Uncategorized

Well, what do you think? Is it the means by which you believe you are saved? Whether your doctrine is based on sola scriptura or apostolic tradition? Do you speak where the Bible speaks and silent where the Bible is silent, or is it the other way around? If you’re faith-alone, grace-alone, Calvinist, Swedenborgian, or Arminian? Are you premillennial, postmillennial, or
amillennial?

Or is it how you vote? Your stance on the “big two” wedge issues, abortion and gay marriage? Whether you subscribe to the social gospel or the culture of life?

Do you need the Ten Commandments hanging somewhere in your house or a crucifix instead? Do you have a family Bible, or one held together by duct-tape that you read every day? Do you pray with your head down or hands raised? Are you sold-out, evangelistic, and fruitful?

There are literally thousands of Christian denominations out there divided over issues such as these and some even more mundane like whether or not your church building has a kitchen. This is despite Paul’s admonishment to, “3Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. 4There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called— 5one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.” (Eph 4:3-6) Count the “ones” in this passage and compare that to the cafeteria of choices we have when it comes to choosing a church.

Yet Jesus was very clear in telling us what is really important when asked, 36″Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” 37Jesus replied: ” ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” (Mt 22:36-40)

So what is a “true” Christian? I would argue one who loves God with all their hearts, mind, soul and strength, and who love their neighbors as themselves. I couldn’t tell you if someone I pass by on the street loves God with all their heart. Or even the person I sit next to at church every Sunday. Only God knows the answer to that one. But loving your neighbor as yourself is more evident in the way we live our lives.

My wife gave birth to our second child and first daughter a week ago today. Since then there’s been a deluge of visits, phone calls, gifts and prayers from brothers and sisters in our church. Not to mention a steady diet of home cooked food prepared out of the goodness of someone else’s heart. (Honestly if not for that, we’d be living off of fast food as we’re too much of zombies to do much else.) Many of those who have brought us their specialty dish we’re not necessarily close to. But they are loving their neighbor nonetheless. This is despite the fact that a couple of our best friends gave birth to their firstborn four days prior and they have been the recipients of the same warmth and service. It’s not as if our church is full of people with the means to do this on a regular basis. And it’s not as if this level of love and selflessness is apparent on a weekly basis when I see their faces on Sunday. Yet I know that when I step into church tomorrow I will be greeted warmly with many congratulations, hearty hugs, and sincere smiles. I will feel at home and I will feel surrounded by genuine Christians who truly love their neighbors as themselves.

As an ironic headline to follow up my last post, the IRS has officially dropped its investigation of a Pasadena Episcopal church while the church wants a formal apology. What was the IRS investigating? A sermon a couple of weeks before the 2004 election that was against the war in Iraq. Huh? The IRS investigating a church about a political sermon, how does that work?

A little background on what this is about. Churches file with the IRS as 501(c)(3) organizations, or a “tax-exempt non-profits.” This designation prohibits churches, and other non-profit groups, from explicitly participating in political campaigns or implicitly endorsing one particular candidate over another. This rule stems from Lyndon B Johnson’s 1954 Senate campaign that was facing opposition from non-profit groups. At the time, churches were already tax-exempt and this amendment to the tax code wasn’t directed towards churches but rather politically active non-profit groups (think the historical equivalent of Swift Boat Veterans For Truth or MoveOn.org). Yet because churches fell under the same tax code as those groups the political restriction applied to them as well. But, despite the growing entanglement between churches and politics, rarely does the IRS actually cite a particular church. But while one could quickly side with a church, regardless of the topic preached, it is a little known fact that a church does not have to file as a 501(c)(3). The only real impact not having “non profit” status would have would be that parishioners wouldn’t be able to deduct church contributions on their tax forms. For megachurches with very large incomes, it would also be a significant tax burden. But for a local church, it wouldn’t make much difference.

Despite this, there was a bit of an uproar when this investigation first became public. And the sermon in question was a hot topic: The Iraq War. It did seem like the IRS came at this from out of the blue with a biased political agenda, despite being a non-partisan government bureaucracy. So I do think the IRS was poking its head where it didn’t belong.

