Theme: Unfaithful Christians can always restore their fellowship with God by calling to Him in repentance and total surrender.

I. Detested (Judges 13)
II. Disobeyed (Judges 14)
III. Disrespected (Judges 15)
IV. Deliberate (Judges 16)

But I understand the concern.  Every descriptive passage of what the Christian life actually looks like seems to be full of things we “ought to” do.  And Paul, the all-time grace champion, gives us more of them than anyone.  What is more telling, he speaks of such things in his own life.  For example, in Romans 1:14 he says “I am under obligation both to the Greeks and to barbarians, both to the wise and the foolish.”

And he is not alone.  Listen to Jeremiah in 20:9 of his book.  “But if I say ‘I will not remember Him or speak any more in His name.’ then in my heart it becomes like a burning fire shut up in my bones, and I am weary of holding it in, and I cannot endure it.”  Even Jesus, as He went to Jerusalem and the cross, relentlessly moved ahead of His disciples, driven to go.  These verses make one thing clear, even in a grace-centered life, duty and obligation exist.

So how do we resolve the grace/duty dilemma?  How can we live a grace-based life and still recognize that there are some things we “ought to” do?  For me it starts by grasping that grace and duty are not either/or choices.  You can have both in your life.  In fact, if you look closely at the passages above you can see the core truth, duty flows from grace.  Had they not received grace from God, neither Paul nor Jeremiah would feel the duty they do. 

Pastors have taught the duties that flow from grace for generations.  And they always struggle with a core reality in that teaching; you simply cannot impose on, or impart to, another that sense of grace/duty.  All you can do is teach it and, hopefully, illustrate it in your life. 

But the temptation is always there for them to turn the duties into law, a deadly but understandable mistake.  I have never met a pastor who did not earnestly desire the fullness of the Christian grace walk for his people.  I’ve seen their hearts ache and break when they feel they are failing in this effort.  Is it any wonder that they sometimes resort to a technique we’ve all learned from our mothers…a little “ought to” guilt goes a long way.  When I pray for our pastor, or any pastor, this perpetual, near- universal heartache they share is always the center of my prayers.

Grace, properly taught, will describe our duties in Christ.  Grace, properly witnessed, will inspire our hearts to want these duties.  Grace, properly received, will empower these duties.  When Peggy and I set our hearts to learn, witness and receive this grace, amazingly, we ended up on the mission field.  We didn’t start by saying “We ought to go into missions.  Let’s see how we can get there.”  But as we went along the “ought to” of missions in our hearts sent us overseas.

Where will your grace walk take you?  It may not be to Sri Lanka, as ours did, but isn’t it exciting to know that grace-inspired duty will lead you to someplace you never dreamed you’d end up?  It may take you no further than to church every Sunday.  But don’t be afraid to take the grace/duty walk.

The writer was Nicholas D. Kristoff and his piece was called “Learning from the sins of Sodom.”  You can read it on the New York Times website.  Just do a search from the main page.  Sure, the article was not 100% favorable to us, he took a few shots at us and he also got some facts wrong.  But in general his writing was to secular liberals explaining how evangelicals have moved into the forefront of the global battle against ills of the world such as famine and disaster relief, AIDS, human trafficking, vaccinations, health care for the poor and needy and a host of other things.  His point was “Hey guys, wake up and look what those evangelicals are actually doing.”  Here is a quote from his summary:

“There’s a tendency for liberals to devote lots of ink to decrying conservative Christians, because of their positions on social issues. I disagree strongly with typical evangelical positions on gay marriage, abortion, abstinence only education — but I also think that liberals don’t appreciate the impact of the arrival of evangelicals into humanitarian space or give sufficient credit for that change.”

As I said, he did take some shots at us but they were well-meaning and somewhat deserved.  Here is a summary of his article:

“If secular liberals can give up some of their snootiness, and if evangelicals can retire some of their sanctimony, then we all might succeed together in making greater progress against common enemies of humanity, like illiteracy, human trafficking and maternal mortality.”

