, then seven years later became an interim youth pastor again for a while.  While I’m currently not a youth pastor, I continue to speak at youth conferences and train both students and youth pastors.

Far stranger, in the past twenty years, I’ve not only finished my M.Div., but also earned a Ph.D. in Biblical Studies from Bristol University in England and come back to serve  as a professor at Denver Seminary, lecturing in both New Testament and Systematic Theology.

I’ve become part of a ministry team called the Shepherd Project that works nationally and internationally to equip Christians to maximize their impact on culture for the sake of Christ and his Kingdom.  In that capacity I’ve gotten to speak and teach all over the world.

It’s been a pretty busy 20 years.

Along the way, I’ve learned a thing or two about recognizing God’s will for my life.  Actually, let me rephrase that.  See, I’ve pretty much given up trying to figure out what God wants me to do with my life and started asking what I’ve come to realize is a much better question: what does God want me to do with my life right now?

And that simple, yet profound, shift in my thinking is at the heart of this book.

You see, the best parts of my life have not come from my plans, but from seeing that God was moving and rushing to get on board.

I’m not saying that there’s anything wrong with making plans.  On the contrary, I think that John Ortberg is right:  if you want to walk on water, you’ve got to get out of the boat.[1] I also fully echo Kevin DeYoung’s challenge to “just do something.”[2]  God is all-powerful and doesn’t need any help from us, but He chooses to invite our cooperation.  Given that divine choice, the fact is that human beings are much easier to redirect if they’re already moving.

When I say that the best parts of my life didn’t come from my plans, I don’t mean to suggest that my plans were a waste of time.  They weren’t, because God has used every one of them.

See, I can talk to people in the military because I know where they’re coming from and because I share some of their passions.  My love of physics has become a platform for speaking and writing in the field of Apologetics.  My love of music lets me blend the head and the heart and opens doors for ministry in places where a theologian can’t easily go.  My work with students and youth pastors keeps me in-tune with the ever-changing modern world. My interest in art and culture, combined with my education, allows me to bridge the gap between the ivory tower of academia and the muddy trenches of the modern world.  All of this is good stuff and God has used it.

The problem wasn’t the plans.  Where I went wrong was in assuming that, when God moves in our lives, it’s like a train that leaves Station A, travels straight along a rigid set of tracks and arrives predictably at Station B.  I don’t think that anymore.

What I think now is that God often nudges us to pack a suitcase and head down to the train station. There, we climb onto the platform expecting to catch one train when suddenly, across the station, we see Jesus beckoning from the door of a railcar that’s just about to depart. So, we race through the station and throw ourselves aboard just in time.  Out of breath, we climb to our feet, dust ourselves off and ask, “So where’s this train going?”

Sometimes, He answers.  Sometimes He tells us, in one way or another, where the train is headed.  But you know what I’ve found?  Knowing were the train is going is rarely all that helpful.  When I have been given a glimpse of where we were headed, the only thing I’ve ever been able to say in response is, “Oh…ok.”

That’s my new motto in life, by the way, the only one that actually says anything meaningful about what I have come to believe about a life lived pursuing God.  Forget carpe diem or some other grand-sounding life mandate.  My motto in life is just that:  “Oh…ok.”  It’s not profound, but it is honest. And in its own way, it’s profoundly comforting.

Sometimes – most times, actually – when we ask where the train is headed, He doesn’t answer.  He just smiles and we eventually realize that’s the most important answer.

Where the train is going doesn’t really matter all that much.  What matters is that He’s going there…and that we are going there with Him.  Besides, the bag was already packed and we’ve got what we need for the journey…we’re just headed somewhere we hadn’t initially anticipated.

You know what they call that?  An adventure.

Purchase Your Pre-Sale Copy Now!

The post How (Not) To Miss God Moving (excerpt from chapter 1) appeared first on Shepherd Project Ministries.

The post The Bible and Homosexuality, Part 2: Sodom & Gomorrah (Genesis 19:1-11) appeared first on Shepherd Project Ministries.

