Austin Says...

I admit it -- I watched some of the memorial service for the "King of Pop" today.  There was so much hype that I didnt want to miss out on such a big event. 

Reflecting on the entertainment icon, I thought of an endless list of rumors we used to hear about Michael Jackson -- he was his sister, he molested boys, he was homosexual, he was asexual, he got plastic surgery, he had a skin disease, he lost his singing ability when he hit puberty, he was in love with Diana Ross, ... you get the point. 

Yet despite the rumors, look at how the world loved him and worshipped him.  Just like the real Messiah, he suffered much and seemed to deserve none of it.  And we all must make a decision on how to interpret his life.  Many say, "Whats the big deal?  He was just another celebrity."  Others say, "How dare you exalt that man who molested little boys."  And of course there are the crazy people who are still camping out at Neverland ranch waiting for his resurrection. 

Messianic MJ

No matter how you react to MJs death, one thing remains clear.  He is still in the grave (unless he faked his death).  Only one celebrity has ever raised from the grave, and that makes all the difference in the world.  Reflect on the greatest artist who ever walked the earth--Jesus.  Consider his life, contribution to society, his words, his image.  He invented the moon, which is a lot cooler than the moonwalk.  He actually did heal the world.  Then, after you draw your conclusions, consider that he raised from the dead.  That rumor is true, and if you deny it you are denying a historical fact based on your own ignorance

Jesus alone is worthy of the kind of worship shown in the last week of entertainment news.  When you finally get tired of listening to the Michael Jackson playlist, your Bible is there and those stories never get old.  You can even hum the tune of "Beat It" while you read. 

Not at all surprisingly, Sammy Sosa is reported to have tested positive for steroid use in the now infamous, questionably legal, survey of MLBers in 2003.  You'll recall that A-Rod was also recently outed based on the results of this survey. 

Now that the NBA finals are upon us, I'm starting to get annoyed by the media coverage of said event.  I hear very little about the content of the games or the plays that got each team to the finals.  Instead all I hear is the endless chatter about how great Kobe Bryant and Dwight Howard are and how LeBron James failed somehow by not leading his team to a championship.  As if the player with the greatest desire to win will take his team to victory.

It reminds me of the great historical matchup between Saul and David back in Ancient Israel.  Saul will forever be known as the king with a weak will.  He won many battles with the enemy, but many of his attempts failed, such as trying to kill David multiple times.  Even when he had a free throw opportunity to spear an un-armed David (in the cave), he was persuaded to retreat by David's plea for mercy.  Great strength, but a weak will.  Kind of like what people are saying about King (LeBron) James right now.

On the other hand, David had the will of a champion.  He won every battle with cunning and strength.  He overcame great odds to defeat Goliath with a rock and his simple faith in God's will.  Yet even David's will failed when he was voyuering the contents of his neighbor's bathtub.  Nobody, even David, can will his team to perfection.
 
I have no idea who will win the finals this year.  I know that Kobe Bryant's will is stronger than any other player's on the court.  But I also know that while the human will can win championships, it is also very weak compared to the simple faith of a child.  I'm rooting for the Magic in 7, simply because I hope it proves my point that even the strongest will on the court is imperfect.

The human will can accomplish amazing things, but it will always fail.  Which is why I subscribe to the faith of David.  No matter how amazing I am as a person, I still have the opportunity to win a championship every single day.  Since there is no enemy that can defeat God, therefore being on God's side ensures perpetual victory.

I'm certain I'm not the first to notice this, but it became clear to me this weekend that our current federal government's ecomonic policies resemble an Easter egg hunt.  Let me describe the event that happened at the park yesterday, and then I'll let him who reads this understand the obvious for himself.

At 10:30 am, we got there just in time to witness a man with a megaphone announce to hundreds of families, "We have over 5000 eggs, so every kid should be able to find plenty.  PLEASE encourage the older kids to pass up the eggs in front and go to the back of the park.  GO!" 

You can imagine what happened after that.  In about 2 minutes, all 5000 eggs had been taken by the school-agers who had stuffed their makeshift "baskets" tight.  The toddlers had no idea why they were even there.  So some of the organizers quickly threw candy and toys on the ground in front of the faces of the toddlers to make up for what had just happened.  Minutes later a sweet little girl with a contractor bag full of eggs came up to my 2 year old saying, "You didn't get any?  Here you can have some of mine."  She filled D's basket with eggs, and just as I was commenting about how sweet that girl was, I realized this was happening all around us.  Baskets were being filled not by the toddlers' own hands, but by the generous hands of an older child.  I'm sure some of the school-aged children were passing out what parents were calling "Donor Eggs" out of compassion, but most I'm convinced were doing it out of guilt.  Either way, my son, and hundreds of others his age, did not experience an Easter egg hunt that morning.