On the other hand, I question whether such preaching is really edifying. Does preaching on political issues build up “unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God [to] become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ” (Eph 4:13)? In other words, would preaching about the Iraq war help someone in attendance to become more Christlike if already a Christian or lead one to Christ if not? Not to mention that the purpose of meeting as an assembly of believers is to worship. Is this worship, or is it just grandstanding?

As for the topic itself, there are two main camps with most people falling somewhere in between. One camp is across the board pacifist, not just opposing war but also opposing military service. That side can look back in history to Roman soldiers who were required to serve in the Roman army but would not pledge allegiance to Caesar. Some would refuse to be crowned with laurels, a homage to Ares, the god of war. The other camp looks at what is happening in the Middle East and reads Daniel, Ezekiel, and Revelation and concludes that war, especially in the Middle East, will hasten Jesus’ return. Never mind that the same was preached up to two decades ago about Russia. Nevertheless, I was quite nervous when Syria and Israel were trading rockets a year ago and one of the regions affected was Megiddo (where we get the word “Armageddon”).

So what would be acceptable? To me, a sermon on the above differences in opinion, with scriptures to support both, would certainly be relevant to a church service. But pontificating on an increasingly unpopular war on the other hand, would not. We need to be careful as Christ’s body to use our worship to encourage one another, grow in faith, become more Christlike and to glorify God. Our religion should inform our politics, not the other way around.

Ok, it’s been another three-ish weeks since my last post. At least I’m consistent. The problem I run into is that I see a headline or something comes to me and the wheels in my head start turning. I spend a lot of time doing research, I get distracted, I don’t get online for a long time, and when I finally do get a minute either I’ve forgotten what had me so riled up in the first place or the headline that caught my attention is no longer relevant. And then here we are, three weeks later.

Most recently, I was wanting to post about Elvira Arellano and the use of churches as sanctuaries for illegal immigrants. I was studying my Bible about the role of sanctuary cities and a word study on refuge. Then time flies, and while the illegal immigration debate is still going on (and likely will so long as it continues to be politicized without any desire from either side for a real solution) this story kinda went away. Well, other than the president of Mexico offering to send her to the US to be an ambassador and would therefore be afforded all the rights and privileges of a Mexican citizen in the United States. But the post wasn’t going to be about her, but about what role should our churches play in this debate? And that issue has come up again.

This week, the city of Simi Valley sent a bill of $40,000.00 to a local church for the police required to keep order during a protest outside their doors. The protest wasn’t organized by them, wasn’t planned by them, and really wasn’t even participated in by them. But the rationale was that since their actions, by allowing an illegal immigrant to seek refuge in their church, they incited the protest and that they should be the ones held responsible. Yeah, that makes perfect sense.

If this holds up, it sets a dangerous precedent for the church. Would a church be held financially responsible if there’s a protest on their stance against homosexuality? Or what if a synagogue is vandalized with anti-Semitic tagging, would you hold them responsible? Fortunately, from what I’ve read most agree that this is an infringement on that church’s First Amendment right and a ploy to passive-aggressively stake their ground on the illegal immigration debate.

But that’s not really the point of this either. Is this something we, the church, Christ’s ambassadors, should be getting involved in? There’s no legal standard for a church being a sanctuary for fugitives. Rather it’s an unwritten rule, kinda like fighting on Holy Ground in Highlander. But what’s the history behind it? Obviously our country began as a refuge for many seeking religious freedom. The motivation behind the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment was to keep the government from dictating a state religion so any faith could be practiced freely. Churches were central as sanctuaries pre-abolition just as they were involved during the Civil Rights Movement. So there’s historical precedent. But is there Biblical precedent?

When settling in Israel, the refugees from Egypt were given instructions by God to set aside “sanctuary cities”. These were cities where one could flee if accused of murder so that their case could be heard by the elders before they were killed in revenge. The fine print though, was that they had to be innocent. Romans instructs us that we should obey the law of the land because every authority on Earth is there but for the grace of God. So is it right for a church to be a sanctuary for someone breaking the law, even if we don’t agree with that law?