 One focus of the article was World Vision, and the work they do around the world.  It was clear that he needed to explain who World Vision was to his readers.  In spite of the fact they are the largest relief agency in the world, because they have Christian roots, they are unknown to unwilling-to-see liberals.  All-in-all, it was good to see the article, and more than a little astonishing.

I gave some thought to going to the discussion page to say thank you.  I generally avoid such sites as I am not a fan of showing up in places where my very existence, let along my opinion, is clearly infuriating to the folks there.  But perhaps this was a good time to make an exception because, after all, one secularist making positive points about evangelicals is better than 100 of us shouting it.

Well, I went there and found a couple of my Christian brothers had beaten me there.  One was taking Kristoff to task for his “attacks” on us.  (Examples of those “attacks” are in the quotes above.)  The other tersely explained that World Vision is not evangelical.  The tone of one was so hostile that it has since been taken down by The Times.

So here is the summary of the impressions I had and I am sure others will get:

Kristoff:  “Hey guys, cut those evangelicals some slack.  They aren’t all narrow-minded, mean-spirited meanies.”

Christian answers:  “Oh yes we are!”

It doesn’t matter whether I agree with all that World Vision does and stands for.  It doesn’t matter if Kristoff still has his doubts about us.  What matters is that he seemed to be setting aside his doubts and concerns and challenging fellow liberals to hold out a hand to us.  Yet for some reason a couple of our brothers felt it important to reject that hand.

So I will borrow from Jesus and His story of the Good Samaritan.  “Which of these was showing everyday grace?”

Lithgow, to his credit, avoided playing the pastor as some sort of authoritarian killjoy as some might have.  Instead, his pastor was a sincere but troubled man truly seeking to do what he thought was right for those he loved.  (However, unable to resist the temptation, the producers did give us a few authoritarian killjoys in his congregation.)  But Lithgow’s pastor was in some ways an even more troubling portrayal.  He presented a pastor completely devoid of grace and joy and focused on the externals of behavior as the measure of true faith.  It disturbs me that, at best, we are going to see that negative portrayal again and perhaps will see an even more depressing presentation in the remake.

It is easy to pass off this negative portrayal as propaganda from a Hollywood elite opposed to the faith.  And of course to some extent it is.  But the question remains, how do they get away with such a presentation?  Sadly, the answer is that, in the minds of many, that is exactly who we are.  How is it that Christians who, in Christ, should be the very epicenter of grace and joy, manage to come across as exactly the opposite?  We would be remiss if we thought that all the blame was external.

You can decide for yourself whether music and dancing qualifies as an immoral influence but the truth is that we live in a world where we are surrounded by immoral influences.  And frequently we battle that immorality with open zeal.  The net result is that we become defined in the public mind by the things we are against.  Ironically, after the original “Footloose”, Christians offended by this portrayal of their faith, protested and boycotted the movie and, in doing so, unwittingly reinforced the stereotype of joylessness and lack of grace.

How do we reverse these negative impressions?  I am sure you have some ideas and I’d be delighted to have you post them.  But here is one:  Always remember to keep first things first.  We are not called to end immorality in the world, but to present Christ to the world.  Jesus did not hang on the cross to end any particular sin but to save sinners.  When we feel the urge to speak against a sin-filled world stop and ask if that is the best way to present Christ to the person you are talking to.

Also, don’t be afraid to laugh at yourself and to admit that, at times, we can come across in the ways we are perceived.  In other words, to some extent we “hand it coming” in the Lithgow portrayal.

Finally, a little self-examination never hurts.  Am I truly coming across to those around me as filled with grace and joy?  If not, why not, and what can I do about it?  Establishing the practice of seeking the grace-response to the situations, including the immorality, we face is a great habit to form.

Theme: Hesitant Christians need to accept the encouragement and support from other believers who will motivate their faith into obedient action.