We're going to try a private egg hunt today and see if it goes better than the government sponsored one.

I've begun studying Romans, and it's got me thinking about how corrupt our world is.  Do you ever think about why people are so depraved?

If you are liberal you might think about the evil of oppressive governments and profit-driven corporations.  You resent that innocent village people and peaceful Tibetans fall victim to capitalism and industrialization.  If you are conservative you may be concerned about fatherless families and media-driven lust.  You condemn the poor for their laziness and wish they would educate themselves out of poverty instead of fattening up on food stamps or joining a terrorist cell.

Either way you are concerned, like me, about the depravity of the world.  Unfortunately, we usually only notice depravity in extreme groups of people and not ourselves or our friends.  You read about the people in Romans 1 (29-31), those "full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless," you know THOSE people.  If you are like me you don't see yourself in that disgusting collage of corruption.

Yet to remove yourself from that category is as horrible as the sins the passage describes.  In the previous sentence, the author describes how the world fell in the first place as a simple shrug of the shoulders.  God gave us the air we breathe and the sun that warms us, yet we ignored it and decided it was unimportant.  "Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity." (Rom 1:28-29) 

I certainly am aware that I take God's grace for granted, and it trembles me to think that there is no middle ground between ignoring God and radical corruption.  Also, I recognized two problems with pretending my friends and I are not corrupt:

First, if I think my friends are nice people who work hard and show respect to others, then I'm not motivated to share the gospel with them.  Why would I?  Their lives are fine the way they are.

Secondly, if I think I'm not corrupt, what power does the gospel have in my own life; and therefore, why would I share it?

Dalai Lama

Although it's wonderful to celebrate the goodness in people, it's dangerous to assume that their lives are fine.  I watched Seven Years in Tibet last night, and it struck me that the Tibetans were portrayed as perfectly behaved people.  Is that really how Tibetans are?  Is there no crime in Tibet?  Does the Dalai Lama ever stop smiling?  C'mon.  I've known a couple Tibetans, and they were super nice, but what's the price of feeling pressure to be nice all the time?  I'd like to see statistics on the nervous breakdown rate in Tibet.

Gollum

The point is that even the nicest person you know is eventually going to break.  By God's grace he or she is being sustained until the breaking point.  Even amidst the smiles and helping hands that you see, there is a slow deterioration into a Gollum that you can't see.

Now aware of the hidden depravity in myself and the ones I love, it makes a whole lot more sense to be "not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes." (Rom 1: 16)

The town in which I now live is one of the most desirable places in the country.  It has a ski mountain, professionally groomed mountain bike trails, world class rock-climbing and fishing, 300+ days of sunshine, a nice mix of tree-huggers and red-necks, and an overall sense of optimism.  However, the unemployment rate finished the year above 11%, nearly double the national average.  Behind the optimism is a lot of fear and frustration. 

Lately I've been praying and searching the Bible for some direction.  I have a new job, a new house, a new environment, a new church, but I'm bored out of my mind because I don't have any type of ministry going on. 

However, the other day in my morning time with God, I received a nudge of compassion for my neighbors.  I began to realize that the solution to all our economic problems will come from creativity, intelligence, hard work, and wisdom--all things of God.  Either in conjunction with government stimulus plans or despite them, people will have to get off their butts and turn to the Father if we want to prosper again.  A recession should be a motivation to repent and to evangelize.

Whereas before I viewed evangelism as a duty, I see it today as a necessity.  I don't want to see my neighbor suffer, and only the good news of Christ offers hope.  On the cross, he paid the price already for the mistakes we've made, and he offers abundance through a resurrected life lived in him.  What more could anyone desire?

Within the last year every member of my immediate family, including myself, has left a church to join a new one.  We each have a unique reason, but as I reflect I wonder what the Bible says about church hopping.

For starters, I left my church in Massachusetts to join one in Oregon.  The rest of my family members left a church only to join a different one in the same town.  Naturally I assume that I had the best reason.  But my hunch is that Scripture gives guidance and a healthy rebuke to all those who trade flocks.

I searched for "Church Strife" in my Bible study guide, and I got a list of verses from 1 and 2 Corinthians.  Apparently, the church in Corinth was a mess.  They had the whole gamut of problems starting with competing allegiences to mega-church leaders like Apollos and Cephas.  The problems ranged from petty arguments to people sleeping with their parents.  If you were a member of that church would you have left?

