This Week's Answers: Favorite Book

Image From The Manhattan Rare Book Company

I have always felt like books have had the power to transport you into another world. Authors have the distinct privilege of inventing scenes, characters, and plots that allow readers to immerse themselves. If you have never truly lost yourself in a book, you are not reading the right stuff. Whether it is the hauntingly beautiful worlds of J.R.R. Tolkien, the bleak prose of Ernest Hemingway, or the way that John Steinbeck crafts his characters and scenes, when I read a good book I feel like I have been there with the characters. I feel what they feel. The sights and sounds are there, as are the glories and the disappointments. So here is my list of the best books I have ever read.

The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck. This is my all-time favorite book. The story is compelling as you follow the Joad family on their trek to California in order to try and find work. Every book I had read before this had to have a fast pace story or some sort of plot ploy in order to keep my attention, but Steinbeck's writing is breathtaking. Even when he takes an entire chapter to step back from the narrative and describe a scene unrelated to the plight of the Joads, I can't help but hang on every word. I'm in the middle of reading through all of Steinbeck's published work because I loved this book that much. If you haven't read it, please do. It is definitely worth the wait.

Image From Info Addict

The Hobbit by J.R.R. Tolkien. Tolkien is the master of fantasy. While Peter Jackson made good on The Lord of the Rings by doing an excellent job of portraying Middle Earth on the big screen, nothing beats reading about the world from Tolkien himself. I first saw the kind of cheesy animated movie from the 70s when I was young and decided to read it probably in middle school. I've read it three times since then because the story, the characters, and Middle Earth itself is so engrossing. Very good book.

I could list several more that I might call favorites, but these are the two that I would consistently rate as the two best books I've ever read. If you want some more, here are a few that I would say are close to belonging on the list.

The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain

Any poetry by Walt Whitman or Carl Sandburg

East of Eden by John Steinbeck

Jurassic Park and The Lost World by Michael Crichton

The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien

The Power and the Glory by Graham Greene

Question of the Week: Favorite Book

I love reading. It is one of the more relaxing and consistent hobbies that I've maintained consistently throughout my life. One of the problems of getting into reading though is finding good books. There are millions of books out there to read, but for every great book, there are a thousand bad or mediocre ones. So to spread the love, I thought I'd ask about your favorite book. Maybe it is a classic that everybody reads in high school or even earlier, or maybe it is an obscure author who has only a few things out there. Whatever it is, let us know! Laura and I will post our favorites on Saturday. Happy reading!

By the way, the awesome picture used came from Curious Expeditions blog. Their post on the world's most beautiful libraries can be found here and is fantastic!

This Week's Answers: Stay at Home Dad

Men bring home the bacon. They are financial providers. They do not really know how to relate to kids as well as women. They all long to be outside the home. If a man were a stay at home dad, he would probably mess things up (see above picture of the superhero "Pull Up Boy").

Except for that last one, which I made up because I liked the picture, I've heard all of these statements at one point or another. To some degree I'm okay with them, especially if we are talking about your own family context. If that is the way that things work best at your house or how you have decided to run your family, more power to you. But do these things make being a stay at home dad a non-option? Here are a few thoughts that Laura and I discussed this past week.

1. Men should be providers. I think this is close to incontrovertible. But the reason I think this is that I don't think men should be bums, not necessarily based on something I find in Scripture. Where this argument really takes off is how you define provider. Which leads to...

2. Provider can mean different things. I recoil at the thought of provider meaning only financial provider. I don't have a problem with a man being a financial provider, but I think it is unrealistic to assume that provider only or primarily relates to bringing in the most money. In our particular situation, I will not make as much money as Laura, guaranteed. It is a simple fact that she as a dentist is going to make more money than me as a teacher or administrator in a high school. Am I therefore not a provider? I don't think so. I know some people who have said that this is going to cause great strain in our marriage down the road. Call me naive, but I do not think it will. I hate using this argument, but it's the 21st century and I think that we are over that. So, I don't think provider has to mean "I make the most money and completely support the family financially."

