5 Amateur Tips for Brian Cashman

Now I'm no General Manager of the New York Yankees, but I'm a fan and happy to lend my inferior knowledge to the man who is the Yankees' GM, Brian Cashman. And while I am but a casual fan I should note that Mr. Cashman has actually been following rather closely to my fantasy GM strategy that I laid out several years ago. Kudos sir!

So here is another bit of free advice (if you keep taking it I might one day charge!) as the New York Yankees approach the 2016 non-waiver trade deadline:

1. Trade Carlos Beltran. Now this move cries "Sell! Sell!" but that's what I'm crying. Simply put, too many players are underperforming for the Yankees to realistically expect a playoff appearance this season. CC Sabathia is starting to fade, A-Rod and Tex are doing so bad people are saying release them, Castro has cooled off, Ellsbury has been nothing to write home about, and Headley is whining about the dimensions of Yankee Stadium. The starting pitching is too inconsistent and the offense is too weak. Short of a very strong month (and maybe a weak month by some division rivals) this team should read the writing on the wall and sell. If that is the case, Carlos Beltran is the hitter to put on the market. He is having a resurgent year and should fit in well with a team in need of an offensive boost. Since a QO is a dangerous alternative since he at his age might just accept it, they would be better served getting value for him now.

2. Keep Andrew Miller. Now I'm not saying don't listen to offers for him, any wise GM should have no such thing as an off limits player, but they should have a clear understanding of who they are not interested in trading and would need to be wowed into doing so. That is my feeling with Miller. A lot of talk is that one or both of Miller or Ardolis Chapman will be traded. Now if the market is too good, then do it. But Miller is effective, and locked in for not a long commitment at an affordable price. If the Yankees were to try to replace that production via free agency now it will cost a fair penny more and short of Chapman likely be less effective. The Betances-Miller duo is worth keeping.

3. Deal Ardolis Chapman. Here a QO and extension pursuit is a fair alternative, but the goal should be to deal him. The Yankees got Chapman on the cheap, and if they can turn him into two months of excellent relief + a good prospect they did plenty with him. Not only that, but they could still pursue him in free agency (although I imagine we are talking 50-70mm to resign him). And if they signed him, they would be more able if they chose then to deal Miller in the offseason. But because this team was still effective with just Betances-Miller they could afford to deal Chapman.

4. Don't release Tex and A-Rod. I know there is pressure to do so since they are hitting so poorly, but these two are still only a year removed from Renaissance seasons and may still return to some decent form before the season is up. Additionally, the team is too injured and shallow in depth to care at this point. A-Rod is still a quality DH against lefties at least (he just needs to do something against RHP), and with Bird out for the season and the team running guys like Ike Davis at 1B when he was injured, I have a hard time seeing the case for cutting ties with Mark Texierra. In the absence of an actually 1B replacement, just let the guy play. He still plays some quality defense.

5. Play the numbers game. The Yankees already have several really good and highly rated young players/prospects: Bird, Judge, Mateo, Severino, Sanchez. They don't need a specific position prospect, instead then they should focus on playing the numbers and aim for quantity over quality. Now again this is a general rule. If the deal with a player of such quality comes along you can't say no then don't, but as a rule don't go for just the best player you can get but perhaps several solid or high risk high reward players instead. This is Dave Stearns' approach in Milwaukee. Prospects, even blue chip ones, bust. But playing the odds and getting a lot of players you like instead of the one you like best may be more likely to pan out. And as Cashman has been working to restock his system the last few years by withholding making trades, and acquiring young, controllable players, and dominating the international market this is another way to go. Keep filling the system with quality players. The Yankees don't need to produce stars, they need to produce the players who can surround stars. Because they can afford to add the star when they need one. And with the next two seasons seeing an end to some of those disastrous deals, they can gradually (as opposed to say 2008-9 offseason when they signed Tex, Burnett, and Sabathia in like a week) again start to take on big deals to add the players they want most.

Opening up faith through the Creed

It was one of my doubting mornings. One of those where you feel the wear of doubts and disclaimers about your faith and you just want God to do something to show he's really there and not some imaginary bird on an imaginary island. Yeah, it was one of those mornings.

So my morning prayer became a bit of a pretentious tantrum with the Sovereign, and I did just that: show yourself. SPEAK! If I were humbler, calmer, less doubtful I might have put it in the better "Speak Lord, for your servant is listening." But God knows better than most that some days I'm less refined and make up for the refinement with volume. SPEAK!

So God spoke.

"What? You mean you heard his voice?"

Well not like you might be imagining. But the thing is, those who seek often actually do find. Particularly when what they are seeking is what God is offering: his Spirit. "How much more," Jesus says in the Gospel of Luke, "will your Heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit for those who ask for him?" And when your crying for faith, for something to stir against the doubt, really what you are asking for is the Holy Spirit.

At first it was quiet. Like a moment of sheer silence (Elijah found God there, btw). A gentle draft blew the drape over the table behind our baptismal font. I was hoping for that voice from above you might have thought I was speaking about when I said God spoke. Oh that would be nice. I believe I've only experienced that once in my life. Not this time. This time things were all quiet; no earthquakes, lightning clouds, or heavenly visions.

So I moved on; not from faith, but in my morning prayer. I moved on to the Apostles Creed and it was there that I heard a voice speaking, stirring, preaching as I confessed those words. The ancient communion of saints, the long tradition of the faithful before me, they in those words were in fact confessing to me. It was from them that God spoke. "Whoever listens to you," Jesus also says in Luke, "listens to me." Here's what I heard:

In doubt, let the creed open your faith.

Start with God the Father of all things, Creator of everything. The most basic belief in the existence of the Divine is tied to our own creation. You are a creature, there must be a Creator. The Father is the easiest and most natural belief you have.

Then confess Jesus. Notice how much longer it is, how spelled out it is. The length may be a consequence in part of theological issues, but even that reveals something. The heart of the matter rests on Jesus and so it takes more time to talk about him. God is fully revealed (as Father, Son, & Spirit) in his incarnation and resurrection. The center of faith and the revelation and story of God therefore goes back to him. Take time telling his story. We take time confessing Jesus, because confession of faith and the outcome of our faith hinges on the Godhead in human flesh. This is the story that we must go back to in our doubt, when things seems confusing or overwhelming, when nothing seems real this is where God was so real you could touch him. And confessing Jesus no longer allows confessing the Father to be only a belief in the distant creator, but in the over-involved creator of the Hebrew faith.

And if our faith has become infatuated with this incarnate Son, then we confess the Spirit. It only follows that if Jesus rightly calls me to faith, then this Spirit that his first followers so adamantly relied on was real too. And this Spirit precisely leads people into the holy life of faith. Belief in Jesus by the Spirit enlivens all the Spirit's activity in your life. Thus now you confess the church of which the Spirit joins you to and operates from. And if you are a part of the true church, you are in communion with all the saints whose faith of old is born anew in you, and if you are of the holy church and in fact a holy person (saint literally means holy one) then you must have the promise of forgiveness of sins and resurrection to life everlasting. For these God promises hand in hand for those he has saved and joined to his body known as the Church.

And like a good Lutheran the amen rings out, faith again assured that this is most certainly true!

By the end I found myself clinging physically to the cover of our baptismal font, a great symbol as my faith was then and there clinging to the baptismal creed. In my doubt I had said the words of belief, and they stirred belief in me, they dragged me from doubt. They began with a simple belief, focused in detail on the central story of Christian belief - which is somehow the most outlandish and yet most believable, and from there promised everything I feared was just a thought.

"Wasn't that still just a thought?" you might ask.

No. It was the answer to my prayer. It was the Holy Spirit for a hungry soul, it was a voice saying "Don't let those doubts hold back your faith", it was the silence being broken with the words "I believe". It was God, the voice of the saints, and a lonely sinner caught up in one desperate prayer. That's not a thought, that's an event.

And even if it doesn't convince you, don't think that is simply because you are skeptical, because I was rather skeptical at that moment too. And it opened everything for me.

Peace in Christ readers!

Reminders to Pastors

So the last post I penned has been far and away my most popular blog to date, logging over a thousand reads in the first 24hrs and just when I thought it was winding down, it experienced another upswing. It had me thinking, though, that if a blog on what to do when you don't like your pastor could become so popular and resonate so quickly with so many, it likely means there are a lot of dispirited pastors who have experienced strained relationships in their churches. This post then, is meant to be for pastors then, especially with struggles of ministry in mind. So below are some things I remind myself or have learned during the hardest days I've experienced in my short years of ministry.