Of course there is no record in the Bible of anyone switching churches for good reason or bad.  People just didn't do that in ancient Palestine (unless it is recorded outside the Bible).  In all cases Paul's pleas were for humility, unity, and perseverance.  As an apostle, he viewed all the Christian churches, even the defunct ones, as his responsibilty.  He urged them to remember that they are "mere men" (1 Cor 3:3), and for those who think they are wise to become "fools" (1 Cor 3:18).  The point is that all problems can and should be worked out; just like in a marriage.

But times are different today than in the 1st century.  We are fortunate now to have more than one church in a town with many qualified pastors to lead us.  In the spirit of healthy competition, our churches are pressured to improve just by knowing that the church down the road has more comfortable seats.  So when one pastor preaches sermons that lean the wrong way, you have the freedom to go to the other pastor who preaches more in line with Scripture.  This serves to rebuke the inferior pastor while edifying the body of believers...or does it?

In the New Testament, there are cases of false teachers who were to be heartily rebuked (Tit 1:10-13).  But what about the teachers who were true believers led by the Holy Spirit, just a bit inexperienced and mistaken on occasion?  Turning to 1 & 2 Timothy is helpful in finding the answer.

The reason we have these two letters in the Bible is because Timothy needed them.  He was wonderfully gifted and anointed by God to lead the church and preach the gospel, but he was inexperienced and imperfect.  Paul loved Timothy as a son, but he kept close watch over him so he wouldn't mess up.  Paul parented Timothy in simple ways, like, "Stop drinking only water," (1 Tim 5:23) and instruction on how to rebuke an older man (1 Tim 5:1).  But the bottom line is that Timothy was in charge, and if he screwed up he screwed up.  There was no plan B.  Paul never told Timothy that if he failed the church would fall apart.  That is because the church can not fall apart (Matt 16:18).  If you think a church can fail, you are wrong. 

I've seen many churches trade members with others, including my own.  In every case the reasons were avoidable but real.  I've witnessed church hopping because of adultery in the congregation, accusations of child molestation, frustration with the pastor, boredom, and lack of connection.  I've never seen anyone go to a church that was any better than the previous one.  More friendly or more entertaining, yes, but not better.  All churches are churches full of sinful Christians who lack wisdom.  The church as we know it is not the way God knows it.  He looks down and sees his children as one church divided by man-made differences.  It must seem so silly from his perspective to watch believers trade churches, passing each other on the road all the time.  There is no perfect church.

On the other hand, God leads us various places for various reasons.  Often there is a need in one church body that can be filled by a member of another church.  Missionaries do this all the time.  Are you a doctor with some free time?  Does your church need medical care?  If not, why not use your talents in a church that does--perhaps in Africa?

Other times, there is a partnership that needs to be formed, so God orchestrates transition of believers.  Maybe God has a ministry planned for you and someone in another church.  Maybe your future spouse is at another church.  Maybe there is a mentor for your child at another church. 

If you think God wants you to switch churches, you are most likely wrong.  But there are occasions, and I commend those who have the courage to leave their church family and go to another.  Just be sure your motives are selfless, loving, and humble.  If the leadership has been misled, you should pray for them and encourage them.  If their views have gotten so off base that you can't take it anymore, that is not a reason to leave.  Most likely, it is a test of your faith. 

Jesus is the head of our church; none other.  If you left your church for any other reason than to serve different members of the body (Php 2:3), you should repent.  If you are a pastor that welcomes church hoppers, you should keep a keen eye on who you are welcoming.

"...so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought." - 1 Cor 1:10

As always, comments are encouraged and welcome!

As offensive as the title of this blog sounds, I don't mean it that way.  I'm referring to the non-stop reminders on the news last night and today that our next president will be black.  Part of me gets incensed that skin pigment matters so much to people.  I also find it offensive that our fellow black Americans are so much less diverse in their politics than Asians, Hispanics, and Whites in America.  Although we've certainly moved forward in many ways regarding racial tolerance, I believe we've retreated in regards to treating all Americans, regardless of color, with equal respect.  It's disrespectful to assume a man was voted into office because of his color but downright racist to vote a man into office because of his color.

Another thing that I'm confused about is why Mr. Obama is considered "more black" than a run-of-the-mill white American.  What I mean by that is that he grew up in a white home.  His black father was an African immigrant, not a descendent of an American slave.  How is that any different than someone whose father immigrated from Ireland, Germany or Russia?  Again, I mean no offense by this; I'm purely concerned that our country has reduced the African-American experience to the color of one's skin rather than the history of being bought and sold by evil men, excluded from basic human rights, and treated as sub-human by neighbors.

