God Needs a New Quarterback

Kurt Warner Announces Retirement

Well, it’s official.

Hall of Fame quarterback Kurt Warner has decided it’s time to walk away from the game he loves, to spend more time with the people he loves (and less time getting the snot beat out of him).

I, for one, as an Arizona Cardinal fan, will most certainly miss him. Not only is he an incredible quarterback that any team would be lucky to have, but he seems to be a man of great integrity and faith.

Always quick to give God the glory, Kurt was adamant that people knew that his relationship with Jesus was the most important thing to him. Some were rubbed the wrong way by this (understandably so) but many others were thankful for his public professions of faith.

So it now seems that God has lost his starting quarterback.

Who is going to take his place? I think there are two possibilities:

1) The Obvious Choice – Tim Tebow

Tim and His Famous Eye Black

Tebow has been the collegiate Kurt Warner, so to speak. He, like Warner, never missed an opportunity in front of a mic to give glory to his King. His college career was great (arguably one of the best ever), but does he have what it takes to succeed in the NFL? Other than possibly being the next Kurt Warner, will he be the next Steve Young, or the next Danny Weurfel?

2) The Unexpected Choice – Philip Rivers

Can he usurp Tebow??

Rivers is mostly thought of as a super talented young QB with a super hot head. His teammates, however, insist what we see as “hot-headedness” is just Rivers having fun and being himself. He is not as outspoken as Warner or Tebow, but God may like his chances with this backup.

So, who’s it going to be? Someone well known already (like a Rivers or Tebow), or will God once again look to the grocery stores, the realms of obscurity, to find his diamond in the rough…

Love Your Enemy: Part 2

The other day I posted Love Your Enemy: Part 1, some thoughts I’d been musing over about Jesus’ command to “Love your enemies… do good to those who hate you… bless and pray for those who persecute you.”

A buddy of mine (Josh Mann, Youth Pastor at Salem Alliance in Salem, OR) has two very poignant questions about “loving our enemies.”

He asked:

I’ve been processing this line of reasoning… And  here’s two hiccups in this camp for me and I’m curious if you’ve thought about them/how you respond to them.

1. Does a Christ-followers have any situation where killing an enemy, for any reason at all (self-defense, war, etc) is the loving thing to do?

2. You mention in your closing lines:

It’s easy to ignore.

It’s easy to judge.

It’s hard to love.

Choose love anyways.”

How do we reconcile that with 1 Cor 5:11-12 that seems to prescribe both those two things you mention not to do, and goes even further to suggest, through implication, that ignoring and judging are the loving things to do in certain instances. Not trying to be difficult…just trying to reconcile what can seem like two opposite commands but maybe in fact aren’t and what that means for interpreting others’ seemingly ‘unloving’ responses to certain people/situations.

Great questions, Josh. Here are my thoughts…

This whole concept of “loving our enemies” is complicated, overwhelming, and at times pretty frustrating. But I guess that’s part of why I believe it’s the way of Jesus, precisely because of it’s difficulty. (Which could be a whole other post: God Gave us His Spirit Because He Knew the Way of His Son Would Be So Incredibly Hard!)

I’ve certainly thought a lot about your first question, and I wish I had something worthwhile to report, considering all the thought I’ve put in to it. This is partly why I called the original post “Part I,” because I’d like to come back and talk about “loving our unknown enemies,” regarding issues of war and the like.

Here’s what I think I’d say right now. I think our vernacular gets us in trouble sometimes, and this might be one of those times. I wonder if the very word “enemy” causes more angst and confusion than is needed. I wonder if we, as Christ-followers, are actually “allowed” to have enemies?

When Jesus told his followers to love their enemies, was he actually intending for them to identify those individuals in their minds, and label them, as “enemies,” but with the caveat to love them anyways? Or was he taking an oft used idiom (“Love your neighbor and hate your enemy”) and flipping it on it’s head, in a sense undercutting the very notion of having “enemies?”