1. Bank pastoral trust wisely. In one of my first blog posts I discussed keeping the flag in the sanctuary. In there I described the idea of pastoral trust as a bank account. Basically, certain things you do in ministry with/for people will store up for you pastoral trust - which is basically trust that you are spiritually nourishing, which is important because other things in ministry are not easy to face with people, and that will use some of your pastoral trust. It may seem a crude and overly economic interpretation of ministry, but the principle I would not quickly discard. Recognizing the dynamics of pastoral trust will help one time ones actions and assess when you can be most helpful or when trying will be a detriment to ones ministry. I'm not saying you can't do anything without pastoral trust, just that you should recognize how much harder it is to accomplish. Understand that some things do change over time. I think this principle is most helpful if you regularly use up pastoral trust. If you are very direct, or constantly trying to make significant changes within parish life, you are going to be using a lot of pastoral trust. It means to be effective is not just good planning, it's good ministering. It means understanding why you sometimes are up against a wall in your ministry plans. This is helpful not only for the pastor who overdraws, but who never takes withdrawals. If you struggle with things about individuals or your church as a whole but am very timid to address them, this may be what you need to know to believe you can. Last year in my churches another pastor from another parish and myself proposed a major plan that would have instilled a massive shift in my parish's life. We didn't have to do it (like faithfulness to Jesus Christ was not on the line), but there were a lot of practical and Christian reasons to do it. But it was a terrifying endeavor to propose. It was the knowledge that I had some pastoral trust that helped embolden me to make the proposal (which almost, but didn't quite pass). In the tension, I was able to ride my pastoral trust a bit to let people consider and not outright reject it. There is one more element, and that is understanding that not all parishes or parishioners give pastoral trust equally. Understanding history is important here. For example, churches that are used to a lot of pastoral transition don't give as much pastoral trust (especially in relation to long term issues), because they don't trust you will be around long. A church that had a bitter fight over frequency of communion will require more pastoral trust if you seek to change communion wafers to communion loafs. And also, how you address issues impacts how much pastoral trust you withdrawal/deposit.
2. Minister with patience. Patience is important in relation to pastoral trust. But it is important in general. One thing I struggle with most is when I forget to regard with patience the work of God in the people. Here I particularly commend to you three passages of scripture:
   1 Corinthians 3:7-8 - So neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth. The one who plants and the one who waters have a common purpose, and each will receive wages according to the labor of each.
   Isaiah 55:10-11 -  For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven,
       and do not return there until they have watered the earth,
   making it bring forth and sprout,
       giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater,
    so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth;
       it shall not return to me empty,
   but it shall accomplish that which I purpose,
       and succeed in the thing for which I sent it.
   2 Peter 3:9 -  The Lord is not slow about his promise, as some think of slowness, but is patient with you, not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance.
   The Corinthians passage is most important for me in such times. To remember that as a pastor you only see often part of the work. For some I am but planting a seed, for others watering, and many times I won't know or see the full fruit of the labor. In fact, I am often seeing the labor of pastors before me, and God willing my successors will see the fruits of mine. It is important to remember when the people seem frustratingly slow in their "spiritual growth". When we remember that we may only be a part of the means by which God creates and sustains faith, sometimes maybe all we're doing is tilling soil for the seed, but we are nonetheless doing something, or more specifically, God is doing something! Remember the Isaiah promise that God's word will not return empty, and so even if you have yet to see the fruit, God gives the growth and his word has promised to go out and do just that, you can trust that when you are despairing that you accomplish nothing. Lastly I also leave the reading from Peter, which reminds us to be patient in such work. God is not slow to his promise, he even delays his return because of his patience in giving growth because he wills none to perish. Every day Christ has not returned, is another day he has granted for this work to continue in these people. 
3. Beware of Complexes. We often talk about the Messiah complex, in which we begin to put upon our shoulders what properly belongs on Jesus'. You are not the one who saves anyone, and this is not a glory seeking business, so don't get caught up in being a glory seeking success story of overcoming each person's personal struggle. Do that and you will burn out, bear undo disappointment, and move the focus of your ministry off of Jesus Christ. Even the one who sees themselves as having to get people to see Jesus put so much upon themselves they actually lose sight of Christ themselves. And like Peter who lost sight in the storm, you will sink. But there is a second complex we are equally vulnerable to and is much harder to wrestle with; I call it the martyr complex. This happens when we identify every opposition to our ministry as opposition to the gospel. When I lack humility, I idolize my own ministry. Not every rejection of your sermon, teachings, or style is because the people stone prophets. Sometimes it is our own fault. I think especially here in the western world, where martyrdom texts and words about persecution are most easily identified not with violence but with non-physical hostility it is difficult to sometimes discern when the hostility is truly to the Gospel and truly to our own work. None of us is too good to be exempt from righteous hostility. And one thing I know, even a Gospel-filled sermon can be done differently or dare I say better. When things are not going well, complexes creep up on us. We put too much of the struggles on ourselves (Messiah) or we put none of them on us, seeing ourselves as only righteous victims (Martyr).
4. Understand the burden of the office. What I mean here (since many pastors will ask "which burden") is particularly to understand what it is to be set apart by your title. It means you are perpetually "on duty", your personal and professional life are one and the same, it means people around you in the community will respond to you negatively or positively simply because you are a pastor. I've walked into a small town bar on a Friday night in my clerical, some were totally uncomfortable by my presence, others were delighted and opened up quite a bit about their own spiritual life. But my office alone dictated that whole experience, and all I wanted was to stop on the way home from a long day of work for a beer. Other burdens of the office is that people in the church judge you by it. That is, as "pastor" you are judged not just for who you are, but who "pastor" is to them (whether by some ideal or by the previous pastor). As one pastor noted to me when I first started out, "Some people will not like you simply because you aren't their last pastor. And some will like you because your not the last pastor." And that is so true. And it is hard to remember that many judge me as pastor, not as simply me. And sometimes we need to understand that, to be reminded that people who don't like us in ministry often actually aren't doing so personally (even though we inevitably take it personally). Then of course there is the added burden of not just you, but your family being all under the same umbrella of your job. And no matter how unfair that seems, this reminder is not about saying every element of being set aside is right, but to understand that it happens. Because understanding helps us handle ourselves well, and battle sometimes its frustration. When you understand why someone does something frustrating for example, it is easier to still be compassionate toward them and not let that frustration dominate your relationship. 
5. Have compassion on the parish. This flows straight from the last. Understanding the dynamics of the relationship you have with parishioners and community members helps offset the frustrations that can arise from those dynamics. And that is important because compassion is important. Here I will though especially stress compassion in the literal sense; co-passion - a companion in suffering. Suffer with your church. Where I need this reminder most is when frustrated, or something in the parish life did not play out how I'd like it to (and perhaps I made an effort to direct it differently that failed). In those times the inclination is to simply deny them. This is when "they" language becomes the great temptation. "They did this" "They did that" "They did not listen to me". It's an effort to absolve ourselves and villainize. You are part of your parish, and even in its greatest struggles, even when you tried to steer it elsewhere, you two are in the mission together. The moment I first knew I would accept the call to my parish was when I defended them before others, spoke protectively of them, even in things I was not too big on. I remember that still, and sometimes have to remind myself to come to their aid. Some may fight me on this analogy, but think of it like children, you really want the best for them and even when they disappoint you and go against you it doesn't divorce your sympathy from them, and in any way you can you will defend them and still support them. Sometimes you can't, and sometimes there is still admitting their mistake, but you are still going to suffer with them if you can through their mistake. As a pastor it is easy to not want to suffer with them. And so remember to love them enough not only to lead them in the right, but to not abandon them when they have strayed. Instead, be a faithful, loving, and compassionate witness wherever they go. And remember, loving compassion is more than just being right and telling them when they are wrong, for you can be faithful in doctrine and short on love. Just read Revelation 2:2-5 where a church committed to the right belief is absent of their love. 
6. Be a servant. When I was in college, I remember being taken by the description Pope Gregory the Great gave his job: servant of the servants of Christ. You are the servant of God's servants. And it is always good to remember that, because as a leader who is given power it is easy to forget it. When I was on internship someone noted to me once what it meant to see the intern pastor shoveling snow. To this individual they said it was a humble thing to see. That wasn't my intent in doing so, my intent was making sure no one slips coming into church. But it taught me something I have told myself throughout ministry: there is no job in church I'm "too good" for. There are jobs I prefer not to do, there are jobs others can do, and in fact because it is important to include others I encourage them to do. But when it comes down to it, I remind myself when the need is there to also be willing to help. Extend that now to outside the parish when I visit. People are regularly at my service, wanting to serve me. And I imagine for many pastors this is the case. Remember who we are: we're servants God, and servants of the servants of Christ. 
7. Take your job seriously. This does not mean you can't have any fun. Those who know me know that I am humorous (or at least try to be) and often very joyful. But the idea is to say that what we do really does matter. I think this is one of the things Bonhoeffer brings out in Cost of Discipleship, he saw the Evangelical Church as not treating its ministry as if it matters. Now some of his ideas I take issue with, but he's right that it is no small thing to baptize someone into Christ and a life of Christian discipleship. Along with the firm reminder that God is working in frustrating ministry is also the reminder then that what we deal with (even in frustrating times) matters, because when disheartened it can be easy to neglect giving our ministry the care it deserves. But salvation, redemption, and renewal are things this world needs.
   Think of Paul's words in Romans 10:13-14
   