One of the most heated cultural debates of our time is that of homosexuality.  While the scales seem to have tipped in favor of seeing homosexuality as a morally neutral behavior,[1] at least in the culture at large, there remains a significant minority who think otherwise.

It will probably come as no surprise that these dissenters most often come from the ranks of those who consider themselves religious in a traditional sense. This is by no means limited to those of the Christian faith.  On the contrary, orthodox Islamic teaching against homosexual behavior is, arguably, more pointed than anything to be found in the Jewish or Christian scriptures (cf. Qur’an 4:15-16, 7:80-82, 26:165-175, 27:55-58, 29:28-29).

In the West, however, it is the Christian view of homosexuality that has received the most attention.  This is understandable, given Western culture’s indebtedness in the Judeo-Christian worldview[2] which has always viewed homosexuality as morally negative; that is, as sinful.  This historical entanglement of Western culture and Christian theology is a matter of some difficulty for those who are presently advancing the morally-neutral view of homosexuality.  Changing the cultural perception of homosexuality clearly goes against the stream of our history.  Therefore, the attempt to modify our culture’s view of homosexuality must do one of two things:  disassociate Western culture from Christian faith or redefine the Christian view of homosexuality.

Both approaches are currently being employed by those who hope to see homosexuality accepted as a morally neutral, or even morally positive, behavior.  However, it is the latter one, the attempt to redefine the Christian view of homosexuality – which most concerns us here.  One of the techniques – and indisputably a clever one from a purely rhetorical perspective – has been to challenge the traditional interpretation of biblical passages which seem to speak against homosexual behavior.   If it can be shown that these passages do not actually condemn homosexual behavior, as has been thought, then the moral foundation of objecting to such behavior is lost and such objections become nothing more than personal preference.

The question before us, then, is whether or not the Bible actually does evaluate homosexual behavior as being morally negative.  A secondary question is whether or not any such negative evaluation – if it exists at all – is to be understood as timeless or if it was limited to a particular cultural context (much like the Jewish dietary prescriptions have been understood to be non-binding for non-Jewish Christians).

To do this, we will look at each of the relevant biblical passages, employing standard principles of responsible interpretation.

Genesis 1: 26-28 & 2:18-24

²⁶ Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”  ²⁷ So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.  ²⁸ God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” (Genesis 1:26-28)  

¹⁸ The LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”  ¹⁹ Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.  ²⁰ So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field. But for Adam  no suitable helper was found.  ²¹ So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and closed up the place with flesh.  ²² Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.  ²³ The man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman’, for she was taken out of man.”  ²⁴ For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. (Genesis 2:18-24)

While these two passages do not directly speak to homosexual behavior, they do provide important context for the larger discussion.  Human sexuality cannot be understood as an isolated construct.  Rather, it must be understood within the larger framework of human nature.  Within the first two chapters of Genesis, critical teaching about the purpose of human existence is given:

1. Humanity is a single whole made up of two constituent parts, male and female.
2. Human beings were created to be/act as the Image of God, representing God and His purposes in all creation.
3. In order to accomplish #2, humans were commanded to procreate and fill the earth with their offspring, a task which necessarily requires heterosexual behavior and which is obstructed by homosexual behavior.

Again, these two passages do not directly address the issue of homosexual behavior, but they do provide important context to the discussion by teaching that human procreation is closely linked to the purpose of human existence.

However, while it seems clear that procreation is a central function of sexuality according to these passages, it may be an overstatement of the evidence to say that procreation is the only purpose of human sexuality.  Gen 2:24 says “for this reason a man…shall be united to his wife and they will become one flesh.” It is likely that the statement “they will become one flesh” here is related to sexual union but it should be noted that both marriage itself (“man…united to his wife”) and the sexual union that occurs in the context of marriage (“become one flesh”) are both intended to accomplish some larger goal; that is, both marriage and sex are given “for this reason”.  The question then becomes, what is “this reason”? In the context, it seems clear that the reason is that “it is not good for the man to be alone” (Gen 2:18).  In other words, both marriage and sex are intended to foster companionship.  Therefore, producing children is not the only purpose of sexual activity.