3. Provider may even mean something unrelated to money. In the above example, I'm still working and making some money. But what happens if we say that Laura and I decide that she wants to work and I want to be a stay-at-home dad? Does that mean that I am no longer a provider? I still would say that is a provider. I think that the stay-at-home dad provides the support and ability for a wife to pursue a career and provides the love and care that children need. Is it the right situation for everyone? Absolutely not. But is it always wrong? I would say absolutely not as well.

4. I do not think that what is often taught about man's and woman's roles in the church today are biblical. That is not to say that they are innately wrong, but I think that modern pop psychology (more like pop psychology from the mid 20th century) is baptized under the name Christian and is then termed biblical by people who assume it to be true. I know guys who would be great fathers and stay-at-home dads. Personally, I like to cook, wash dishes, teach, and I'm not bad at laundry and other household chores. Plus, I like kids and would like to spend days with my own kids one day. On the other hand, I know women who love to work. They are good at their jobs and they love doing it. It's not that they don't like their kids, but they want to have a career too. Are we going outside the realms of biblical manhood and womanhood? I tend to think not.

That was a random post and question, I know, but I need to think it out some. If you have any thoughts, feel free to comment!

The Trinity: A Response to an Earlier Comment

Last week, the question of the week was regarding the Trinity. I received a comment on that post with a link to a video that essentially denies the divinity of Christ and attempts to repudiate the claims of Trinitarian theology. I tried to simply leave a comment on that comment, but it was too lengthy. So I decided ot make it a post in and of itself. I know it is pretty meaty, but I think it is well worth some consideration and hope it leads to more conversation.

Hi Adam,

I will admit that I have yet to watch the video, but I did find your blog and check out a few of your posts, and this one in particular. I will try to go back and watch the video later. I noticed that I cannot comment on your blog, so this is really my only chance of having any dialogue.

I think your position has some flaws and is not the best explanation of Scripture as a whole.

Your issue seems to be one of Christology, namely that Jesus is not divine but is a created being who is deemed the Son of God. One question I did have reading your post was whether or not you think Jesus was always the Son of God or just became the Son of God at his baptism or what. The way you began to speak of it reminded me more of Greek mythology, but I could have misread it.

Rather than dispute the arguments you make at this point (though some of that is done here), I will simply pose some issues that I think are not dealt with adequately in your position. I think these elements are much more clearly dealt with from a Trinitarian perspective, or at least a perspective which says that Jesus is fully God just as he is fully man.

1. You are quick to point out that Jesus says "And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent" in John 17:3. But if you keep reading you will run into verse five: "And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed." This seems to me to be clear evidence for the pre-existent Christ at the very least, if not more. I'm not sure that your position lends itself to a pre-existent Christ.

2. In John 20:28, Thomas sees and is invited to touch the wounds of Jesus and his response is "My Lord and my God!" If Jesus knew that he was not God, would he not rebuke such a declaration? Yet he gives no such rebuke. The only explanations that are apparent are either (a) Jesus is God and therefore does not rebuke Thomas or (b) Jesus is a liar and wants people to think that he is God. Only one of those options looks good to me.

3. 1 John 5:20 says "And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life." The Greek here is pretty tricky, but I agree with most translators and translating committees that this is a reference to Jesus being God.

4. You make an argument that Jesus saying that "I and the Father are One" in John 10:30 is a reference to unity of purpose. Why then in John 10:31 do the Jews pick up stones to kill him? Being of the same purpose with the Father would seem a good thing, yet they respond with deep animosity. This response is based not on unity of purpose, but on a claim of divinity.

5. In discussion with the Jews in John 8:58, Jesus says, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am." After this, they pick up stones in order to stone him. The reason for this is because he claims to be co-eternal with God the Father. He uses the epithet "I am," the same designation that translates YAHWEH in Exodus 3:14. It seems for such a strong response and for Jesus to use these words that it would almost have to be a claim of divinity.