The next verses tell us that Jesus said, “He (God) causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.” God shows no partiality (not to say he doesn’t “have” partiality, but he doesn’t show it). Likewise then, are we not to show partiality? Are we to view our enemies as “enemies” no longer, but as neighbors?

If that’s the case, if part of following Jesus means that we challenge the whole notion of having “enemies,” then does your question get re-worded: Does a Christ-follower have any situation where killing a NEIGHBOR, for any reason at all (self-defense, war, etc) is the loving thing to do?
Now I’m inclined to say, resolutely and absolutely, no. There is no instance where killing a neighbor is the loving thing to do. For we are to love our neighbors as ourselves. Defer to them in humility and submission.

I realize this seems like it’s over-simplifying a very complex issue, and I don’t mean for that.
This is part of why I included in my post that this outworking of “love” looks very different in different situations, and demands a prayerful and intentional approach.

When you kill a neighbor, is that loving “them,” is it loving “yourself,” is it loving “your loved ones” you’re trying to protect? Who is being loved when you take a life? I would argue that killing is not “doing good” to those who hate you.

To your second question, here’s the text (NIV) of 1 Cor 5:11,12,

But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat. What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked man from among you.”

First let me say that this is indeed a difficult passage set within a difficult topic (as you evidently are well aware). And I think the tension is good. I’m always hesitant with black and white approaches to things, and these sorts of passages remind us of the greyness (or, as I prefer, the range of colors) in life.

I have 3 thoughts about this:

1) I choose, as a follower of Jesus and an interpreter/teacher of Scripture, to give more weight to the person of Jesus than the person of Paul. This, ironically, was not how I was “taught” at Corban College. Not that any professor outright “said” that the words of Paul were more important, but the very systems of theology that Western Evangelicalism has created for us seems to create a hierarchy with Paul being of more importance on these types of issues than Jesus. And I don’t agree with that. So, I “start” with the teachings and life of Jesus, and “interpret” Paul/Peter/etc THROUGH that lens.

2) As I’m sure you know, cause you’re smarter than me, scholars often differentiate between “descriptive” texts, and “prescriptive” texts. In other words, some passages of scripture are there to “describe” what was taking place in a unique context, setting, place and time. While others are “prescribing” how it “ought” to be for ALL contexts, settings, places and times.

3) As mentioned in my original post, each situation of “loving enemies” requires different nuances, different outworkings of said love. There is no “one-size-fits-all,” unfortunately. And sometimes it is easier and/or safer to operate, or at least start from, the question “what would NOT be loving in this context” and work from there.

So, those three things said, here’s how I approach this 1 Cor passage.

I feel like Paul is being pretty specific in this letter, especially in this passage. Writing directly to the church in Corinth, he addresses a heinous act of immorality: a man being allowed to sleep with his step-mother. Then he moves to a more general position of, as he says, not associating with others who call themselves “brothers” but are sexually immoral, greedy, drunkards, etc. Is it possible, then, that this text is more descriptive than prescriptive? And even if it is prescriptive, might it have limited scope to just what was going on in Corinth?

I don’t think we are forced, by any means, to apply his command-to-the-church-in-Corinth as a timeless truth applicable to all churches. Especially in light of the person, ministry and teachings of Jesus. This is where I start with the things Jesus taught (do not judge, love enemies, do good to haters, forgive men 7×70 times, and so on) and see how Paul’s words fit within those contexts.
Are there times when it is appropriate to not judge and to love our enemies? I would argue a resounding “yes, all the time. It is the way of Jesus.”

Are there times when it is appropriate to “judge those inside… and not associate with brothers?” I would argue, “possibly, but it’s hard to know.”

That’s why a prayerful spirit, humbly seeking guidance from the Spirit, is of the utmost importance. And I feel that if we are to error, we ought error on the side of love and grace over truth. Error on “what might Jesus do,” not on “what might Paul do.” For only Jesus has the words that lead to a full and abundant life.

