what about santa?

How should Christian parents handle Santa Claus?  Is it OK to tell children there is one--or let them believe it if they hear about him from other children or relatives?

For every Christian parent who thinks it's a harmless fantasy for their son or daughter to enjoy along with their friends, there are three who are adamant that no Christian parent should permit a son or daughter to risk being distracted from the Christ child at Christmas.  

I'm not convinced that all the Santa "trappings" are that big of a deal.  For example, I don't know that letting little Timmy sit on Santa's lap at the mall and tell him what he wants for Christmas undermines the manger.  Or that buying some discount wrapping paper decked out with Santas is a spiritual calamity.  

I do think it matters more what Timmy's mom and dad tell him--or let him think about Santa.  If l tell my children that the guy at the mall or on TV delivers their presents on Christmas eve--or neglect to correct what friends tell them about Santa, I wonder how that is different from deception?  And even if they can't say the word or define it, I think that's exactly what children will look back on it as once they learn the truth.

Why not tell them that Santa Claus is a fable based on fact?  Tell them the story of St. Nicholas, bishop of Myra (in modern Turkey) who lived in A.D 200-300's.  We don't know exactly when because there's not a single historical document from his day speaking about his life.  But biographers writing within 200 years say his parents died and left him with great wealth.  Which he gave away. One of the most famous legends is that a poor man with three daughters could not pay the dowry to marry off his eldest daughter.  He was even too broke to buy food.  The story goes that Nicholas learned of it and threw a bag of gold in the house during the night.  He did the same with the second and later the third daughter.  He wanted to do it anonymously but the last time the father was waiting and discovered the identity of his benefactor.

Later when he was in the ministry, he reputedly put gold coins in shoes when they were left outside the homes.  In the early 300's when Diocletian set out to destroy the church, Nicholas was imprisoned for years.  When released he continued to faithfully serve the Lord for several decades.  While I don't put much stock in some of the outlandish miracles he's claimed to have performed, to me it's telling that he neither wrote about himself--nor had others write about him.  We know that he existed, but he seems to have been quite disinterested in leaving a personal legacy.

Which makes the tale of him being chosen Myra's bishop, plausible--and marvelous.  When the bishop there died, Nicholas traveled to the city with other ministers and bishops to select the man's successor.  As was his custom, Nicholas got out of bed early and went to the church to pray.  An elderly minister was already there and asked him, "Who are you my son?"  

"Nicholas the sinner" came the humble reply.  "And I am your servant."  The aged priest asked him to follow him and they entered a room of the assembled bishops.

"I had a vision that the first one to enter the church in the morning was to be our new bishop.  Here is that man: Nicholas."  Indeed he was chosen as bishop.  His generosity and humility are legendary.  But legends usually have a core of truth to them.  That's the core our children can benefit from.  At least, if it doesn't eclipse Jesus.  Nicholas would have hated that.

her heart for God's heart

More from October's Lausanne Congress in South Africa: story of an 18 year old student originally from North Korea.  No wonder the third world is where the Spirit's got room to work.  A testimony like this repudiates the prosperity gospel and makes a case for suffering as one of God's most powerful tools in kingdom building. 

http://conversation.lausanne.org/en/conversations/detail/11671

[Sorry if you tried the video before only to discover it's just partial; there's a defect in the embedding code.  This link should work.]

Is Jesus, food, or both the good news?

• 10 days in October
• 4000 invited guests
• 198 countries represented
• Cape Town, South Africa
• International Congress on World Evangelization
• Beamed to 650 global sites in 91 nations

They called it Cape Town 2010.  Perhaps the largest gathering of international Christians..., ever.

The Lausanne Movement is the brainchild of Dr. Billy Graham.  Preaching in more and more foreign countries the great evangelist pondered how the world's evangelical Christians could work together to evangelize an increasingly complex and unstable world.  After sharing his vision with 100 world leaders, in 1974 Dr. Graham gathered 2700 Christian leaders from 150 countries in Lausanne, Switzerland (hence the movement's name), a congress TIME magazine described as "a formidable forum, possibly the widest ranging meeting of Christians ever held".