Another refugee from authorities wrote many Psalms about God being his only refuge. David was being hunted down and though he lived in caves and some towns let him hide, he knew that his only refuge was God Almighty.

But we are also commanded not to “oppress an alien; you yourselves know how it feels to be aliens, because you were aliens in Egypt.” (Exodus 23:9) And let’s not forget about the Good Samaritan, a foreigner. We also read in James, “15Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16If one of you says to him, ‘Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,’ but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? (James 2:15-16)

So what should we do? Where’s the line between giving to a “foreigner” in need and giving them employment? Where’s the line between being sympathetic to illegal immigrants and offering your church as a sanctuary? First, we need to heed to existing laws. Second, we need to reach out to meet the needs of those who are here illegally. They’re here for a reason, after all; the economy in Mexico is an absolute mess. Finally third, we need to be careful not to skate on the thin ice of the hot political topic de jour. We need to let our lights shine, be the salt of the earth, and represent Christ in all we do. My question for all those “safe churches”, are you doing everything you can to enable the immigrant you’re harboring to get on a path to citizenship? What are the circumstances of him or her facing deportation (immigration officers have their hands too full to want to deport someone ‘just because’)? Are you just seeking headlines?

Yes, families are affected and depending on where you live, chances are there’s someone in your congregation who is here illegally. But the church as an institution exists to meet the needs of its parishioners. In this case, that means helping them gain citizenship, legally. Sanctuary in the Bible requires innocence, and unfortunately none of us on either side of this debate are wholly innocent.

Today was the anticipated plea bargain for Michael Vick. There’s an endless debate online on whether he’ll ever play again, if the media firestorm is race-related, will the public forgive him, and on and on. So I won’t go down that road. But in the following press conference, which appeared genuine and sincere, it stood out to me that “through this situation,” he found Jesus, asked for forgiveness, and turned his life over to God because he (and this is my favorite part), “think[s] that’s the right thing to do as of right now.”

My question is, when is it not the right thing to do? Turning to God is an easy PR scapegoat when we get our hands caught in the cookie jar. Either that, or rehab. Now don’t get me wrong, I’m sure God appreciates being “turned to” and I know Jesus appreciates being “found” whenever we actually get around to doing it. After all God, “wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.” (1 Tim 2:4) And we know that trials build our faith (James 1, 1 Peter 1). But it’s awfully convenient when one’s repentance is made so public.

On a related note, I finally caught an episode of “Saving Grace” on TNT. If you haven’t seen it, it’s a story of a cop who makes a desperate cry to God for help and help comes in the form of a tobacco chewing, beer drinking angel named Earl. Ok, it sounds hokey and borderline blasphemous, but it follows a similar mold as “Highway to Heaven”, “Touched by an Angel” and “Joan of Arcadia” where an angel comes to prove God’s existence to a skeptic while at the same time saving the day before the hour episode is up. This show isn’t much different, except it’s much grittier and I was surprised to hear cussing on TNT. I like how the show seems to be structured, the angel is helping Grace with one part of her very flawed character per episode, in tonight’s case it was lying. But I had a hard time being drawn into the story because the grounded storyline, investigating the brutal beating and murder of a woman, didn’t reflect the larger lesson Grace was supposed to learn. Now I admit to being pretty cynical while watching it and I also admit that my short attention span didn’t allow me to actually finish the episode (it was against MNF afterall). But I was intrigued just enough to want to see more.

What does this have to do with Michael Vick? Well, it perpetuates in the media the notion that repentance is easy and God is right there on-call whenever we have a crisis of faith. But if the goings not tough, we can forget about God for a while knowing fully well that he’ll be there when we really need him, as though we don’t always need him. Look, I hope Vick’s new found faith takes him down the same road as Reggie White. (Not meaning to link any of this scandal to anything done by White, but rather as an example of a professional football player who was also a minister) Just as I hope that people who see “Saving Grace” are moved to take a deeper look at their own faith and relationship with God, or lack thereof. But Hollywood has made me too cynical. However, my faith in God, and the ability of his word to be so sharp as to “divide soul and spirit” should cut through those chains of cynicism. Let’s hope so.