I love that my black friends shed a tear of joy, and I'm happy we will have a black president.  I'm very unhappy that his skin color is so important to people.

I have a take on the "financial crisis" that graces the headlines every day now.  It looks to me like the housing dilemma which has caused the bulk of our problems is identical to a crisis I experienced in the early 90s, which I call the Donruss Crisis.

It all started in 1986 when Topps, Fleer, and Donruss flooded the market with baseball cards.  Everyone who loved baseball cards was thrilled because it was so easy to get cards.  I could ride my bike 10 minutes and spend about 50 cents to get a pack of cards. 

Gregg Jefferies

In 1987, 1988 and 1989 it was a dream come true as baseball cards were practically free and every pack you bought probably contained a superstar like Gregg Jefferies or Wally Joyner.  New companies entered the market like Upper Deck, Score and Bowman, and the excitement brought young and old together as parents dug out what remained of their cards from the 50's, 60's and 70's. 

Prices were at an all time high, as a Mickey Mantle rookie card would go for a couple thousand dollars, an Orel Herschiser rookie for about $12.  Even Ken Griffey Jr's Upper Deck card was around $100.  Personally, I paid exorbitant prices for cards from the early 80's and 70's because they were so rare.

By the early 90's supply finally surpassed demand, but that wasn't the problem.  Cards were overvalued due to over-excitement and a false sense of rarity.  The market dried up even as more companies entered the market and supply increased. 

Now, none of this is a crisis--it's just economics at work.  But here's where it becomes a crisis.  So many of the collectors had based their worth on what others thought was valuable--they really didn't care about baseball at all.  We call these people "speculators" or "stock market investors."  People like me, who valued their collections of Mark Grace and Albert Belle rookies, etc. all of the sudden realized that nobody else would pay money for their prized possessions.  Our cards were basically worthless.  I think I still have my Frank Viola rookie card encased in hard plastic, which would make collectors laugh now, but made a lot of sense to me after the '87 World Series.  So people who invested in baseball cards "lost money", but the boxes and binders in their closets haven't changed.  Only the "value" has. 

Those who base their fortunes on what other people would pay for what they have are unfortunate, to say the least.  In my parents' closet you'll find a box of cards and then a box of Nolan Ryan.  I have everything that was ever made with his name and picture.  I have multiple autographs, posters, newspaper clippings, home-made artwork, and cards of Nolan Ryan.  At one point the Ryan collection probably neared $1000, a majority in my 1970 Topps of him in a Mets uniform.  Now I doubt I could get $250 for everything.  What changed?  Only the value to other people.  Not the value to me.  I still am sitting on a gold mine in my opinion.  I care not, nor will ever care what people would pay me for my collection.  In fact I even named my kid after the Express.  If I ever sell it, it will only be out of necessity.  I'd rather keep it in the family simply because it means so much to me. (I don't expect non-baseball fans to understand any of this).

Anyway, the final point is that people who live in worthless houses still have the same precious investment.  The problem lies in that other people look at their investment like a Kirby Puckett rookie and laugh.  I personally hope that after the bailouts and bankruptcies people will realize that what they own is valuable and the "subprime" becomes prime.  And in the long run I hope that people invest in what they truly find value in, not what they speculate others will.

Matthew 6:19-20  "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. 20But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal." 

A month ago I was dead set on preparing for the "Obama-nation of Desolation", but a hurricane came crashing into the campaign that nobody expected--Sarah Palin.  Who knew that all it takes to get Republicans excited about an election is a pro-life beauty queen?  I, personally, was happy as a clam with Cindy McCain, but the Arizona senator is like the Hugh Hefner of right-to-center politics.  His life story in a nutshell (as much as I know from internet headlines and covers of news magazines):  marries a swimsuit model, cheats on her, marries a trophy beer heiress, has lots of kids, and selects Miss Alaska as a running mate.  Oh, and he was a POW for six years. 

Roberta mccain

This guy is like all the great action movie heroes in one silver package.  Come to think of it... his name is almost identical to one of the greatest action heroes of all time--John McLane.  Is John McCain real?  I used to think so, but when I saw his mom at the RNC, that's when I decided this whole thing is a joke.  There's no way in the world a 96-year-old woman jumps out of her seat and looks that good.  Talk about "Die Hard!"

My vote is definitely going to the candidate that most resembles a man who can hop into a helicopter from a speeding truck, blow up all the bad guys and get the girl at the end.  It's a no-brainer.