Lausanne launched a movement.  A second congress was held in 1989 in the Philippines, and this year's was the third.  The impact Lausanne has had on world evangelization and Christian unity has been far reaching.  But there's always been a current of tension in each congress as well as in the dozens of conferences sponsored in between, over the relationship of evangelism and social efforts to relieve suffering.  Which claim is right?

1. The primary work of the Church is evangelism 
2. Although the primary work of the church is evangelism, working for things like feeding the hungry should be the result of individual faith and a call on the church.
3. The work of evangelism and the work of meeting people's legitimate needs are equally the work of the Church, are equally the work of the gospel.

In his address to the delegates Pastor John Piper preached that Christians must respond to all kinds of suffering of all people.  Then he added, especially respond to the threat of eternal suffering--in other words, without neglecting social justice, evangelization is at the front of the line.  World Vision's Corina Villacorta emphasized that the acts Jesus did when he was here was riddled with compassion for people's sufferings.  She decried the inequity between rich Christians and poor ones.

In the face of such tensions Denver Seminary president Dr. Mark Young quipped from Cape Town, "Those primarily engaged in social justice and development ministries quote St. Francis, 'Preach the gospel at all times --  necessary, use words.'  Those involved primarily in preaching wish that St. Francis had said, 'Preach the gospel at all times -- If necessary, don't use words.'"

It's not just Lausanne.  For over a hundred years this tension has pulled the American church back and forth.  Many remember how mainline Protestants in the early 1900's got so preoccupied with social justice issues they dispensed with evangelism.  (Remember Glenn Beck famously warning his listeners that if their church talked about social or economic justice, they were code words for communism?)  Some of these denominations never recovered biblical Christianity but preached a "social gospel", a form of good news which turned out to be bad news: Jesus got demoted from atoning sacrifice to nice example.  Certainly in this case, the food was not the good news.

Fearful of this slippery slope, some Christians wash their hands altogether of things like soup kitchens, health clinics--of anything that smacks of "social services".  But repeatedly the prophets, Jesus and the apostles send us to meet people's needs: the poor, the widows, the orphans, lepers, aliens (outsiders).  The Scriptures say...

• Hate evil, love good; maintain justice in the courts.
• Share your food with the hungry..., provide the poor wanderer with shelter..., when you see the naked..., clothe him.
• Faith without works is dead.  
• Whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.
• Which of these three was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?
• Sell everything you have and give to the poor and you will have treasure in heaven.

There's no way to dodge the Bible's mandate to care about--and for, those in need.  Nor any way to dodge the Bible's mandate that every Christian is a missionary (Acts 1:8, Matthew 28:18-20) tasked with taking the message that Jesus died and rose again to save sinners like me, to other sinners.

Again, it's the relationship between the two that's dicey.  Which takes priority--should a local church give both equal attention?  In a recent discussion with Capitol Baptist Pastor Mark Dever, Sojourners editor Jim Wallis insisted everything from racial reconciliation to helping the poor should be the  church's work--they're "integral" to the gospel he said.  Dever agreed that the gospel has social implications and that people genuinely transformed by the gospel should care about anyone in need.  And help individually as led.  But he couldn't agree that it's the church's main job.  That, he said, is evangelism and discipleship.

Manhattan pastor Tim Keller of Redeemer Presbyterian will keep the discussion alive with his just-released book Generous Justice about which he asserts: "All I know is, if I don't care about the poor, if my church doesn't care about the poor, that's evil."

I think I can agree with that.  However, the enemy is happy to use bad or good things to supplant the gospel.  For example, until Jesus returns, there will always be hunger, poverty, suffering.  Jesus said so.  True, some of our forebears used that to excuse a lack of concern and assistance for the poor.  Because we cannot erase something does not mean we cannot alleviate it.  

But the danger to Christ's church remains that if the magnitude of evil, suffering, hunger, AIDS, poverty, and sex trafficking gets to us, we may throw all of our time and resources at those great needs and perhaps neglect the good news whose effects transcend this life.  