What? You were expecting something else after three-ish weeks off? Well, I’ve got a lot in my head, but it’s all stuck behind this, so bear with me. I’m a baseball nut, I can’t help it.

Back when we were anticipating the dawn of the Millennium, everybody and their dog had a list of the Top Whatever of the Century. ESPN had the Top 100 Baseball Players of the Century and there was a lot of debate on who should be on top. I remember debating with friends then, the merit of Barry Bonds. I would have had him in my all time outfield, and this was before he hit 73. Most of my friends thought I was on crack for thinking so, but you couldn’t deny the numbers. He was a 400-400 man. He was a pretty good fielder (at the time). And he hit lights out. He was like Tony Gwynn or Kirby Puckett with a lot of power. You couldn’t get a ball by him. And I was looking forward to watching him and Ken Griffey Jr. chase each other for the Big One. 755. Hammerin‘ Hank Aaron. But history took a different turn.

I remember there being a lot of debate on the inflated numbers of home runs in the league at the time, but little discussion of steroids. I argued that smaller parks, expansion and therefore thin pitching staffs, smaller strike zones, and a stupid rule on hitting batters that pretty much prevented any pitcher from pitching inside were to blame. Oh yeah, and then there was the “juiced ball.” But then came BALCO, and Canseco, and Game of Shadows, and that all changed. Never mind Brady Anderson hitting 50 one season only to never really be heard from again. Never mind (much to our shame) the downward spiral Ken Camenitti’s (forgive my spelling) life took before it prematurely came to an end. It was now all about Bonds and his inevitable trajectory to 755.

I rooted against him. I prayed to the Baseball Gods (can I blaspheme on a blog about Christianity?) that something would keep him from it. I begged and pleaded that he’d just come clean, because face it, none of us would’ve cared if he would’ve come out when the firestorm began. Be contrite. Respect the fans and respect the game, and we’ll cheer you to 800 of that’s where you take us. But it wasn’t to be. Here’s a guy born into baseball with a silver bat in one hand and a golden glove on the other. And he knew it. And he wore body armor and hovered over the plate daring anyone to come near him with a pitch. And he hit home run after home run after home run.

I wanted to find a reason to root against him. He was limping to the record. Aaron never took all those days off, I’d rationalize. But then I’d remember how Ruth was an embarrassment to himself at the end. So the golden number really should’ve been something like 690 instead of 714.

But there I was, hoping for some baseball poetry a week ago to see if it would happen against Hank’s own team, the Atlanta Braves. This had some significance for me as well. My mom is from Atlanta and despite my allegiance to the Cubbies, I’ve easily been to more Braves games than all other teams combined. So it felt right to be there. And it was only right for the Baseball Gods to see to it that the game before went 13 innings so Bonds would sit that day. Go figure. I met up with my sister to see if we could see Swingin‘ Sammy hit any onto Waveland in that milestone year of 98. He went 0-fer both days we were there. So it’s only fair that he’d tie the record on the road against the Padres, where I couldn’t see it, while I was distracted doing something else.

This isn’t about race either. I found an article online on how if Bonds’ record is tainted by steroids, all these old records are tainted because the players from the Golden Age of baseball didn’t play against black competition. I was only able to read half the essay (about 10 pages) before my blood was boiling too much to continue. Not because I’m some racist. But because anyone who makes that argument isn’t a baseball fan. I hear it a lot on sports-talk radio, and poll numbers back it up, that whites are much more opposed to Bonds breaking the record than blacks. But why then, do we care so much that he’s passing another black player in Aaron? One who came out of a segregated and impoverished Mobile, Alabama? My other counter argument is that if that’s the case, then Aaron’s record should be considered tainted as well because he didn’t play against the Japanese. After all, the professional record isn’t Aaron’s, but Sadaharo Oh, a Japanese player. And soon, the all time record for hits in professional baseball will be held by a Japanese player–Ichiro. So do all those records not count?