Also, I see great connection to Paul’s second letter to Corinth, in the 5th chapter as well (ironic), about the ministry of reconciliation. He was pleading with the church to be ambassadors of reconciliation, and that they would be reconciled to God. So even though he may have told them to separate with some of the brethren, he still felt that reconciliation was the end goal. To which I think we can all say a great “amen” to!

I welcome any follow up thoughts.

Love Your Enemy: Part 1

I’ve been thinking quite a bit lately about “love.”

Not in the gooey, mushy sense. But in the “how do I interact with, and LOVE, those around me.” You know, the ones whom I DON’T love in the gooey, mushy sense. Not just those around me, that I personally interact with, but those beyond my limited scope of actually “knowing…” i.e., the rest of the world and what not. (But I’ll talk about that in a different post).

As I’ve been thinking about these things, my mind keeps coming back to the words of Jesus:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” -Matthew 5:43,44

A friend of mine commented that this sentiment, to ‘love your enemies,’ has become trite and/or cliche in a way, over-exposed to the point of probably being largely ignored. Or even worse, just assumed.

“I’m a Christian, so of course I love my enemies.”

Jesus said it again, albeit in a slightly different way, as recorded by Luke:

“But I tell you who hear me, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.” -Luke 6:27,28

One of the things I fear is that we have chosen to sort of re-define “love” in this context. Rather than asking, “what did Jesus HIMSELF mean, or expect, when he commands us to ‘love?”‘ we subconsciously apply our own definition or outworking of this ‘love.’ Jesus tells those who would follow him to love (agape, in the Greek) their neighbors as themselves. And lest they get confused about who their neighbor is (i.e. people they like; people who agree with them; people who meet certain expectations or perform certain behaviors) he tells the famous story of the Good Samaritan to demonstrate that the extent of who our “neighbor” is knows no bounds.

Not only does it know no bounds, but often our “neighbor” is the one person we would LEAST likely think it to be. The one who DOESN’T like us, the one who DOESN’T agree with us, the one who DOESN’T behave like we would like them to.

Love (agape) is not based on condition. You could call it unconditional love, but that too, I worry, is so overused it’s forgotten or assumed.

“You’ve heard it said… But I say…” Jesus came to offer a better way. No, not just ‘offer,’ but demand a better way for those who call themselves his followers. We HAVE to love. We HAVE to love our enemies. We HAVE to love those we least want to. And we HAVE to do it as HE HIMSELF would do it.

Let me share a story.

There’s a guy I knew who had made some terrible decisions over several years of his life. Choices that have permanently hurt those closest to him, his family. This guy was previously well liked by many people who call themselves “followers of Jesus.” I’m sure that in the past most of his friends “loved” him very much, and showed it often. Once this guy’s choices became public he moved from “friend” to “enemy” in these people’s minds. And probably rightly so. And it astounded me (and greatly discouraged me) to see his “friends” redefine the command to “love their enemy.” At best it looked like ignoring him completely. Not calling. Not meeting with. Cold shoulders in public. Complete separation. At worst it looked like judgment. Harsh words. Biting words. A general “hating” of the enemy.

This guy had no doubt “enemied” himself to many people. And yet Jesus still demands that these people love him without condition. Not, “if you repent of everything, then I’ll love you.” Not, “if you stop making those choices, then I’ll love you.” Not, “if you go back to the way things were before, then I’ll love you.” This is not agape love. This is not love without condition. This is not “loving your enemies,” and not the love I believe Jesus would show.

For whatever reason, I chose to love this guy, and be his friend. He knew I disagreed with his choices. He knew I believed he hurt people. He knew. But he also knew that I loved him, without condition. I still met with him, had coffee or lunch with him. Asked about his life. Talked about ministry and God. I challenged him at times and encouraged him at times. I’m wasn’t there to judge or condemn, for I think Jesus has something to say about that too. And I’ll be honest, I’ve come under fire for it. People didn’’t understand why I still met with him. Why I’m still his friend. Basically, why I still love him (although I’m sure they wouldn’t put it that way).