38

I love Thanksgiving.  Aging has its perks and one is a blossoming realization I'm blessed with blessings I have no "right" to.  Traveling abroad has also helped destroy any sense of being entitled to this or that.  Clean air, clean water, safe neighborhood, shoes--comfortable ones at that, lots of food, safe transportation, and living in a representative democracy all sing for me.

And then there's Betty.  It's a special Thanksgiving when our wedding anniversary falls on it like it did this year.  38 years under the love, mercy and forbearance of a woman my friends like to remind me I don't deserve.  They're right.

We met in high school when we were fifteen.  In my junior year she was one of two new girls in our class, ones I casually told my mother "were prospects".  I don't remember who the other one was.  The only class we had together was a lecture where she sat in the back by herself.  Which was necessary because there wasn't room to her left and right when she smiled.  

l zeroed in on her at a social event our Christian high school held early in the school year to help new students get acquainted.  We played a musical chairs style hand-holding game called "Walk-a-Mile".  Guys cheated so they could hold hands with the girl of their choice.  Once or twice I ended up next to Betty but holding her hand left me speechless.

Several weeks later when some of us went to Virginia to help residents who were victims of Hurricane Camille, I asked her to sit with me on the van ride.  I wish I could say it was all good from there.  A month later I got my driver's license and we began dating.  I thought we were having a good time but about 4 months later she broke up with me.  She had been trying to for some time but every night she planned to dump me I'd give her a gift.  Even the night she showed me the door I'd given her an early Valentine's Day gift. 

Within days she was dating the school jock.  What did he have that I didn't?  He was tall, good looking, and a talented athlete.  Hey, I had..., I had..., well, I was a pretty good ping pong player.  Plus, I had a job!

Over the next few months I had several dates but no one made much of an impression on me.  My sister asked me if I thought Betty and I would get back together.  I shrugged, "But I know that the way I feel around her, I've never felt with any other girl." 

6 months later I found out Betty and Mr. ESPN were history and within a month we were back together.  Unfortunately the remaining dating years were rocky: I broke up 3 times--the last time 3 months before our wedding day.  Part of it was that we were so young, and I wasn't sure I knew what I was doing.

In hindsight, I didn't.  The note that accompanied the flowers I gave Betty last week said, "For being what I never knew I needed."  We were only out of high school a year and a half when we married; she was 18, I was 19.  And I didn't know what kind of woman I wanted or needed.  Who can at that age?  But over the years I have discovered that God could not have found a more perfect woman.  I mean for me; someone who complements/completes me and I complete her.

Like every married couple, we have room to grow.  Last weekend we celebrated our anniversary by attending FamilyLife's "Weekend to Remember" in King of Prussia.  (I can't recommend that weekend enough; good biblical counsel that will gently but firmly call you to pay attention to your marriage; here's the link http://www.familylife.com/site/c.dnJHKLNnFoG/b.5846045/k.8C0A/Weekend_to_Remember__Marriage_Getaway.htm?fromeventhp=WTRimage.)  We had some great talks--some were painful, but all valuable in making this wonderful thing called marriage, even richer.  Surely--apart from Jesus, this is God's finest gift!

God and evil, or God over evil?

How big is your God?  How powerful is He?  Is your God biblical?  Is he sovereign or is He subject?  (Those are really the only two options.)  The Bible says He's sovereign even over evil.  You've got to read John Piper's provocative but glorious sermon on "Is God any less glorious because he ordained that evil be?".  It was my guide through some deep waters in the wake of 9/11.  

http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/conference-messages/is-god-less-glorious-because-he-ordained-that-evil-be

voting, American style

The turnout on election day for midterm voting was unusually large--which appears to have favored Republican candidates.  Since then we've all been talking about what happened--whether we're happy about it or disappointed, what should have been done or shouldn't, and what it means for the next 2 or 4 years.  But in the midst of your political analysis, have you thought about something that's remarkable?  

When Betty and I walked in the door of the township building to cast our votes, dead ahead was an armed constable listening to a conversation between a "watcher" and a voter.  His presence was the only hint anyone could have had that there might be anything other than a peaceful transition of power.