6. You mention Philippians 2:11 in part of this post as well. What then do you do with the first part of this very famous "Christ hymn"? Philippians 2:5-7 says, "Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men." If the wording of him being in the form of God is not enough, how can someone who is not God but simply man make himself nothing? It doesn't seem to fit unless it speaks of the incarnation of Jesus.

7. This is more of a philosophical argument, I admit, but I find it hard to believe that the death of a good or even a perfect man could have any effect on other people's standing before God. If he was a perfect man and no more, then I think that his death may have very well paid for his own way to heaven. I don't see how his goodness is imputed to me if he is not God. Like I said, that is merely a philosophical argument, but one that is worth thinking about nonetheless.

I hope that helps to clarify my view. I believe that it is also the view of orthodox Christianity throughout Scripture and throughout church history. The burden of proof lies with your view and I do not think you have provided Scriptural basis for Arianism.

Moreover, your post boasts as if being able to know everything about God is a good thing. I agree that we should press "further up and further in" as C.S. Lewis would put it, but I also believe that there are things I do not, cannot, and will not know about God. That is why he is God! If I perfectly understood him, then I myself would be a god.

Dear readers, please take time to consider. Take time to think. Take time to dig though God's Word. Pray for the Spirit (the third person of the Trinity) to illuminate your eyes, ears, and minds as you read and study. The Truth may seem allusive, and it may take hard work and deep thinking, but it is well worth it. May our love of Christ and the hope that is found in him spur us on to deeper affection, greater knowledge, and unquenchable desire.

Ryan

Question of the Week: Stay-At-Home Dad

"Do you think it is manly to be a stay-at-home dad?" I read the question on The Art of Manliness and thought I'd ask the people I work with to get their opinion. I was hoping the question would generate a few comments and short answers, but it quickly turned into a verbal firestorm. Most people said that if the situation called for a man to stay at home and that was the best way for them to provide for their family, then yes, it is good for a man to stay at home. However one guy insisted that it is not only unmanly, but it is not biblical and a direct violation of the way God created us. What do you think? Is it permissible or manly for a guy to be a stay-at-home dad?

The Week's Answers: The Trinity

The Trinity is an essential doctrine of the Christian faith. While there are many doctrines that are articulated in distinctly Christian ways, the doctrine of Trinity is one that is found solely in Christianity. Yet this doctrine seems nigh neglected in our modern era, at least in the hearts and minds of most people in the pew. And perhaps the reason for this neglect lies in the extreme complexity of the doctrine, for how can we articulate the Trinity in a way that is not offensive to the modern scientific mind? It is there that we should rely on the grace of God as poured out in the pages of Scripture. I cannot give an adequate philosophical answer that gives proper weight to the Trinity, but I can believe with certainty that it is so based on the authority of Scripture. Here are a few things that we must assert about the Trinity.

1. God is One.
Yes, this might very well seem like a poor place to start in a conversation about the Trinity, but I believe that this is essential. It is what Moses proclaimed in Deuteronomy 6:4, which is enshrined today in the Hebrew prayer, the Shema. We do not serve three separate Gods, but One God.

2. God is in Three Persons.
"God in three persons, blessed Trinity." So ends the great hymn, "Holy, Holy, Holy." We cannot escape the fact that God reveals himself throughout Scripture in three distinct and yet unified persons, more commonly known as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. As seen in the illustration above, the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and they are One. Yet at the same time, the Father is not the Son, nor the Son the Holy Spirit. There are distinct roles (as some would put it) that are carried out by the different persons of the Trinity. So while it is improper to speak about three Gods, it is not improper to speak about Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in terms that are somewhat separate.

3. Trinity is Not Simply a Characteristic of God.
Most systematic theology books will clump Trinity right alongside the attributes of God, such as goodness, justice, independence, etc. I am not convinced that this is the best way to think about this doctrine. If I wanted to describe Laura, I would not list "my wife" as a characteristic along with beautiful, kind, or brilliant. The fact that she is my wife is not just a characteristic, but a point of definition, an identity if you will. In the same way, Trinity is much more than a characteristic attached to God. It is essential to His very Nature.