    13 For, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
   14 But how are they to call on one in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in one of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone to proclaim him? 
   It is a scary thing to think of what my neglect in ministry means for others. This is a warning, but it is also a comfort. We need to be reminded sometimes that our work is meaningful. After the funeral for her father, a pastor I know once said she was reminded of how important what we do is when she was the one in grief being preached to. Someone prayed for me this week, and the shivers and feeling that courses through your veins and runs down your spine when you hear another person hold you in prayer, it reminds me how important a thing that is to do for another. Despair and hardship in ministry is worth encountering because this stuff matters. It matters enough that Jesus would die to secure this Gospel and it matters enough that the Holy Spirit was poured out to seal it in our hearts and empower the proclaiming of this message with the grace of Jesus. And if we want people to care about this ministry, we'd best care about it too. It's unfair to expect a congregation to be invested in, partners in, and partakers of a ministry we don't even show as important.
8. Remember Article VIII. Some non-Lutherans won't understand especially what this is a reference to, maybe some Lutherans are wondering too. It refers to Article VIII of the Augsburg Confession. Now this might seem the odd one to focus on, since Lutheran theology is by and large centered on Article IV, the article of justification by faith. And I certainly hope pastors are remembering that, since it is key to understanding and preaching the Gospel of free grace. But here I am referring to the article that has calmed me when the church is in a troubled state: the article on the Nature of the Church. What I remind myself from here is the line "in this life many false Christians, hypocrites, and even open sinners remain among the godly..." This sentence is important because we struggle with the church when it seems so not like the church. But the church isn't the church because we do what is right, and in fact as a Lutheran we say confessionally that there always has been and in this life always will be wicked people in the church. Remember that, because it means as pastors we will run into them, deal with them, suffer from them. And the more there are or the more they are in leadership, the harder that is to face and the more tempting it is to abandon the church or even declare it isn't a church. But don't say that. Where the Gospel is at work among believers, there is the Church. And the presence of others and their work does not simply undo that. Jesus was effective in his ministry even in the face of opposition then, and still is today. Bad leadership cannot stop him where his word is active. In fact, Article VIII reminds us that even when we are the wicked ones the church is still truly the church and God's grace is still being shared: "the sacraments are efficacious even if the priests who administer them are wicked men". And so when things seem very unChristian, don't let that discourage you. When I was a teen, my faith flourished and grew in a congregation that was dealing with some horrible discord. And I was well aware of it too, serving on the board of elders at 17. I knew more than most in the parish, yet God was still very much at work there. It has been a blessing to remember how much God can do with a church even when it is divided. Remember Paul calls the the horribly divided Corinthians saints and says they were "sanctified" (1 Cor 1:2).
9. Stay faithful to your office. From these last two flows this one. If what we do actually matters, even when the church is horribly flawed we are to remain faithful even when we see unfaithfulness. The Augsburg Confession one article earlier declared the Church was "the assembly of all believers among whom the Gospel is preached in its purity and the holy sacraments are administered according to the Gospel." This definition reminds us why we take what we do seriously. The working of Christ and his means of grace are the foundation for the Church. If you're like me, you might have a tendency to be a people pleaser, and therefore face the constant temptation to not be faithful to the Gospel when it is hard or unpopular. You face the temptation to put the scriptures in more desirable light, or to defend God's actions. But you are called to preach the word, and have been set apart because preaching does that. I also know, that our job sometimes is not as closely monitored as others. It is a difficult balance between doing too much and too little, and people don't always know how much time you put into things (they may think you put little in when you spend all day on something, they may think you've been hard at work on that sermon that you put little time into). And when we meet unfaithful activity, we want to play their game. Yet we are following after Jesus Christ, who did not betray his mission in the face of difficulty. Or as Paul put it in 2 Timothy "if we are faithless, he remains faithful, for he cannot deny himself." Let this be not only our creed but our own job description. I also go back to my ordination vows. I took to reading more scripture this year, because I promised to be diligent in my study of scripture and I was too often only caring about the passages that were being preached on. Remember to look at precisely what has been asked of you as a pastor, and be willing to correct yourself to be more faithful to that endeavor. 
10. Be a sheep too. For this last one, I turn to former Swedish Bishop Bo Giertz, who reminds us the Seelsorger (soul shepherd) needs soul care too. In his essay "How the Seelsorger Cares for His Own Soul" he makes these points:
    a: Even the Seelsorger Has an Old Adam. "Just as the Old Adam does not die in Baptism, so he survives ordination also. If he gets some time to himself, he can get along wonderfully well in the cassock." Take seriously your own sin, because our depth of religiousness makes us susceptible to masking sin instead of subduing and crucifying it. I multiply my problems when I forget this.
    b: Even the Seelsorger Needs God's Word. "There are pastors whose Bibles are noticeably little used. The pericopes are diligently used, but not the Bible. In such a case, one can seriously suspect that the Word applies to others but that the priest for his own part thinks that "he can do without it."...But he must also read the Bible as a common parishioner, for his own upbuilding, for rebuking, for reparation, and for fostering righteousness, in order to express the matter as Paul does when he warns Timothy to hold fast to the Holy Scriptures he has known since childhood." How true is this? I spoke just above how I fell into this very failure, and still it is easy to hear the scripture first for sermon, second for me. All the struggles talked about here remind me again how important it is to read for my spiritual care too.
    c: Even the Seelsorger Needs to Be Converted.  This one might make some uncomfortable or quick to dismiss (especially in America where the occupation is a bit different than it was with Giertz and the state church), but even still we shouldn't discount this. "There is a very great possibility that he will entrench his heart behind theological excuses. He may shun Free Church-type awakening techniques and un-Lutheran pietism and avoid asking the questions, "Am I rightly converted to God? Have I a part in my Savior?" And to Giertz the term conversion I think is also much greater than in our modern American Evangelical usage, where it means making a decision for Jesus or identifying with the Christian faith. That to Giertz is more like awakening. Conversion is faith in its fullest sense, and he speaks elsewhere of "daily conversion" much like Luther's catechism talks of "daily dying". To constantly be living by faith even when leading others into faith. When dealing with church problems and other spiritual crises, we must not neglect our own spiritual crisis.
    d: Even a Seelsorger Needs the Support of an External Order. We need external, devotional practices and not to carry everything simply in our hearts, head, or wherever else we think we keep our worship and devotion of God. And we need to keep to them lest we skip them. "As a matter of fact, he needs much resoluteness to hold fast to a particular order for his devotion and follow through with it despite all difficulties. Otherwise, hurry and haste come to choke out Word and prayer from his life. First, the many worries and obligations encroach upon the devotions. Then the priest thinks about his approaching sermon, about the troublesome letter he must write, on all the telephone conversations he can't forget." As I write this I had to pause, and step away. I had put off this morning prayers to prepare for a meeting with the intention of praying afterward. Did I? So easy it is to let the rush of ministry upset the routine of spiritual discipline. One of the reasons I instituted midweek morning prayer at my church was for this very reason. I knew I (and suspected many others) too easily neglected prayer. And so I established a simple order of morning prayer with a devotion. We keep a copy of it on the website so those at work can pause to pray too. And even when weeks go by with no one coming into church to join me I won't get rid of it because it is as much for me as for my members.
    e: Even a Seelsorger Needs Holy Communion. "Does it need to be said that the pastor need Holy Communion?...There are cases where it needs to be said." While I imagine you probably partake with your congregation in communion, here the reminder is it is just as important that we do so. And I think the reminder is a good one, because as the presider/distributer one has less time in devotion when partaking. But as Giertz says, "I have the experience that one is blessed by it, even when the external circumstances have been unusually hasty and pressing. Just as one is blessed by prayer and the reading of God's Word even when one cannot do it in such a peace and tranquility as one would have desired." Being on this end of communion, which puts our whole process of preparation and participation quite differently than when we get to sit in the pew does not change the grace offered and therefore the eternal significance there is every time we partake.
    f: Even a Seelsorger Has Need of Confession. This is something protestants as a whole have mournfully neglected. There is a night-day difference between silent and verbal confession. And I assure you, while you may confess to God alone (you don't need the pastor) there is a major difference of doing it before someone else. And listening to absolution is greatly different than absolving yourself. "He shares [in needing confession] all the same reasons as laymen. He needs it to help him become clear about his own standing before God...He needs it very particularly when he has lost his own peace in some other trap that the soul's enemy set before him." Find someone - pastor, spouse, bishop - someone who you trust your confession to and who will administer the words of grace back unto you. Don't let your burdens remain bound or get by on the semi-freedom of your own "knowledge" of forgiveness. Seek the assurances we provide within our fellowship.
    g: Even a Seelsorger Has a Merciful Savior, Who Never Fails to Forgive. "It is dangerous for a priest to forget that he needs forgiveness. It is even more dangerous for him to forget that he can receive forgiveness and that he has it on account of Jesus." We place so great a burden, are reminded constantly of God's great demands, can easily feel like a failure when our church does not grow or change, and if the statistics say anything - most of us battle depression in some form (I do at times). The burnout rate you face is fierce and I blame no one who ever has left the ministry. We are targets of spiritual warfare, poverty, and exhaustion. Therefore as we speak the message for others, let us not go on forgetting it is ours too by grace. We need to know we are not just shepherds of the sheep God has entrusted to us (1 Peter 5:1-2), we are sheep in the care of the Good Shepherd. 