But this guy told me that, were it not for my love, he might have lost faith in God, and certainly the church.

And I believe him.

Because I know another guy who made almost the exact same decisions, and went through very similar experiences. And he didn’t have anyone who loved him without judgment. Who came alongside and offered friendship and love without condition. And he DID lose faith in God and the church.

So with my friend, I’ve tried to love him as I believe Jesus meant, not as I believe the world (or even the ‘church’) would have me love him. That love often says, “I will pray for you, and hope you change, but if you don’t, don’t expect to hear from me anytime soon.”

If I sound harsh, that’s probably because I can’t think of any other way to say it. I’ll bet people thought Jesus sounded harsh, too.

Oh, and lest you think I think this is all easy, it most certainly isn’t. The way of Jesus never is.

Remember when he was telling people not to judge others, and to treat people as you would have them treat you… he ends that by saying,

“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.” -Matthew 7: 13,14

Let’s stop with this thinking that he’s talking about eternal salvation. He’s talking about living out the Kingdom of God. He’s talking about living in the Way of the Christ. That’s hard… really hard. Few find it. Most go through the broad gate, which leads to destruction.

That’s the easy path, and many find that.

It’s easy to NOT love our enemies. It’s easy to think of a million reasons why that person deserves our cold shoulder, deserves our judgment. It’s easy to put that person out of our mind, and just let others show them love. It’s easy to tell that person how awful they are, and what they need to do to fix everything.

It’s hard to live in the way of Jesus.

Few do.

Because it’s hard, confusing, counter-intuitive, unpopular.

It’s hard to love them… to love them in the way Jesus would have us love them.

(As a side note: If you still get caught up on the word “love,” and wonder what that actually looks like in the context of our enemies, then check out the Luke passage again. There Jesus says, “Do good to those who hate you.” Doing “good” is a little easier to understand, maybe, than “love.” It’s harder to redefine, don’t you think?)

I feel compelled to also say that the working out of this “love” is not black and white. It is different in every circumstance, with every person. It takes creativity and hard work. The principles of “loving” an “enemy” who is a friend are much different, for example, than “loving” an “enemy” who is family or with whom you are in an abusive relationship. It’s often easier, for me, to ask: What does NOT loving my enemy look, and start from there.

And so I ask you, who is just ONE ‘enemy’ right now that you should be loving, but aren’t?

If no name comes to mind (which would surprise me), then think of it this way: who is one person who, if you called tomorrow and met for lunch, and people found out, they would say “why are you hanging out with so-and-so, don’t you know what they’ve done?”

It’s easy to ignore.

It’s easy to judge.

It’s hard to love.

Choose love anyways.

(p.s. I need to come back and say that I, by NO MEANS, have this figured out. The example I cited above is simply that, an example. And it is, unfortunately, probably more the exception for me than the norm. I too often choose ignoring or condemning. But I’m working on it, and I pray you will too).

Best New Shows on TV

Every fall, TV Networks do their best (or so they say) to find the next big thing: the next mindbending, myth-inducing LOST; the next side-splitting, laugh out loud The Office, or the next genre creating Survivor. Fox, CBS, ABC, and NBC collectively hold their breath in anticipation that someone out there will watch their new shows, create websites and generate online buzz, and that their new series will actually find that delicate balance between “loved by the critics” and “loved by the crowd.”