4. When it comes down to it, there is a whole lot of mystery here.
Do not be afraid to say, "I don't know." Sometimes that is a cop out for a lazy mind, one that chooses not to think about hard things and stretch itself. But there are times when we must realize that our minds are not God, and are therefore not competent enough to fully understand God. Too many times we decide that we should be able to comprehend every nook and cranny of who God is, of his will, or of any number of other things. But we must realize that it is God who reveals himself to us. We cannot simply put him on a pedestal and turn him around until we think we have seen it all. We can study Scripture and know what is revealed, but what he has not revealed to us can only be conjectured. So while there are some things I can say with relative certainty, there are many more that I can say with a shrug and the admission that I could be wrong.

Question of the Week: The Trinity

Honestly, I was going to ask a good easy question, one that didn't take much thought and might be a really fun, lighthearted conversation. But that was sidetracked from our small group this morning. Laura was teaching on Romans 1-3 and the Gospel. When we finished, one bright young guy who is going to be a freshman at Auburn (so of course he is bright) asked, "So, are Jesus and God the same thing or person or however you want to say it?"

I don't know if you have ever taught a Bible study or not, but that is one of those questions that you are almost always ill-prepared to talk about. I think he wanted a two minute answer. He got a twenty minute dissertation on the difficulties of adequately describing the Trinity. I do think it was a helpful discussion that we had, but I think it is something that the church should be prepared to discuss and defend. So I ask you the same question: Are Jesus and God the same thing? How about the Holy Spirit? How do you explain the Trinity?

The Week's Answers: The Lord's Supper

Eucharist. Communion. The Lord's Supper. There are almost as many names for the meal instituted by Christ on the night before he was crucified as there are different views concerning the meal. Here are a few things I think are very important to acknowledge in the Lord's Supper along with an unresolved point that I am still thinking over.

1. The Lord's Supper is a memorial to remember Christ's sacrifice.
The call to do this in remembrance of Christ is still true. When we gather together to partake of this meal, we call to mind again the redemption that cost Christ his life.

2. The Lord's Supper is a reminder of Christ's second coming.
We look forward to the day when we will not eat with the church only, but also with our King. There is coming a day of feasting that will be everlasting, the consummation of our redemption. The Supper brings that day to the forefront, giving rise to a deep yearning that we should have.

3. The Lord's Supper is a proclamation of the victory of Christ.
This has several implications. One is that the Lord's Supper is a proclamation. It is a physical retelling of the gospel, that Christ became flesh and died that he might reconcile men to God. Because it is a physical sign, it will need some explanation, but we must not relegate the Supper to a mere dramatic act with no ties to the gospel. Secondly, the Lord's Supper should be joyful. How many times have I taken the Lord's Supper in such a somber way that people would think that I was at a funeral. Yes, we must take seriously the call to examine our lives when we take of the Supper, but in confessing sin we should be reminded all the more of the victory of Christ. How can we not rejoice when we think on that! Another practical implication regards the frequency of the Lord's Supper. There are churches who practice this weekly. Many would argue that doing it weekly would make it lose its power and it would no longer have the effect it does now. I completely disagree. I hope that I never tire of hearing the gospel, be that through the verbal proclamation or the dramatic representation found in the Supper.

4. Here is the question: Is there something that happens in the present, during the Lord's Supper?
This is where it gets difficult for me. Yes, we look back and forward, which spurs us on and perhaps increases our religious fervor or piety. But is there more to it? Is it right and proper to speak about the real presence of Christ in the Supper? I'm not speaking primarily of a Roman Catholic or even Lutheran understanding, but one like Calvin, where we are said to be spiritually feasting on Christ's flesh and therefore being given a present grace of sorts. It is all a little confusing to me, but worth thinking over.

Question of the Week: The Lord's Supper

On the overwhelming majority of doctrinal issues, Protestants play nice together, and may even play well with some of our Catholic brothers and sisters. However, there are historically a few doctrines that denominations simply do not agree on. It is not that Baptists think that Presbyterians are going to hell or vice versa, but we cannot come to an agreement on these secondary doctrines. One such doctrine is the Lord's Supper.