What a way to end this blog. Though long, it is ended with the joyful word of God's grace. Therefore, I close to you with these words from Giertz (also written regarding the last point):

Serve the Lord with joy. This is not the least important for the priest, who here on earth stands in the forecourts of heaven, placed by the door through which he continually distributes heaven's gifts to his congregation. For this reason, he can always be joyful in the Lord, not because of himself, not because of his congregation, not over great successes, but because of his Lord, because of the great Savior who does not fail to forgive and who lets every day be a new day of grace.

When You Don't Like Your Pastor

from www.myownlittlereality.com

So here is some pastoral counsel on what to do if you don't like your pastor. Of course, if I'm your pastor that you don't like, you probably won't like what I have to say, but don't let that stop you from reading this too. But mainly this blog is dedicated to those individuals out there who might care about what I'm writing more than what their pastor is saying on Sunday morning.


Here is the big surprise: it is good to have a pastor you don't like. Oh it's good to have ones you do like too, and make no mistake, we like being liked. But we're not in this business to be liked and you didn't call us to simply be likeable, you called us to lead the congregation through the preaching of God's Holy Word. But know this, if you take this counsel seriously there are many things about having a bad pastor that will actually be for the benefit of your spiritual life. Here's what to do:

1. Trust Christ. Boom! Let's start here. Don't forget who this church really belongs to. It ain't that pastor and it ain't you. It doesn't matter that the pastor is the leader or you've been there since 1937, the church was organized to God's glory and Christ's mission. And Jesus is still the same. Even when you just lost your most beloved pastor ever, those sermons are still good. Keep trusting in Jesus. When the pastor is in your eyes a failure, good news: your church, your faith, your salvation rest in the work of Jesus Christ on the cross and the continuing work of Christ through the Holy Spirit. A bad pastor breaks the common idolatry of putting pastors on the pedestal and fating everything on the pastor's inherent awesomeness. Good pastors should be good in how they teach you to trust Christ, bad pastors are good in how they make you trust Christ. More than anything else, hear this good message that Jesus builds the church and wherever one finds him the church is to be found. At worst a pastor can ruin an institution in which the Church is found, but the communion of saints, the Church Universal, that is the product of the Holy Spirit and the very Body of Christ, a union made by His work. Even a closed congregation does not undo this confession of faith. Pastor's bear Christ, but they are not Christ. 
2. Start praying. Don't just complain and moan and hate your pastor, pray for your pastor. One moment that always stuck with me was the rantings of burdened Johannes in Bo Giertz's book Hammer of God (which I regularly have in this blog and will continue to recommend to you all). At one point Johannes reflects on his attitude towards the pastor. He says, "Then the pastor came to the pulpit. Potbelly, I thought. You can play cards and fish for trout, but you cannot feed God's poor little lambs with the Word." But then he realizes his own failure, "But I had not prayed for him. Was that love?" We often are quick to criticize and slow to pray, perhaps it ought be the other way around. I thought of this with the previous Presiding Bishop of the ELCA Mark Hanson. I have thought at times of writing to him a similar confession, that I was quick to criticize him and slow to pray for him which is not how it should be. People who think less of their pastor should all the more take to prayer for their pastor's sake. You'd be surprised what prayer can do, to both you and the pastor.
3. Study and do more for yourself and your church's ministry. If you take issue with what your pastor says, or suspect the pastor is not properly preaching law and gospel, or are "getting nothing from the sermon" then study for yourself. A bad pastor can be the initiative we need to be sure we know what the Bible actually says and how to interpret it for reproof, guidance, and comfort. It can be easy to almost let a good pastor enable undisciplined lifestyle, but when one can no longer lean wholly on such a place, those who hunger and thirst will search themselves. Really, both should be happening. The gospel should be preached and sought, but a "bad" pastor can ensure there is not just preaching and no seeking. Similar to when a pastor leaves a church and people pick up the slack and thereby actually take up more of their Christian call for the church, if the pastor seems inefficient you can actually still seek to help. If you think everyone isn't being visited: a) tell your pastor this, but b) help by doing visits too. If the pastor is rubbish at administration, try to help keep things running well (get involved in church leadership). There are actually a lot of ways people can assist the pastor, and many pastors welcome the assistance (and I'm sure all would welcome assistance over just criticism).
4. Listen anyways. You may not like your pastors sermons, but keep listening. Luther points out two things that tell us we should listen on when we don't like our pastor's preaching: a) we are more apt to praise a preacher for their style more than content (use of good stories or allegories). He would note that the people would "sleep and cough when we preach the article of justification but prick up their ears to stories." Basically, don't think simply because you don't like what they say or how they say it they are not speaking the Word of God. Scripture often shows the word to be despised as well as its preachers. The second thing Luther says is you are never too good for a poor preacher. "no man," he says, "is so learned or holy that he may neglect or despise the poorest preaching; for he does not know when the hour will come in which God will perform His work in him through the preachers." I've been guilty of thinking the bad preacher cannot preach the gospel. I once listened to a man speak, walked away totally disappointed in all he had to say. Next time he came I had no real interest in listening, but alas, I was expected to. Lo! And Behold! From his lips came wonderful good news and great stories and meaningful theology. God the Holy Spirit is at work in the church, thus you are not just listening to the preacher and should not just assume your pastor is the only one working when a sermon is preached. Always be open to the Spirit and the work of the Word. Those who shut their ears or disappear completely from church when they don't like the pastor do themselves no favors.
5. Be a Christian to your pastor anyway. And by Christian, I mean a loving brother/sister in Christ, not a passive-aggressive jerk. This sounds obvious, but Christian hospitality in churches is not a given for anyone. We often take time to talk about it with visitors (be welcoming), but how about with your pastor. A visitor really you probably have little overall expectations for anyways, and so apart from them standing out, or you failing to notice them, they are actually relatively easy to be embracing of (at least initially). But a pastor is far different, because the pastor is more clearly there to serve you (although all Christians, members and visitors alike should be to some extent at one another's service), you're "paying" this "employee" (although that is not really an accurate term technically or theologically, at least in my church body). Because of this perception, it is easy to judge on those expectations over the common Christian call and identity. Just as much as the pastor can be the easiest person to see as a Christian (especially by the community) the pastor can also be the easiest to forget is a fellow Christian by the pastor-parishioner relationship (especially when that relationship is judged in consumerist ways). Therefore, if you do not like your pastor, then deal with them the way the brother is supposed to deal with the prodigal son...come to the banquet with him. Don't separate yourself from your pastor, but in Christian love by which Christ has truly removed the dividing wall love that pastor. The power of Christ compels you (just love that I got to write that) to do so, and a lack of such love is a lack of Christ himself. The Bible reminds us to support those who are leaders and servants of the Gospel.
6. Model what you want out of your pastor. Aggression towards a pastor is more likely to return aggression and discord. Be the person you want your pastor to be. Reflect Christ for them, so that as His light shines in you the pastor may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven (ever think of Jesus' command that way before?). Many of these numbers above are examples of this, but it is to say, keep extending it. As a pastor, my ministry is my engagement with the study of the Word and the sharing of it among individuals. So how that word impacts you does impact me. And giving your pastor unconditional grace is precisely what the job is about. Don't drag each other down, build each other up. Practice forgiving and being graceful.
7. Communicate displeasure with the pastor in a Christian manner. None of this is to say no beefs with pastors are not legitimate. And sometimes you need to reprove the pastor, but your issues should be handled in a Christian manner. That means sharing them with the pastor not with others about the pastor. It is unChristian to defame the pastor's reputation, and it is to the detriment of your own church to do so actually. It is helpful to point out to the pastor where you would like to see improvements/change in the pastor. That doesn't mean the pastor will listen (sometimes because it is not a realistic or necessary change, sometimes because we too are stubborn and have a hard time taking criticism and think we're always right). But the bottom line is this, if you don't tell it to your pastor, you have no reason to expect the pastor to change/amend. If you tell it in an unChristian, overly harsh, or unrealistic manner, you shouldn't be surprised when the pastor does not change. Here in the midwest, confrontation is not something we are good at. We rarely do it, and when we do we often do it poorly. But I will also say this, once the pastor knows you are making the complaints behind his/her back before going upfront to the pastor about them, you've already done a lot of damage to ever positively impacting that pastor's efforts. I will also say this: anonymous complaints are to many pastors (myself included) worth very little. If you can't stand behind your complaint, you don't seem to be taking it very seriously, and you remove any chance for conversation/defense by the pastor. And we know how the "some people have said" argument is a tactic, that often tries to give undo weight to an argument by giving the perception that more are behind it than there are, and when used that way it involves others sometimes unnecessarily. Truth, love, openness, and involving others properly are all important towards good communication.