On Sunday citizens of the West African nation of Guinea got to vote for a president for the first time ever.  Former prime minister Diallo ran against opposition leader Alpha Conde but they're still trying to sort out who won.  Pre-election violence left 3 dead and it appears that both sides engaged in strong arm tactics to force opponent's supporters from their homes.  Charges say as many as 20,000 voters were urged to flee or they would be killed.  The effect was to put them far from their polling places on election day so they couldn't vote.

Voting history in the USA is hardly pristine.  Despite the lofty language of our Declaration of Independence, there has always been a back seat and a front seat.  Women and African-Americans had to fight to get their supposed "equal" right to vote; nor did it come easy for native Americans or Asian Pacific Americans.  But now we enjoy an election climate where the average American doesn't expect opposition at the voting booth.  

Since my day off each week is Tuesday, election days are always laid back for me and I squeeze voting in among the other items on my to-do list.  It can fit it in before or after any errand or task, because I don't have to plan to take a gun for defense, and I don't have to avoid certain times that might be dangerous.  Both the voting and the subsequent transition of power--such as a shift in who controls congress, is pretty uneventful.  My fellow Americans, we have much to thank God for!

climate change apocalypse

It was 1968 and everybody was scared anyway.  Sons and brothers were dying in rice paddies in an unpopular war, kids were hopped up on weed, LSD and heroin, cities were ablaze, national guard troops were sweeping across university campuses with rifles leveled, and the background music to it all seemed bewildering to anybody over 30.  A generation gloomily hummed Barry McQuire's Eve of Destruction as it marched toward the cliff's edge. 

Into this powder keg of alarm Stanford scientist Paul Ehlich tossed his bestseller The Population Bomb.  In apocalyptic tones he predicted that hundreds of millions of the world's people would die of starvation in the 1970's and '80's.  Not a call to action, the author wrote that this WOULD happen "...in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now."  2 million readers bought the book and worried.  

The rationale seemed solid.  How could food production possibly keep up with the world's exploding population?  It had doubled from 2 billion to 4 billion in a single generation, and seemed set to do so again.  Ehlich proposed radical solutions like starving any country that refused to implement population controls.  He claimed most scientists shared his fatalistic predictions. 

He wasn't even close.

42 years later with the world's population approaching 7 billion, food production in both developed and developing countries has far outstripped population growth.  The main obstacle to producing enough food is not the birth rate Ehrlich worried about, but political chaos.

The current discussion about global warming (sorry, climate change) has some similar markings: all the scientists agree, the specter is certain doom, it will be a worldwide cataclysm unless we take radical, immediate, and enormously expensive action--which will inevitably hurt the poorest in the world.

I don't begin to have the scientific intelligence or vocabulary to debate the merits of scientific convictions that have become relatively uniform in the last 35 years.  But as a Christian I look at everything through the lens of Scripture.  Skeptics of the Bible will dismiss my point of view.  But my words are mainly for Christians who believe the Book is God's revelation--and therefore accurate about whatever it mentions.  It tells us all sorts of things about faith--even faith about the future of climate change.

All the scientists--even the ones frustrated by the alarmism--admit the climate's changed.  What they dispute is that humans are mostly to blame because of carbon emissions from fossil fuels.  And they dispute that it will lead the world to ruin unless we do something drastic; Kyoto and Cap & Trade legislation come to mind.  They suggest our weather changes are normal and cyclical and will not result in a world-destroying--or even radically altering, calamity.  

On Sunday I'll be preaching from Revelation 8 about God's first 4 trumpet judgments which are massive, nearly global environmental calamities unleashed not long before Jesus returns; loosed on what appears to be a rather normal, prosperous earth with lush greenery and fruit trees--not an earth inundated by the consequences of global warming (sorry, climate change).  

But it is 2 Peter 3:7 that specifically rejects the notion that man can do something cataclysmic to this planet while God looks on helplessly: ...the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.  "Reserved" and "kept".  In other words, people cannot so damage the planet that they thwart God's future plans.  

Yes, we are still stewards of the earth and should take care of it like Adam was supposed to.  But abject fear is not warranted for the Christian who believes the Bible.  God has a future plan, is still in control, and has no intentions of permitting His handiwork to derail that plan.  It's "reserved", it's "kept".