And, inevitably, every fall TV Networks get paranoid and restless. They cut shows after one episode, or after one big drop from week to week. They’re so afraid of losing money, they’d rather put out cheap mindless reality junk than invest in an hour long drama or half hour scripted comedy that isn’t doing well in the ratings. It’s easier to cut and run than develop and invest. (Some exceptions are out there, such as Jericho and Friday Night Lights. Both series were loved by critics, but didn’t have huge followings. However, once the networks cut them, there was such a large uproar from the relatively small crowd that DID watch them, that they were ultimately able to persuade the networks to bring them back on! You can actually view all series that were cut in ’08-09 at this website, and you’ll notice that many of the shows have a “petition link” where you can do your best to help resurrect the show.)  Look at NBC this year, rather than roll the dice on 4 or 5 new shows at their 10 o’clock time slot, they’re just running the cheap and easy Jay Leno Show every night! (which, if you haven’t seen it yet, is AWFUL!) Even though ratings have fallen from a 15.2 to a 2.9, it’s making them money

So this fall, I hesitantly thew my interest in to several new shows, knowing that it’s likely that one (if not several) of them won’t last till the end of the season. That said, here are 4 of my favorite new series that I hope survive this (and other) seasons.

MODERN FAMILY

The "Family" gathers in the ER waiting room to welcome Luke after the birthday party fiasco.

Why it’s Great: It’s been a while since a half-hour, family based sitcom has hit the airways with such originality, creativity, and… wait for it… humor! Modern Family tracks 3 pieces of an extended family, mockumentary style, in such a fluid way that you feel, in some way, an extension of this family. Each episode you’ll laugh out loud one moment, say “yup, that’s ol’ so-in-so in my family” the next, and maybe even shed a small tear at the end. The characters are fantastically written and even better performed. If for no other reason, you’ve got to watch it to see the breakout performance of Ty Burell, who plays Phil the son-in-law, in such a beautiful combination of “awe-shucks” and “awe-crap!” Modern Family packs in more laughs than The Office, and always ends with some touching moment that reminds us how important family really is.

Why it Might Get Cut: Writing 10 creative and original episodes is easy, writing another 10 to end the season well is a different story. If the stories and characters don’t stay fresh, the show could start feeling like old-hat. There’s also always the temptation to write in more “sexual-humor,” going for the cheap laughs (i.e. Two and a Half Men). So far, Modern Family has only mildly stooped so low, but that seems to be the default direction at the table when the writers are feeling stale. Also, if popularity continues, I can foresee the large cast all wanting a bigger piece of the pie, and that usually ends up bad.

Prediction for the Future: Because it’s so fresh and funny right now, it’ll easily get picked up for a 2nd season (it’s Best Series Golden Globe Nomination was well deserved, and serves as an insurance policy of sorts). If season 2 is as good as season 1, I predict a strong 5-6 year run.

FLASH FORWARD

Demetri and Mark sort through the chaos immediately after the "blackouts"

Why it’s Great: Again, originality wins out here. A mysterious global event causes everyone to black out simultaneously for two minutes and seventeen seconds, and each person sees a glimpse of their lives six months from now. When they wake up, everyone is left wondering if what they saw will actually happen. It’s a great time-bending, mind-warping adventure, as characters wrestle with whether or not their futures are set in stone. It’s more instantly gratifying than, say, LOST, as questions are more quickly answered. High concept, and so far, high execution.

Why it Might Get Cut: Lack of compelling characters. Or, maybe, lack of good-acting characters. LOST was so successful not because of the crazy mythology of the story, but because the characters drew you in, and you were compelled to keep watching to see what happens next to THEM, not necessarily the story. Flash Forward, however, has not yet created those characters. Leading the way is Joseph Fiennes, as FBI agent Mark Benford, and that could be the problem. Fiennes seems to have one gear in his acting transmission, one emotion in his repertoire. Unfortunately you find yourself laughing at the wrong times, because his acting often seems out of place. A good story can only take you so far, but if we (the audience) doesn’t start feeling invested in them (the characters) I fear people will stop watching.

Prediction for the Future: It really depends on how well they end this season. I hear they will answer most all of “season-one” questions (much unlike LOST), and head in to season two with all new plot lines. I predict season two will be less original, and more desperate. Look for mid-season cancellation during it’s second year.

GLEE

The cast of Glee, posing but not posers.