These should be enough to get you started. But as I said in the beginning, this is good for you too. That is, these are Christian practices inserted in the time when the devil would so tempt your spirit to not be Christian. Following these means even when you don't like your pastor particularly or get much along with your pastor, the presence of the pastor will still have you: trusting in Jesus, praying, studying scripture, reading Christian literature, helping out at church, being attentive to the sermon for a good word (and trusting the Spirit to be able to give you one), embracing and treating another as a Christian, proclaiming the gospel in word/deed, and being direct and helpful in our communication. I don't guarantee this will make your pastors who you want them to be, but I believe this will benefit you both.

And pastors who are reading this, a lot of this is two-way road advice. 

Or to put this another way: the Peace of the Lord Jesus Christ, be with you all.

Some reactions to atheistic apologetics

Ever read stuff that just angers you to no end? It probably usually comes via Facebook. You encounter stuff you don't like and just get into a rampage about it. I've felt that way recently reading the works of notorious advocates of atheism such as Richard Dawkins. Today I picked up someone else at the library (name eludes me) and just walked away frustrated. Maybe I shouldn't, but allow me to share some of my reactions (and take them as that, reactions) to some of these readings.

Reading these works I noticed several things:

1. The general element of these books is not to so much convince you of atheism as to turn you off of religion. The idea is if we can disgust you enough about religion and prove that religion is the real problem in this world that's all that really matters. If you still believe in a god of some form on your own that's fine (you're wrong, but whatever). That is the general tone of the book. Which means the books are more a reaction against religions than a case against God, yet many of the books often market themselves the other way around.

2. The claim that religion is the root of problems are as equally selective of history as ones that claim secularism is. This may sound strange that I say it this way but it is true, history has borne out that cultures and peoples - religious or not - are totally capable of barbarism and regularly are! I don't claim religion is the fix, not in a moral sense. The reason I say this without qualm is my religion has not really claimed that its morals will remove evil. The reason is because the problem with the world is something we in the church have had a word for: sin. And sin is not cured by law, merely curbed and contained. And it will lead people to always try to abuse, excuse, cut, and compromise the law. Progressive thought has in no way removed the same basic elements, just the places and ways it manifests itself. The problem with the books that try to "expose" religious evil is that it is blaming religion as if people without religion have nothing to drive them to harm. But for every example of "secular freedom" there are examples of secular barbarism, just as much as every case of religious compassion can be paired with atrocities in the name of religion. 

3. Their biblical arguments are also quite interesting. They argue that most modern Christians are selective anyways of their religious book because of the shame of the other parts as though to say even Christians "know" that the Bible is not a good book. Of course, then the presentation they make of God according to the Bible is far more selective, and perhaps more importantly in what I have read there is a serious failure to understand the Christian understanding of why there is a greater emphasis of some passages over others (and to call it embarrassment would be a failure to see those interpretations and emphases throughout Christian history). It's true you can draw horrible messages from the Bible, but it should say something that to prove this they have to go outside the bounds of the religion's primary interpretation. Also, the books come from the standpoint that wherever we feel bothered or disagree with the ethical bounds of scripture it is obviously wrong. But that assumption is problematic. No doubt they say the same about the assumption of the religious that their sacred texts are always right and above reproach. But I will say personally, that you don't have to like everything about scripture to say it is scripture. Yet I do find that when one struggles with that which seems unacceptable I often find my stance to change, for when I don't discount it I eventually see new light as to why it matters (something I see more and more as I get older I would add) which often happens when I see the spirit of the text and don't get hung up on the immediate words that trouble me, or I learn something of the cultural divide that changes its meaning, or I simply come to realize I was wrong. And some I still struggle with, or I have come to some conclusion about that I do not like but am settled on. I also consider what I've learned from historical critiques that examine the morality of a time and from a distance can see what contemporaries could not, it makes me caution the assumption that my moral objections are inherently good or above reproach. 

4. Very little critique of external influence and agendas are ever present in their assessment of religious history. That is, where as in the church we may attribute too much to external influence (political agendas, colonialism, etc) the complete reverse is at work here. The idea that religion is the cause of dehumanization is as absurd as saying theology has never been used to defend dehumanization. Just like it would be historically inaccurate to attribute "humanizing" movements apart from the church when it played a great role historically in such movements as well. The relationship of religion to the world around it is a major issue. Just because the religions (like my own) will make counter-cultural claims in no way means it is not touched by the culture. And how much it is and should be is one of the biggest struggles internally and externally in the church, and that struggle and relationship is minimized in these readings.

5. One other feature seems to be a certain understanding of the purpose of religion. It usually asserts two real purposes for religion: understanding the world and morality. By this then comes the argument that it has served its purpose and no longer has one in our world. By science we can understand the world and whether by science (as the book I read today argued) or by social conscience and progressivism we can discern what is right. The culture is moral enough and we are civilized enough and smart enough to not need superstitions to explain things or scare us in line. This of course begs the question, what is the role of religion? And it operates of course under a sociological assumption rather than a theological one. That is, it argues the social purpose of religion rather than what the religions themselves argue which is revelation of the divine in order for communion with the divine. Because they assume there is no God, they cannot see a purpose beyond the social ones. But of course for one who believes in God it is the total opposite. That is, if God exists (and studies regularly show the vast majority of human beings believe so) then religion has a purpose - to know this God (or if you want to be inclusive of other religions even if I say they are wrong; to know these gods). A bigger issue that I think actually presses or concerns most individuals today is whether one can know God (and how), and to what extent that impacts one's daily life. In that case the claim of religion is absolutely relevant (the coming of God in the flesh certainly is important towards how one can know God and the impact on God has on living). And even though many have varying degrees to which they actively seek the help of religion in these things regularly, religion still serves most of them to some degree. The "secular religion" of America if broken down would amount to a universalist-deistic religion whose framework is borrowed from Christianity. Many still, even if they don't commit themselves, dabble in and seek aid from religions. And that is to say nothing of the role religions have in being the institutions of compassion and organized aid in communities. And all of this is to say the assumption of no purpose misses the mark, especially if God is real. Now add to that, if God is real then suppose a religion's paradigm is correct (since they are not all alike and do not share the same message), if the paradigm is correct then the purpose is quite real. If Jesus really did rise from the dead then the Christian church has a purpose that is more than moral or just understanding the mechanics/origins of things.

6. The three most common things attacked about the biblical story are: a) the creation account, mainly because this is the headliner in American religion-science debates and because they feel they have won this issue. It's hard to prove God didn't intervene for a specific person/people in time (beyond the argument it's hard to prove he did), it's easier to argue about something wider, in relation to cosmic history. b) the morality of Israel, usually around the treatment of women and the invasion of Canaan. See number 3. And, c) the resurrection of Jesus, because that is the central issue to the Christian faith (and while the books claim to be against religion, they usually are focused on Judeo-Christian religion and the only other real faith focused on is Islam mainly to argue the poor treatment of women and religion as the cause of war). These arguments usually attack the believer as "ignorant" and seek to show why there is no proof (or not the kind of proof they would find satisfactory). And while their arguments will perhaps sway those in the middle (kind of like political campaigns are aimed at those in the middle) those adamantly on either side kind are at an impasse on these issues. Both insist on the authority of one form over another. And this is to say nothing of the Holy Spirit, which as a Christian I believe is the giver of faith. Faith is not just a decision of persuasion but a living force of election, and what is revealed by faith is a reality skeptics are seeking via science: communion with God. The lack of "proof" of God (in quotes since only certain things constitute proof) makes them say God does not exist, while to those who have experienced and related to God, such arguments are foolish since that barrier has been crossed. As a Christian, it is God revealed in preaching by which the Holy Spirit breaks in and there lies Christ. Faith is not just a rational or irrational decision, it is a creative outcome of God.

7. There is an interesting philosophy I note in the books. They utilize the same basic principles they criticize of religion (need I say again the problem is people, not religion). For example, they say that religion is the most divisive thing in the world by creating zealous belief, but then they express their zealous beliefs about religion in an equally divisive tone. The claim that making another "infidel" "heathen" or "damned" makes it easier to dehumanize them is no different than calling them "ignorant" "barbaric" "unenlightened" or "the greatest evil in the world". Not only does such a stance equally create divides, but it also makes the religious people "less" in a way that has historically been used to categorically deny people rights: it calls them less intelligent/behind the evolutionary scheme (since society they claim has evolved to no longer need religion), which is dangerously close to the Aristotelian philosophy that dubbed women as lesser creatures because they were "less-rational" and "more emotional" and that dubbed African Americans as less human because they were "under-evolved". This is not to say they automatically look at religious individuals this way (although their language sometimes does make one wonder) but rather to say the danger of their doctrine is equally evident in history. And the anger or "danger" they see in religious groups (especially the more radical or at least devoted groups) has included in their works the desire to deny rights such as raising children. I also just find it a little ironic when they criticized proselytism when their books are essentially trying to do the same thing.