I. God’s Dicipline (Judges 4:1-3)
II. God’s Leaders (Judges 4:4-10)
III. God’s Victory (Judges 4:11-5:31)

Later I heard that activity on web sites that carried his speaking live showed similar surges as workers in offices across the country stopped work to see what he had to say.  Clearly a good portion of the American public was very interested to see what he had to say.  (All those who are feeling pretty smug right now that you didn’t stop what you were doing, please raise your hands.)  In summary, he took personal responsibility for his actions, did not make excuses, and pledged to do better.  He made a reference to his Buddhist faith as something he would lean on for this renewed effort.

When the speech was over, as is common in our world, the commentary began.  Peggy and I did some channel flipping of those covering the story and they were all filled with analysis by various “experts.”  The vast majority of those comments can be characterized as not believing him.  Some were quite caustic in their denunciation and it is clear this once-admired man is now widely despised.  He has nobody but himself to blame of course, but it was still amazing to hear and read the negative attitudes.

So how did Christians respond?  After some research I’ve found several Christian leaders commented on this matter and for many the response was the same as the secular folks.  Some were rather put off by the reference to Buddhism.  Most joined the secular chorus predicting the failure of his efforts at doing better.  And anyone who has read Romans 7 can see that Paul would agree there is no escape from our sins in simply trying to do better. 

But it seems to me that predictions of what is going to happen next in Wood’s life miss the point.  My question is this…how would Paul express his opinions and how should we do so?  For those mired in the results of sin and disgrace, how we approach them is the more important issue.  And while I have no expectations of conversations with Tiger Woods, it is certain I will have them with people who have stumbled and sinned.  Does Paul give us any clues on how to go about it?  I think he does.

Let me start by saying that what Woods did was correct.  He admitted his actions, acknowledged their impact and did not justify, minimize or excuse them.  And he asked to be forgiven.  Most people, including most Christians, seem to feel that forgiving someone requires us to act as if nothing was ever wrong and to pick up life as if the sin never happened.  This is simply not true.  All actions have consequences and people have a right to protect themselves from hurt.  My forgiveness of a man who stole from me does not require me to let him carry my wallet.  It does require me to desire a renewed relationship where he could carry it.  So, back to Paul, what does he have to say?

Buried in the great poetry of I Corinthians 13 is some sound theology that applies.  In verse 7 he says “[Love] bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.”  I see this as progressive.  Using Woods as an example but generalizing it to all who wound us we start by bearing, or simply carrying through the grace of God the hurt and not hurting in return. 

We then go to believing.  This means accepting the apologetic statements Woods made as true to his desires.  For those seeking to apologize and do better, believing they mean it is an important encouragement.

The next step is hoping. We don’t have God’s insight into the hearts of others or the future so we hope, or root for, the restitution to go well.  It conveys a desire, or a cheering on, of the stumbling sinner.  This can add a great deal to the person needing to do the hard work of repairing sin damage.

Finally there is enduring.  Nobody knows what will happen next with Woods, notwithstanding the plethora of those who confidently predicted his future.  But when I forgive, I commit to enduring that future, whatever it may be.  Please note again, I have a right to take steps to protect myself, enduring does not turn us into patsies.  But enduring does convey a willingness to risk failure as a price of seeking success.

So what about Tiger?  I think as Christians we are between steps two and three.  I believe that he wants to do as he said, and I hope he can.  As a Christian I am also free to hope that something in this disgrace opens his heart to the need of a savior.

There is a theory of evangelism that I’ve always wondered about called the “low hanging fruit” theory.  In this theory, first popularized in the 1980s, we are to focus our main Gospel efforts on those who show signs that they are responsive or, as the theory states, “that the Holy Spirit is working in them.”  While they admit that sporadic attention should be given to the hard-core unsaved they suggest that 90% of our effort should be directed at those who are already showing interest.  They call such people “low hanging fruit” that can be gathered in easily. 

They reason that if the church would devote 90% of its energy in this manner we’d have a much higher decision rate and the church will grow exponentially.  Well, maybe so, but just how does fruit get to be low hanging if nobody has presented the Gospel to them?  Or as Paul puts it “how shall they hear without a preacher?”  Then too, what happens after all the “low hanging fruit” is picked?  Do we ignore all those who are on the upper branches? 