Why it’s Great:  Glee sort of defies convention. If you just watch the promos for it, you’ll probably find yourself wondering what all the hype is about. On the surface it appears a little silly, a lot dorky, and quirky but not quirky enough to work. However, give it a full episode (other than the dismal episode 11, “Hairography”) and you’ll quickly see that the silliness is endearing, the dorkiness is actually charming, and there’s just enough quirk to work. The characters are perfectly cast, written, and performed. The story lines (other than the pregnancies, which can be distracting) are fresh and engaging. The concept is original. And Jane Lynch, who plays cheer coach Sue Syllvester, delightfully steals every scene with side-splitting hilarity. The musical arrangements range from good to great. But I think what makes this truly great is the chemistry between the actors, and the tenderness by which the writers handle complex story lines (such as “out-of-the-closet Kurt and his relationship with his dad. The best on screen portrayal I’ve seen of this difficult dynamic).

Why it Might Get Cut: America runs on fads. Right now, musical shows and movies is pretty fadish. If the public decides they’re done with High School Musical, then Glee could be right behind. What also worries me, is that the musical numbers too often come across as unbelievable. Not in the “good” sense of the word, but in the sense of, “that doesn’t look or sound right, it’s hard to believe.” I do wish the editors of the show could make the musical recordings sound a little more “live,” so that when it’s dubbed over the actors we at least get the slightest impression they’re actually singing. Bad lip-synching-karaoke can be a little taxing to watch.

Prediction for the Future: If the 4 Golden Globe Nominations are any indicator (Best Series, Best Actress, Best Actor, Best Supporting Actress) this show is gonna stick around for a while. Add to that the incredible success of the shows musical pieces being download on iTunes and purchases as albums, and I think a solid four to five seasons are not out of the question.

V

The leader of the V's (Visitors), Anna, holding a press conference to communicate their "peaceful" intentions.

Why it’s Great: Because deep down we all wonder, at some point or another, what it would be like if aliens actually showed up on or planet. Would they be peaceful and friendly? Would they look to destroy us with advanced technology and intelligence? Would they come thinking they’re superior, only to find that they can actually be defeated by throwing a glass of water at them? (think “Signs” by M Night). Whatever the outcome, we love to ponder the process. V, so far, is proving to be a great version of that story. The production value is high (good special effects, great sets and costumes), and the acting is usually better than that found on Flash Forward. The premise, I think, is great: Visitors arrive to earth and pretend to come in peace, offering advanced medical technology to cure our sickness and diseases. But prior to their arrival en masse, visitors have actually been coming to earth for years and infiltrating every aspect of our culture (disguised as real humans, of course). So there are V’s in Federal Government, in religious leadership, in military, etc (very Men in Black). But there are also small groups of people who have discovered this secret, and are working to expose the V’s, along with the help of some “actual” V’s who have switched allegiance and are helping the humans. That’s a pretty good place to start, if you ask me.

Why it Might Get Cut: If the story goes too “Sci-Fi,” it might lose a following. It seems popular America likes the “idea” of Sci-Fi, but not ACTUAL Sci-Fi. So far, V has toed that line well. I also have to mention the complete unoriginality of character naming. When the lead male character said his name, “Jack,” I literally laughed out loud. As though we need one more show with a Jack-protagonist: Jack Bauer (24), Jack Donaghy (30 Rock), Jack Shepherd (Lost), Jack Malone (Without a Trace), Jack Bristow (Alias) and now Father Jack Landry (played by Joel Gretsch)… I guess that name just sounds good when shouted out in desperation or excitement, “JACK!”

Prediction for the Future: I really like this show so far, but they’re strategy for playing out the first season is awful. They played 4 episodes in November, and are now in the middle of a 3 month break before bringing it back in March. Not sure that’s the best way to keep viewers interested in your new show’s first season. I predict it will finish out the year, but not be brought back for a second season.

_____________________________________

As always, I welcome your feedback.

What are YOUR favorite new shows and why?

Do you agree/disagree with my favorite four?