8. My last thought is that what really bothers these authors especially of religions' views of God is election. That is, that God would specifically relate in history with specific people because election is bothersome for the abstract thinking of these things as it inevitably brings questions of "why them not me" or "what about these people" and so forth. Special revelation, salvation of some not all, uniquely relating and God not just being an abstract benevolent principle is perhaps the hardest thing for them to grasp. This is why the invasion of Canaan is so bothersome. Why should God favor one people over another? Why should they be wiped out while these people get all their things? Election is unfair. Even Christians and Jews struggle with the unfairness of it. Any sense of Divine preference (even if that preference is described as gracious, undeserved) is an affront to the philosophy of God and therefore becomes the case for God not being real or good. Of course that is because it looks at God as an ideal not a person and abstraction inevitably looks from the outside gazing in, whereas from the opposite (from the inside), election is good. Election is only not good if God doesn't choose you, and they usually pair this with free will persuasion theology to be God is good to those who choose him rather than what we on the inside say: we are faithful because God has been good to us. Much is made of Boenhoeffer's idea of cheap grace, I usually am not a fan of the term or his understanding of it (although to some degree I agree/get it, I still find it a bit off the mark). But I think real cheap grace is the one that wants to rob God of any free or sovereign activity. If Bonhoeffer's view of cheap grace was that faith has no impact on life, the atheistic one is wider; grace should be automatic and there be no religious element to it (like faith), and grace should need no established story or action in history. It should be more a scientific principle than a word of action, or experience of relationship. This ultimately attacks God's ways as less desireable: Jesus should not have to die, people should not have to believe, no one should be damned, etc. The claim is if God is good the only real outcome should be to share grace with everyone automatically and that it should have no real impact (or it should act like an instant fix). In short, if they can't understand God's way, or it looks bad for someone it is unacceptable. This is as I say the problem with looking on the outside rather than in. To use a biblical metaphor, God relates to his people like a spouse. When you look at relationships that way it is totally different. It is not outrageous for me to treat my wife differently than other women, even if she is not the only woman I come in contact with, care about, or have responsibility to. It still would be absurd for some other woman to say I unfairly favor my wife, or I should have the same relationship with everyone (whether they want to or not on top of that...disturbing). Not only is such absurd, but it is absolutely good news to the wife to hear of the special relationship she alone has, especially when she hears that her husband has so chosen her to be his bride in the covenantal vows (you hear that honey, it's good news we're married!). This is the sacred bond of the covenant relationship of God and Israel, a people chosen to be God's own. And ironically the greater message of election and grace is for those on the outside looking in to be told God has chosen to bring them in through Jesus Christ (it's what they want and what they criticize simultaneously). Speaking at least again for my religion, God is both very concerned with the world at large and yet does have a special relationship with the church (which by the way, is one of the ways God shows special concern for the rest of the world, through the ministry and lives of the redeemed, particularly through how the covenant relationship will impact their relationship with others). This also explains why special revelation and the miraculous is an affront and problematic; it is unprovable precisely because it (like election in general) happens to some and not others.

Anyways, that is enough rambling. Now I should note this is reactionary, from some quick reading I have done of several books of the literature. I haven't read all of Dawkins, only one book (I want to say it was God Delusion but it may have been another one of his, there were several all out at the book store when I grabbed one to peruse). But this is my take on what I've seen looking at a couple of books in the genre of atheistic apologetics. And my feeling is that there is either misunderstandings of some of the statements they make or selectivism, which should be no surprise because that is what we do. I read a study once in Psychology that stated people are far more likely to embrace facts that support their worldview/beliefs. Interesting, right? The idea of objective fact becomes problematic when we naturally are skeptical of the ones we don't embrace, this goes for Christians and atheists alike. Is there a place for these books out there (would it be religious nut like of me to suggest a book burning)? Sure, their selective approach is a nice reminder of how easy it is to do so (and religions certainly do in our literature too), and to better understand how those outside who are hearing the message are not hearing the message. I also share some of their critiques. There are problems and beliefs in our religions that are problematic or dangerous. But before you pick up some book at Barnes and Noble (I swear over half the religion section is conspiracy theories, gnostic proponents, prosperity theologians and atheistic apologetics) and walk away saying religion is the real problem in the world and God must not be real because he doesn't fit how I would imagine him to be (let that sink in for a second), realize the arguments aren't as clear-cut as they present them.

Afterword: I should also say that Dawkins interestingly is more selective in who he attacks. He is especially hard on Catholic and American Evangelical denominations, and at times does speak a few positive things about liberal Protestants (that is of course because he sees them as having dismissed much of the superstition, but also because he sees their emphasis on social justice).

Short Random Thoughts of a Young Man

1. The second greatest crisis facing the church is the absence of men. The first must always be the failure to be faithful to the preaching of the gospel. I really agree the church is where the gospel is faithfully preached and administered (sacramentally). Therefore unfaithful preaching, twisting of the words, absence of the message of grace, false hope, and all our contrived forms of self-justification is the greatest crisis, since it is far harder to expect Christ to work where he isn't even speaking. But beyond that I feel the greatest crisis, going by and large unsolved is the absence of men - particularly in mainline churches. Statistically, there is no greater correlation towards the abandonment of so many of our young people from the church than the already abandonment practiced by their father. Or to put it the other way around (the way the studies have typically put it), there is no single correlation to a young person's likelihood of remaining in church that remotely approaches if the parents were faithful church goers (and practitioners of the faith), especially the father. I think something can be said that the modern inclusion of women in all the life of the church has played a part, that is, this would have happened sooner had the church not needed the men to operate. I don't see that as a reason to remove women from those roles or an excuse, I see it though as a problem. We ought be concerned as to what about our church men are turned off to and why? Some of it I think is an internal problem, of presenting the faith in a manner that simply does not resonate with most men the way it does with women. Some of it also I think stems from a concerning culture that defines masculinity as going it alone, looking down on trust and reliance, and free from moral expectation or obligation. And it has led to a damning male culture of chasing after sex as long as possible, a seriously great number of fathers abandoning that responsibility, and abuse and strength valued over compassion and love. In short, being a man has become some testosterone driven life-sport that lacks the ability to humble oneself before God. My father-in-law was at my church this weekend, and immediately noted the absence of men (in relation to the number of women that is).

2. The DH needs to stay the hell out of the National League. I like the designated hitter and all, but I also like pitchers hitting. I like the greater need to use the bench and bullpen wisely. In short, I like that with the National and American leagues being different, we get both of these worlds. But each year it sounds like we are moving closer to the DH in the NL too. Well I say boo on that! What I propose we should do instead is that since the move of the Astros to the American League has shifted the way we do interleague play, we should expand interleague play greatly so that all teams are spending even more time with and without the DH. Additionally then they should expand the 25-man roster to 27. This would allow NL teams to carry a DH type on their bench without worrying as much about "wasting a roster spot" so they could more competitively face AL rosters. To show the need for this, consider that spanning 2013-2015 only 4 NL teams have had a winning record on the road in interleague play (conversely, during that span only 4 AL teams have had a losing record on the road in interleague play). The American League has overall dominated interleague play for about 10 years. Expanded rosters and more interleague play could even out the statistics some by both the law of averages and by letting NL teams sign some more DH type players. Expanded rosters would also allow greater use of platoons or specialist relievers. In all, it would benefit baseball and all its angles of strategy than just the adoption of the DH in the National League.

3. If you can't tell the difference between the stances of your church body and your political party there is a problem. The more I read the Bible, the more I cannot simply categorically fall into one political party's idealogy. Now that doesn't mean I can't fall more into one, or I might think the places that I fall into one are more important than times I fall into the other. That is all true. But I am so tired of watching church bodies seemingly confuse our allegiance. When I see churches or its leaders (my own included) seem to uncritically praise one side while constantly bombarding the other, I have become greatly concerned, and the more that reading and wrestling with scripture has changed me the more I realize that so much of what I believed was influenced more by the world around me than my faith. I likewise notice pastorally that what politics tells us matters is what people seem most caught up on in the church. People who never speak up in a Bible study all of the sudden passionately speak about homosexuality (one way or another). I'm not upset that people are speaking out, I'm simply wondering how it is we have let the world convince us these are the only things we should be speaking up and out about? Those things that are truly unique to our faith, and offensive or in the least inappropriate to the political sphere, and far more central we are too often silent on. And way too often the political arguments get synthesized with a semi-scriptural one. Whether your church is "liberal" or "conservative" that should not be a total buy in to parties of the same name. Since both are foremost churches that should be distinctive. And while we will find common ground or even the church may have influenced a movement politically in some way shape or form, ultimately we should be mindful of the non-Christian influence that also comes to the parties, and the call to not conform but be transformed to the image of the Son. And I ain't seen no political party that looks that much like Jesus. And if we are too close a bedfellows with such we will be change into a likeness more likened unto the whore of Babylon I fear.