Recognizing that procreation is not the only purpose of sexuality, some might attempt to argue that the teaching here in Gen 1 & 2 is not necessarily restricting sexual activity to heterosexual partners.  However, such an argument would have to ignore the larger context of this section. In context here it is clear that both marriage and sexuality serve to unite man to woman, apparently because, while both are made as God’s Image, their representation of Him is of differing sorts (e.g. strength and nurturing) and it is only when male and female are together that they are able to accomplish this purpose.  Add in the fact that procreation is one of the central purposes of sexual activity and it becomes clear that homosexuality is fundamentally contrary to the goals of human sexuality as described here in Genesis 1 & 2.

Even apart from these contextual observations, it must be acknowledged that these first mentions of human sexuality in the Bible are exclusively concerned with heterosexuality.  As we shall see in our consideration of subsequent passages, the biblical teaching on human sexuality appears to proceed from this basic assumption of heterosexuality as the intended norm.

Read The Bible and Homosexuality, Part 2:  Sodom & Gomorrah (Genesis 19:1-11)

The post The Bible and Homosexuality, Part 1: The Purpose of Human Sexuality in Genesis 1 & 2 appeared first on Shepherd Project Ministries.

“Earth is at peace.  There is no hunger. There is no violence.  The environment is healed.  Honesty, courtesy and kindness are practiced by all.  Our world has never been more perfect—only, it is no longer our world.  We’ve been invaded.”

“Barely a bone not broken or organ not punctured.  I cannot tell you why this one is not dead.  This one wants to live.”

“We experience it and protect it.  Think of the common good.”

“Call it whatever you want.  This is murder.”

“They were brutal, killing each other, killing their planet.”

“I have to do my duty.  I have to do what’s right.”

“We do not lie.  We trust each other.”

“You guys take a lot of fun out of everything.”

“This wanderer’s living up to her name.”

“We find her, we find the resistance.”

“Jeb, it’s got to die.  We took a vote.”

Jeb:  “This isn’t a democracy.  It’s a dictatorship.  It’s a benign dictatorship, but a dictatorship nonetheless.”

“It’s not human.”

“So we stop acting human?”

“They all said Jeb was crazy.”

“Love like that—it might get somebody to do something they wouldn’t ordinarily do.”

“He’s not crazy—he’s genius.”

“Wanda?”

“Yeah.  Wanda.”

“Rather die than be captured.”

“Seeker – this is not who we are.  You have killed a soul.”

“She couldn’t have kept her promise if you didn’t help her keep it.”

“There’s a war raging in you, Seeker.”

“You tried to kill me, and now you’re protecting me?”

“Strange world, isn’t it.”

“The strangest.”

“Her name is Wanda.  Not ‘it’.”

“What’s it like for you and her living in there together?”

“It’s crowded.”

“You’re angry when I kiss a man you do love, and angry when I kiss a man you don’t.  It’s very confusing.”

“All you’re going to do is keep murdering more of both of us.”

“Not death.  Exile.”

“You want us to forgive and let them go?  Just like that?”

“Yes.”

“You’ve always tried to extract it by force.  The secret is you coax it out.”

“It can only be captured by kindness.”

“I’ve been screaming inside for years.  No one has heard me.”

“Have a safe trip, and a long one.”

“Always send a soul to the most distant planet.”

“She’s here now.”

“Not the way she needs to be.”

“You are the purest soul I’ve ever met.  The universe will be a darker place without you.”

“Be happy Mel.  Be happy that after living so many lives, I finally found something to die for.”

“Our world isn’t like the other worlds they come to.”

“I guess you never know where you’re gonna find your home.”

The post The Host – Quotes appeared first on Shepherd Project Ministries.