The history of disagreement stems from all the way back to the Protestant Reformation, when Luther disagreed with the Catholic view of transubstantiation. Since that time, there are seemingly endless ways to think about the Lord's Supper. So the question of the week can be rather broad or narrowed as you like. Simply put, what do you think about the Lord's Supper? What do you think about it theologically speaking? What about practically, spiritually, or emotionally speaking?

Looking forward to thinking this one through this week and possibly hearing some feedback as well.

Where Would You Go? : Laura's answer

Thanks to my parents I have been able to see a lot of the United States and it is filled with so many amazing places.  The one thing however that Europe has that the US can't quite match is the history, meaning there is stuff older than 200 years old!  My only trip to Europe to date was about 5 years ago to Spain and ever since then I have been dreaming of visiting Italy, specifically Rome.

Rome has been in existence for 2 and a half thousand years.  It is a city filled with archeology, art, and architecture.  It is full of must-sees like Vatican City, St. Peter Basilica, Trevi Fountain, and the Coliseum plus dozens other museums and parks.  Of course Rome is not the only thing driving me to visit Italy, there is also Verona (the city of Romeo and Juliet), Florence (and surrounding Tuscany), Naples (and the beautiful coast), and of course Venice (The City of Canals). Sounds likes like I need a month to see it all!

The Week's Answers: Where Would You Go?

There are so many places that I would love to visit. I really want to go back to Chicago, spend some time in New York City, and drive all of Route 66. But if I could choose just one place in all the world to visit, it would be Norway.

Why Norway? Honestly, I can't fully explain that. For some reason I got it stuck in my head when I was in high school that I would love to visit and I've not been dissuaded yet. Beautiful fjords, quaint seaport cities, interesting museums. I think it would be great. And it might be so alluring because there isn't that one thing where everybody says, "Oh, you have to see this." We could go anywhere in Norway and I think we could make it into an adventure worth the telling.

Question of the Week: Where Would You Go?

Ok, so the past two weeks have been intense questions that have really taken some time to think over and pray about. This week I thought I would ask a bit more lighthearted question, one that would lead to dreams and visions of grandeur instead of long hours of dialogue. If you could travel anywhere in the world, where would you go? Have fun with this one!

The Week's Answers: Religion and Nationalism

Every year around the Fourth of July I always seem to get involved in some conversation concerning the relationship between Christianity and America. More often than not I leave those conversations with my blood pressure higher than we began and no closer to any sort of conclusion with the person or even with myself. Here are some of the things that I've been contemplating this week in regard to this subject. As all of these posts are, these points are a good starting point I think, but they are definitely not the end of the discussion.


1. Christianity is not nationalism. I say this more as a baseline to any discussion. Christianity is not about the story of America and how we can learn moral lessons from its heroes (though we can). Christianity is about the redemptive activity of the gracious God of the world. If your idea of Christianity has been localized to reflect merely American sentiment, ideals, values, etc., remember that God is creator of all the nations.

2. Patriotism is not wrong. One extreme that can come out in these discussions, especially it seems with younger evangelicals, is that love for America is at least sinful if not downright idolatrous. I don't see this argument at all. I see no reason to see love of one's native country as inherently evil. When we were in Peru a few weeks ago, you could tell that those people loved their country very much as well. I applaud that and see patriotism as comparable to this love of country. I'm proud to be from Leeds, Alabama. I'm proud that I went to Auburn University. I'm proud of those things that I am close to and familiar with, and as long as this pride is not of a self-exalting sort, I think it cannot be looked upon as a sin.

3. Be wary of nationalism. By nationalism, I mean a feeling of superiority due to one's nationality. If you see your own country as inherently superior to other countries, I question whether or not you will be inclined to reach those other countries with the Gospel. You might even turn pharisaic, extolling the virtues of America while looking down your nose at those poor schmucks who live elsewhere. Our pastor preached a great sermon on Jonah this past Sunday and showed that Jonah had this sense of nationalism. Israel was the chosen people and he begrudged mercy extended to other people, especially the enemies of Israel. We must be wary of this attitude ourselves.