4. When the New Revised Common Lectionary comes out it should be a 4 year lectionary. In case you are wondering, I made the the term NRCL. I'm not aware of any efforts to revise the current RCL, not by its producers at least. But the idea of a 3 year lectionary is a bad one. Not only does it not allow a year to truly go through the Gospel of John, but it then excludes another year of readings to cover more ground in scripture. This last summer I got the Whirl Lectionary Bible. If you use the RCL I would recommend it. It is nice because it is still a normal bible (unlike many lectionary bibles that only contain lectionary readings), but it highlights (in the colors of the appropriate season) the readings that the RCL covers. What is so nice about this from a critical standpoint is you can see precisely all that is left out. And there is a lot left out. Lectionary-based churches ought take this to consideration either in order to take time away from the lectionary or use other occasions (bible studies, midweek services, etc) to cover some of these lost texts. A 4 year lectionary would allow 52 more weeks of extra texts. These extra weeks would add a lot of totally excluded Old Testament material be included. And as for the Epistle readings, in addition to covering some of the gaps in the readings that are currently left untouched, it would also allow you to perhaps shorten some of the current readings by that extra year spreading out the time needed. Yes, some major events the Lectionary focuses on (such as baptism and transfiguration of Jesus) don't appear in John, but if we can currently insert John endlessly through the other three years it would make much more sense to insert one of the other Gospels' (I'd advocate whichever one on such an occasion includes the most variation/details) account into the John year. If we were really being fun I would actually think a 5 year lectionary would be fun. 4 years that focus on each individual Gospel and one that is kind of a hodgepodge of either the best of each, a harmonization (oh my!) of the stories, or a year to pick up whatever was left out of the previous years. Plus, another year means another 52 weeks of previously untapped biblical material. I like having a Lectionary. I like the Gospel-centeredness of the RCL. But it could use some improvements.

5. The Resurrection is way too under-emphasized in the church today. I've really been enjoying N.T. Wright's book Surprised By Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church. I already thought this before, but especially do every time I read this think the resurrection is not the hope and comfort most Christians turn to, instead we care more about heaven. A lot of this has to do with our pseudo-gnostic and platonist thinking that has run rampant in the church unchecked for some time. Namely, the immortal soul goes somewhere when you die. The goal and real hope is to go to heaven where we golf and drink Corona forever with our loved ones. While you can see how this can so easily hijack Christianity (after all, we talk about heaven, hell, eternal life, paradise, etc) this is also far from the biblical picture. For one, our images of these things are way removed, but more than that I see the Bible focus more on resurrection than life in heaven. Even Revelation, where we probably get the greatest image of "life in heaven" (and let me tell you it's more like spending all day in church than at the golf course) that is seen as temporary until the final visions, the day of judgment, the day of the parousia (Christ's second coming), when a new heaven and a new earth are seen in union together. Yet it is not the "sure and certain hope of the resurrection to eternal life" or the belief in "the resurrection of the body and the life everlasting" that most Christians look too, we look to family reunion in heaven. Along with Psalm 23 no passage is requested more at funerals than John 14. The worst part is that nothing is wrong about saying we go to heaven, what is usually wrong is our over-focus on heaven and our absence of resurrection hope. As a pastor I am starting to think I need to go to this more in funerals especially (although the immediate "where are they now" is an important thing to address still). Resurrection is much more prominent and rooted a belief in the Bible (Old and New Testament), and the resurrection of Jesus is perhaps most important here. That is the event that changed everything. Yet we see it more metaphorically (how many people don't even like to acknowledge a bodily resurrection and think more about spirit Jesus even when the Gospels include details to explicitly reject that notion). It's as if the resurrection is only a sign that death can't stop this life. But that only gets applied to the soul, and we don't speak enough of what it means as a created (and re-created) creature of God. What Wright's book does well, is not only take a long look at resurrection in early Judeo-Christian thought and the corruption of belief that has minimized its role today, but his work on it helps place how resurrection as the final hope has much more to say about life today than heaven as a final hope. The resurrection of Jesus totally shaped the New Testament thought and mindset, we need to recover that today.

6. There are 6 players the Brewers should trade this offseason. To be clear: the Brewers should trade Khris Davis, Jonathan Lucroy, Adam Lind, Ryan Braun, K-Rod, and Jean Segura. Some of these names, especially K-Rod and Lind, should be no surprise. But if I'm Stearn, I would not only listen but pursue trades of each of these players. Braun may be the hardest to trade with his injury concerns, PED history, and 100mm extension kicking in. But considering guys like Cespedes, Heyward, Gordan, and Upton are all likely looking at contracts that exceed that in the free agent market (and all but Cespedes will also require a draft pick) some teams may be more interested, especially after Braun started showing a semblance of his former self with a return to the All-Star game, an .854 OPS, and another 20/20 season. He also ranked 9th in the NL in slugging. So he still has value, just nothing near what he used to have. Segura probably has the least value, but plays a premium position. He'd particularly be of interest to a team not confident in its SS option to compete with, since he is probably more than a back up, but nowhere near an elite SS. He might be the best piece to hold onto for a midseason trade, but he is also the most replaceable in the long and short term with Sardinas and Arcia in the system. Some, like MLBtraderumors advocate keeping Lucroy until midseason so he can recover some lost value from a down year and late season concussion, but I disagree. It is a serious gamble waiting to see if he returns to form, and I'm not sure the risk outweighs how much more you would get, especially since he'll be that much closer to free agency. I think his overall defense (although that was down this year too) and contract make him still extremely valuable now, especially to smaller market teams that have prospects but not a lot of spending money for free agent upgrades. Oakland, Tampa, Baltimore, Chicago (Sox), Arizona, Anaheim, Colorado, Detroit, Atlanta, and Miami all strike me as places that would clearly see him as an upgrade and yet could really value the cost savings because of their abundance of expensive contracts already or their general budget constraints. The bigger deal suggested here is for Khris Davis. But he could I think net the Brewers a huge haul (although perhaps I suffer home-team over-valuation of players). Milwaukee is in the currently toughest division in baseball (it's actually been quite tough for a while), and the one other team not good is also rebuilding and aiming for sooner than later. Milwaukee should plan for a slower, more complete rebuild ala Cubs/Astros, even if they have some young MLB talent and some near MLB talent, they need to be set up even more long term. Davis, while he could likely be a part of a winning team might not be, but more importantly he represents the most expensive free agent commodity : power. And he provides it for low cost and many years (Davis is not even arb eligible yet). Even while missing some time he still was among the league leaders in homers (10th, 5th in ABs per HR), and while he led LF's in errors this year and has a notoriously weak arm, his range factor is rated highly. Or an AL team could utilize him primarily as a DH. Davis has shown that power is his calling card (.494 career slugging %), but also showed he can make adjustments as he was able to increase his BA, OBP, and walk rate this year, generating 10 more walks in over a 100 fewer PA. With other guys like Domingo Santana able to step in and take his place, even though he is good and established he is also therefore worth exploring trades for.

7. I think Kylo Ren and Rey are the children of Han and Leia. This is the theory I most buy into for Star Wars Episode VII. Han and Leia have two children who go separate ways in life. Rey has become a bit of a forager, perhaps looking for something/someone (Uncle Luke or his lightsaber?) while Kylo has caught on with the knights of Ren and begun to experiment/lead using the force. This theory explains a lot we've seen in the trailors. It explains how these characters tie into and continue the story of Episode VI, being a continuation of the struggle of light/dark in the Skywalker family. It would explain a bit about Kylo Ren, having a hodgepodge lightsaber (if you get a chance to examine a toy, you'll see this is much more a DIY lightsaber) and connection to the Dark Side, particularly with this love for Vader (and the burned up mask we see in the trailor). He is drawn to all this because of his interest in the force in his family (think of the Luke quote from the original teaser trailer, "the force is strong in my family"), and if Luke doesn't teach him, perhaps he becomes obsessed with his grandpa. Perhaps he is even convinced he is continuing his grandfather's mission (to rule the galaxy by the power of the force, to get Luke and family to come to the dark side?). It would also explain the controversial style of his lightsaber, since that makes sense if both your uncle and grandpa lost a hand in lightsaber duels. The also now internet famous "it's true, all of it" line of Han's could also not be about the force in the past (as many presume) but about what has happened to her brother Kylo, or if it is about the force it is about Vader and the Empire (and now First Order) being a result of her Grandpa. Additionally there is a famous foreign trailor that shows Ren come up behind Rey and put his lightsaber to her throat. This could explain how she (and perhaps a companion like Finn who engages Ren in a saber duel) escape alive, if Kylo cares about her as his sister and therefore she appeals to their bond. It would make his betrayal of his family or plunging into the dark side immediately be something you care about, since you care about his parents. It would immediately tie them to Luke, Leia, and Han while letting these new characters still be the focus of the new trilogy. It would also make his latching onto the first order a real problem for the resistance since he would perhaps know many of its people. His turning towards the first order, contrasted with Finn's abandonment also creates a simultaneous story-line (think Anakin's plunge to the Dark Side running alongside Luke's joining on with the Rebellion, the merging of the two previous trilogies).

5 Deuteronomic Laws We Ought Be Talking About

I just finished reading Deuteronomy in my own personal devotion, and when I finished I said to myself, "Man, I love this book." It's not the first time I read it, but it's been a while since I read it in its entirety and I really think it is just so underrated among Christians, who today seem to as a whole have a bit too much contempt for lists of laws. While our culture has certainly shifted and we need not have congress enact these laws or follow the punishments for failing to follow them (after all, we are free from the Law's wrath when we are in Christ), we would do well to cultivate a greater love for these laws. The spirit of these laws are still very important for our world today.