We revere the records because they stand the test of time, not because of the era that produced them. We respect them because so many seasons come and go without anyone even approaching them. And the names that are spoken of with awe are regarded by history not by the numbers they put up but by the legends that surround them. Shoeless Joe Jackson is a great example of this. Despite the numbers put up by Charlie Hustle, his legend is sealed by his gambling. And regrettably, Barry Bonds’ legend will be forever tied to steroids. And it’s a shame too, because he’s one of the best to ever swing a stick.

I guess you could file this under Off Topic. But to tie it in, I recommend this book, “The Faith of 50 Million” on baseball and religion and baseball as religion. It’s pretty dense as an academic book, and I haven’t finished it yet myself, but it really puts into perspective why we’d root against someone like Bonds and for someone like A-Rod. It also puts baseball in a role as a cultural religion with living parables and endless moral lessons. So maybe this isn’t as off topic as you’d think.

Ok, so the week isn’t done yet, but tomorrow is my wife’s birthday and I plan on spending it on a beach, not blogging here. I hope you forgive me.

First a couple of headlines that are good follow-ups to my last post. A couple of days ago the Pew Research Center released a study showing more working mothers would prefer to work part time so they could be home with their children. The number that would prefer to stay home full-time has stayed pretty much the same. I’m a fan of the part-time option myself. As a personal testimony, my wife, a special education teacher, took a year off after our son was born. A year later, she didn’t want to work full time. She changed districts hoping for a part-time opportunity. She had her doubts, I encouraged her to pray about it, and we prayed together. She went in to interview and was told right off that there weren’t any part time positions available. Then one of the interviewers said, “wait you said you’re special ed?” Then, “whisper, whisper, whisper” to the other interviewers. Then, “we do have this one opportunity if you’re interested…” I’m confident God knows what is best for us. We need to trust him for the right opportunity and sometimes that means going out on a limb.

Today, I read that fewer teens are having sex and there are fewer teenage pregnancies. This is credited to safer sex, but that doesn’t explain that fewer are having sex to begin with. I think both safe-sex education and abstinence education go hand in hand in this good news. Despite these programs though, we need to remember that the best place for our children to learn about sex is in our homes. And we, as parents, need to be open and frank with risks and consequences as well as realistic with the topic of contraception.

Finally, yesterday’s session of the Senate opened in a Hindu prayer and a couple of protesters were thrown out of the gallery. I want to first call attention to a quote from Barry Lynn (Americans United for Separation of Church and State) that the protest, “shows the intolerance of many religious right activists. They say they want more religion in the public square, but it’s clear they mean only their religion.” I seldom agree with him, but he has a point. The Senate can open up in any prayer they want. What ruffles my feathers is the focus of the prayer, opening, “We meditate on the transcendental glory of the Deity Supreme, who is inside the heart of the Earth, inside the life of the sky and inside the soul of the heaven. May He stimulate and illuminate our minds.” I don’t mind non-denomonational prayers, Hindu prayers, Muslim prayers, ecumenical prayers, and on and on. But this prayer was instead a proclamation of faith. Very different than something like, “God bless this Senate and the United States of America” which is vague, can apply to any God and/or any faith. It can be argued that Christians can pray publicly in schools or in government if they left out “in Jesus’ name we pray, Amen.” But to call on a deity, describe him/her, and then ask for him/her to be glorified on the floor of the Senate seemed like nothing more than grandstanding. Contrast this with the memorial for the victims at Virginia Tech. Every minister of every faith called on the name of their own deity, except for the Christian minister. Religious political correctness has neutered even preachers of the Gospel. And that is sad. So instead of protesting a Hindu prayer, we need to more boldly proclaim the Gospel. Instead of being afraid of being politically correct, we need to pray with faith to our God, in the name of Jesus.

After a day celebrating the Fourth at a WWII memorial fundraiser at our local cemetery, watching Transformers, going over to a friend’s for swimming and now waiting for the fireworks to follow a Single-A baseball game down the street, I think it’s safe to say I’ve had a full day. And it was much better than the typical “beer, bbq, and blowing things up” that so many associate with this holiday. Actually taking the time to remember what this holiday is for. I wish more would.

So on to part 2. This is what I first prepared for my communion last Sunday. It’s incomplete because I changed the theme midstream to what you read in part 1. But it’s still worth reflecting on.