Also, I see no sign in the Gospels that Jesus was aware of this theory.  Yes, He responded to those who came to them with questions and interest.  But in cases like Nicodemus and the rich young ruler He almost seemed to force them to go through hoops to get His message.   While with the hard-core unsaved, for example the woman at the well, He initiated the effort.

I am 61 and thus far I have only had one person in my life who, on learning I was a Christian and missionary, asked me if she needed to accept Jesus as Savior in order to get to heaven.   I suspect that I am above average in the number of times Christians have that happen to them.  So, no, I am not a fan of the “low hanging fruit” theory.  More often than not we are going to have to form relationships, get to know them, let them get to know us, discuss their issues, answer their questions, persist in loving them, and eventually present to them opportunities to accept Christ, risking the “no thanks” answers.

So what about my friend’s question?  Actually it was a very astute and penetrating question.  What she was asking was “Is our friendship real?  Or were you just in it for the opportunity to ‘win’ me?”  My relationship with this unbeliever needed to be strong enough to desire that she have eternal life, but strong enough too that it survives a “no thanks” answer. 

There are two reactions that go through my mind when someone rejects an invitation.  One is that “I blew it.”  I can blame myself for doing it wrong.  I’ve learned to see that response is from Satan.  The other response is “Well, I tried my best.  I should move on to something else.”  And that too is from Satan.  The grace of God is strong enough to lift me up when my invitation is rejected.  It is also strong enough to make my relationship real and able to survive a rejection of that which I desired she have. 

Last week, not once but twice, I struck out and went back to the dugout, bat in hand.  But the game ain’t over.  And maybe, just maybe, God’s grace will give me another at-bat with these two friends.

Theme: A Christian’s faith will enable him or her to overcome their fears and questions.

I. Faith Tested (Judges 7:1-8)
II. Faith Encouraged (Judges 7:9-15a)
III. Faith Rewarded (Judges 7:15b-25)

Theme: A Christian’s faith enables them to overcome life’s obstacles, no matter how difficult they appear.

I. Joshua – Hebrews 11:30
II. Rahab – Hebrews 11:31

Giving it up was surprisingly easy.  A few of you grew frustrated that it now took me a day or two to reply to my e-mail but generally I had no sense of loss whatsoever.  I can look at people with their Blackberrys and iPods constantly out and in use and have no twinge of regret at all. 

I’m not trying to be clueless.  I’ve looked into Facebook and Twitter.  I can send a text message, but rarely do.  I find stories of new technology advances interesting and think about the implications of them, perhaps more than those who jump on the bandwagon.  And, of course, I blog.  Although someone recently asked me what my schedule was for posting thoughts here and all I could say was “when something pops into my head.”

Yesterday I saw an article that told me I was not alone.  It seems that thousands of people, even young people, are abandoning things such as Facebook and Twitter.  Miley Cyrus recently cancelled her Twitter account because it was interfering with her “real” relationships.  And thousands of ordinary people have thought through the effort it takes to be up-to-date with such things and have given them up. 

Of course we are still a tiny minority, but it was gratifying to see.  Interestingly enough, so technology-bound have we become that there are now web sites where you can get help disengaging from your virtual life.  It amuses me that we even turn to technology to help us turn from technology.  But it got me to thinking…what would Jesus do?  Would Jesus join Facebook?

To be sure, it is possible to use technology to minister the Gospel.  Many ministries have started or turned to new technologies.  And it is equally sure that some of the side effects of these technologies are not so good.  Probably the most widespread effect is the hours of time people spend updating their lives on Twitter or Facebook. 

These technologies are now fundamental to our society in amazing ways.  Just recently Peggy and I bought a dishwasher and the salesman eagerly informed us, with no sense of irony at all, that his organization was now on Twitter and Facebook.   It was a great struggle to not say “Who cares?”  But to ignore the technologies is to bypass a major segment of our world.

So I wanted this post to conclude with a question…would Jesus join Facebook?  Tell me what you think and why.