So for a little enjoyment and engagement, I thought I would share 5 laws I particularly found relevant and how I see them as worth our talking about today (please note I'm not implying this is all we should care about from Deuteronomy, but more like a sampler platter to perk up your appetite):

1. Faith over Filial Loyalty: If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you embrace, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, 'Let us go and worship other gods' - which neither you nor your fathers have known, any of the gods of the peoples around you, near you or far from you, from one end of the earth to the other - you must not yield to him or listen to him. -Deut 13.6-8
   The passage understands the great temptation we face particularly when those closest to us are leading us into it. These are people we love, trust, and want to please and therefore are particularly susceptible to being led astray by them. Deuteronomy reminds us what it truly is to love God with your whole heart (the greatest commandment, according to Jesus, which by the way, is also from Deuteronomy). It means not choosing even those people who matter most to us over God.
   In a culture that is increasingly indifferent if not hostile towards faithful Christian worship (to say nothing of faithful Christian living), this law becomes extremely important. Just because our spouse, child, or parent is unconcerned with God does not mean we ought to be. Jesus himself said he will set father against son and son against father (Luke 12.53) and whoever does not hate father and mother cannot be his disciple (Luke 14.26). In short, your relationship with God can negatively impact your relationship with even family when they want to lead you away from it. This law tells us to not yield to the greatest pressure and temptation: to let your love for them impact your love for God. 
2. Against ungodly Grief: You are sons of the LORD your God; do not cut yourselves or make a bald spot on your head on behalf of the dead, for you are a holy people belonging to the LORD your God. The LORD has chosen you to be His own possession out of all the peoples on the face of the earth. -Deut 14.1-2Now for a little background, this law comes as a response to practices of religions of the region they were going to possess. So part of this goes to the practice of idolatry. But it has in it an important element for us; self-inflicted wounds is not how we grieve. Even if we aren't exposed to ritualistic wounding, such as they were with rituals that involved cutting or tearing out the hair, the prohibition makes clear that such actions just is not how God wants you to grieve.
   This is especially important for young people, but not exclusive to them. Those new to grief, deeply saddened and impacted by it can fall into the temptation of self-mutilation or even simply the intentional act of not taking care of oneself. How often does death lead to physical harm, even to the point of suicide, especially when some form of guilt is involved or we don't know how to tell the world we're hurting? How often do people seek to feel pain so they feel something? We need to teach clearly that this should not be part of our grieving process.
   Most interesting is that the demand is tied to the fact that we are not to see ourselves apart from our relationship as God's people. You are God's own possession, chosen to be holy. That means your body and what happens to it matters to God, and therefore he makes it clear that such unhealthy, damaging practices should not be a part of how we deal with death. In New Testament language: our body is a temple to the Lord (1 Cor 6.19-20) and therefore that impacts what we do with it. Your life is as precious as the life lost.
3. Look after your neighbor's stuff: If you see your brother's ox or sheep straying, you must not ignore it; make sure you return it to your brother. If your brother does not live near you or you do not know him, you are to bring the animal to your home to remain with you until your brother comes looking for it; then you can return it to him. Do the same for his donkey, his garment, or anything your brother has lost and you have found. You must not ignore it. -Deut 22.1-3
   You are accountable for your neighbor's things. Contrary to our common understanding of "finders keepers" we having "finders returners". That is, you have a duty to return what you find to its owner and when you don't know who the owner is or can't yet, you should not consider it your own, but under your care until you do find that person. This command makes me think of Luther's catechism regarding the command to not steal, namely its last part that states we are to "help [our neighbor] to improve and protect their property and income."
   Think about stray animals. Think about lost coats. Think about lost money. One of the questions raised to me as a child when people start trying to teach you "moral dilemmas" is 'What should you do if you found a wallet (or if they were really grandiose a suitcase of money!)?' The answer, according to Deuteronomy is to see it safely back to its owner, and most importantly, not being able to do that immediately does not change the expectation.
   I think what is quite important about this law too is it teaches us sacrifice. To hold onto something of someone else's for an uncertain period of time actually expects something of you for more than a moment. To not lose someone's coat, hat, or something perhaps larger takes up space in our homes and efforts to make sure its owner finds it and it is preserved until then. To care for lost animals means feeding it, possibly cleaning it and taking it to the vet or at the very least supporting the shelters we rely on to do these things.
   Also really big here is the explicit statement "Do not ignore it." Because not only can we sometimes do finders keepers, or take little effort to find the owner, sometimes we take none. Much more often we pay little attention to the protection of that which is not ours, especially if we judge it as insignificant ("it's only a glove") with no care of what value it may have to that person.
4. Don't Take Dirty Money as an Offering: No Israelite woman is to be a cult prostitute, and no Israelite man is to be a cult prostitute. Do not bring a female prostitute's wages or a male prostitute's earnings into the house of the LORD your God to fulfill any vow, because both are detestable to the LORD your God. -Deut 23.17-18
   Again we have a law that is rooted in a practice in the surrounding culture we don't necessarily have, namely cult prostitution (often a religious practice done to appeal to a god, especially associated with asking the Canaanite god Baal to bring rain upon the fields). But part of the spirit of the law is not just forbidding a practice done by another religion, but in using money earned in such ways to practice worship of YHWH. In short, if you aren't earning the wage in a godly manner, don't try to use it to absolve yourself or practice godly worship.
   This is especially important for churches to hear. As many churches are shrinking, they become increasingly pressured to raise enough money to stay open. But this law ought teach us that faithfulness is more important than offerings. That is, just because someone is ritualistically faithful, such as making contributions is not all we ought care about with stewardship. Not even how they use the rest of their earnings is enough when we talk about stewardship. Part of our stewardship needs to be about caring about how those wages are earned in the first place, and being willing to back that belief up enough to not accept that which is earned by dishonest or unfaithful means.
   I think of a scene in the Sopranos when Carmela goes to see a shrink. Once she admits that her husband is a mobster, the psychiatrist, who happened to be a Jewish man, told her he would not charge her that session because he would not accept blood money and encouraged her to do the same and to leave Tony rather than accept his evil way of life simply because she and her children benefit financially from it.
5. Fair Wages For All: Do not oppress a hired hand who is poor and needy, whether one of your brothers or one of the foreigners residing within a town in your land. You are to pay him his wages each day before the sun sets, because he is poor and depends on them. Otherwise he will cry out to the LORD against you, and you will be held guilty. -Deut 24.14-15
   There are several interesting elements of this passage. The first is to make sure we are paying the poor enough to get by. How topical is this in our country where minimum wage is a major topic of discussion right now? Whatever our political leanings, or the concerns we have of the greater economic impact, we need to be especially mindful of the poorest among us and what they can earn. A full read of Deuteronomy will show just how much this book is concerned with laws to protect the most vulnerable and to make sure the community makes efforts and sacrifices to support them.
   The next hot button piece here, is it especially notes the foreigner. This again is very relevant in America, where we currently what to show greater care for Americans. One thing my reading of scripture has done this last summer is thoroughly changed my stance regarding illegal immigrants in America. While I'm not sure I know all the answers, I find because of scripture my heart has been opened to them and their needs/concerns more than it was this time last year. If anyone is especially susceptible to abuse of unjust wages it is those who are getting paid under the table and therefore outside the realm of regulation. The "they took our jobs" argument in part is because they work for less money, but that is in part because they have little choice. Companies that can hire illegal immigrants often do so, and they do so because they know they don't have to pay as much. They exploit the foreigner to benefit their own business, and that in turn impacts the economy of those who don't do that because they then cannot charge as little for a job.
   Also interesting is the concern for daily wage. I think how big this law would be for those who run paycheck to paycheck. We can certainly sometimes be critical of those who are in such binds because of poor choices, but we are to be mindful of those who need their money sooner than every 2 weeks. What this law says is we ought be mindful of how we can help support people in those times between paychecks, and perhaps for companies to be more open to the idea of advances on checks (or at least paying up the hours they have already put in) when needed. No matter what the practice is, the spirit of the law is to put a priority on human need over personal profit at their expense.
   Lastly is a good reminder. A lot of the laws and lessons of Deuteronomy you find are rooted in the peoples' history and these words about the poor crying out against you are no different. The Israelites are reminded that in Egypt when they were exploited and oppressed they cried out to God against Pharaoh, and God heard them and came to their aid. Being the oppressor may lead to God raising up your own downfall (or your company's downfall or nation's downfall). I am reminded of Luther's large catechism on the Lord's Prayer petition "Give us this day our daily bread" when he says that much of the world's problems are on account of "those who wantonly oppress the poor and deprive them of their daily bread" and he warns all to "beware lest this petition in the Lord's prayer be against them".

So there are 5 laws to ruminate on as a Christian. What Deuteronomic law do you want people to talk about?