Wednesday is the 4th of July. A day to celebrate the birth of our country and the freedoms we have. Most of us have the day off. Many of us have plans we’ve been looking forward to for weeks. This is “the” summer holiday. But it only comes once a year. Once a year to wave a flag, sing the star spangled banner, go to a parade. Do we forget our freedoms the rest of the year? Do we go about our day to day forgetting our freedoms and living like we have none? Living like slaves? Living with the yoke of oppression? Of course not. Our freedoms allow us to live our lives the way we want. For life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Every day, whether we think about or not, celebrate it or not.

But just as with the freedoms we have in this country, when we go about our regular routine, do we give thought to the freedoms we have in Christ? Sadly, many of us do live as though we’re still slaves to our sinful nature, deceived by the world, hopeless of our futures. We carry a weight we don’t need to. We feel like our lives can never change, never get better. The sin we’ve struggled with for as long as we can remember, we face every day. We look around and like David, see wicked men prosper while righteous men are downtrodden. This isn’t the freedom Jesus gave us when he died on the cross. This isn’t how we are supposed to live in Christ. John 10:10 reads, “I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.” Also, in Matthew 11 beginning in verse 28, “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. 29Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”

This is the freedom worth celebrating daily, not reserved for a holiday once a year. Celebrating with transformed lives and renewed hearts, not fireworks and bbq’s. Celebrate the freedom we have in Jesus. Live as we are free. Give thanks to God.

Amen. Happy 4th of July.

Last Sunday I shared about freedom and what that means to us as Christians during our communion service. I have two versions of what I prepared. I changed it up after talking with one of my friends who was concerned about the lack of “true worship” in our church and reminded me that God freed the Israelites from Egypt specifically so that they could worship him. So freedom and worship go hand in hand. The wheels in my head started turning and out came this: (I’ll post my original version later today)

Wednesday is the fourth of July. A day to celebrate the birth of our country and the freedoms we have. But how does that relate to us, this morning, as we’re gathered to worship our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ? First of all, we’ve heard from this podium before, in fact I’m sure I’ve even said it myself from up here, that we should be grateful to God that we have the freedom to gather together to worship him without fear of death, injury, or persecution. We are guaranteed the freedom to worship publicly. But we’re also given the freedom to worship as we choose. And that’s a part that I think is often forgotten. If you look at the history of this country many of those who first settled here did so so that they could worship they way they wanted to: Quakers, Puritans, Catholics, and others all came to this land because they were required to worship a certain way where they came from and were persecuted for not doing so. So today we have the freedom to worship however we want to. This freedom enabled the different Great Awakening periods as well as the Restoration Movement that we owe our history to. So without this part of our freedom, we may have been able to worship publicly, but it’s unlikely we’d be worshiping in this church.

It is no different for us today, following Jesus. Jesus died so that we would be freed from the slavery of our sin. But he also died to free us from the religious tradition that ruled his day. Just because our country allows us to worship however we like, doesn’t mean we should. Paul said not to use our freedom as an excuse to indulge in sin. In the same way, we can’t use our freedom to worship as an excuse to make up our own traditions, our own rules, or bind old traditions to others arbitrarily. Please turn to John 4. Starting in verse 19, we read…

19″Sir,” the woman said, “I can see that you are a prophet. 20Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem.”
21Jesus declared, “Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.”
25The woman said, “I know that Messiah” (called Christ) “is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us.”
26Then Jesus declared, “I who speak to you am he.”

To worship in spirit and in truth. That’s what Jesus died for and what we need to reflect upon when we celebrate our freedom. Are we worshiping in spirit and in truth? With the hundreds of denominations that exist today, I’d argue that we’re not. With the countless traditions, expectations, and doctrines that continue to divide, I’m certain that we’re not. This morning I want to call us to a higher standard, to worship our Lord in Spirit and in Truth.

So I left it hanging. What does it mean to worship in Spirit and Truth? Does it mean ecumenism, seeker-friendly services, Power Point slides, instrumental music or a-capella, emerging churches, speaking in tongues, etc, etc? I’ll leave it to you the reader to search this out for yourself. Let me know what you find.