4. Church services and patriotism are tricky. And therein lies the rub for most of the discussions I find myself engaged in. I've seen both extremes. On one hand are the churches and preachers who equate America and Israel based upon some sloppy exegesis and argue that singing patriotic tunes and preaching on the history of America without reference to the Bible is still worship. On the other hand are those who do not want to acknowledge anything dealing with America ever in their churches. As usual, I find myself in the middle. At Brook Hills this past Sunday, the fact that it was the Fourth was mentioned at the beginning of the service, and right after singing the first song, one of the elders, a Navy vet, thanked God for the opportunities we had to worship in a country with freedom of religion, thanked God for veterans and their families, and prayed for soldiers and families who are presently in the armed forces. There was some reference to it in the sermon as well, but more as a warning not to become nationalistic to the detriment of the gospel. There are some areas that are a little more gray to me. Pledge of allegiance, national anthem, etc., those all make me think. Essentially, if we are diverting attention away from the worship of God in order to praise America, then I have a problem with it. If we are thanking God for the blessings he has given us through our country, then I'm good. That's at least my rule of thumb, thought I'm not sure how far it will take you.

Overall, I think love of God and love of country should exist side-by-side, but never lose sight of where you find your true identity. I am a Christ-follower far before I am an American, and if God calls Laura and I to live in Romania or Ghana or Chile for the glory of God and the sake of his kingdom, then we will follow wherever he leads.

"After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands, and crying out with a loud voice, "Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!"

Revelation 7:9-10

Question of the Week: Religion and Nationalism

Happy 4th of July everyone! Because it is the fourth, I thought it would be appropriate to give some attention to a question that I have been asked before. With the fourth falling on a Sunday, many churches will be singing patriotic tunes during their worship service, display American flags proudly at the front of their churches, or preach a sermon directed towards the problems that America is facing. So the question for me is what place does nationalism or even patriotism have in Christianity, or should it have a place? Should churches coordinate worship services around America and its Independence Day?

This Week's Answers: Radical Spending

The question that we posed this week involved radical, sacrificial spending and giving. Here are some thoughts that Laura and I talked through this week. Obviously, it's not the end of these questions, but it is at least a good starting point. Most of these points are interrelated, but for the sake of discussion and clarity, I delineated them here as separate.

1. We should all give sacrificially. I think that this is clear from the biblical story and is something that every believer should practice. The story of the rich young ruler in Matthew, Mark, and Luke as well as the story of the Widow's Mite in Mark and Luke seem to teach such things. Not only that, but look at giving in the Old Testament or in the book of Acts. The pattern is not that of stingy giving, but of giving that goes beyond what is merely comfortable to give. That is a hard lesson because it demands self-sacrifice, and in American society that is not looked upon very highly. A quote by C.S. Lewis is helpful here too. "I am afraid the only safe rule is to give more than we can spare... If our charities do not at all pinch or hamper us,... they are too small. There ought to be things we should like to do and cannot do because our charitable expenditures excludes them." That puts it in practical terms for me. If I'm always doing what I want and buying what I want and then giving whatever is left over, then I question if I am really giving sacrificially, as I should be.

2. All money is God's money. God does not own 10% of your money. He does not own the leftovers of your money even if it is in excess of 10% of your income. He owns it all. It is all his. He is the one who has blessed us with money of any sort. This sort of argument makes sense when we talk about our actions and behavior. Think about what would happen if someone said that God was only to be worshiped with 10% of my time or energy. That is ridiculous sounding! If we truly believe that we owe our lives to him, how much more do we owe our money to him. He owns all things, not portions of things.

3. We need to have a valid definition of luxuries. If you ask many Americans what a luxury is, you will probably get an answer that talks about beach homes, a Ferrari in your driveway, airplanes, or any number of extravagant things. While I agree that these things are luxuries, I think we need a broader definition. Now, you are catching me having just come back from Peru, so Laura and I would like to think that we have a fuller understanding of what a luxury is relative to most people in the world now than we did before Peru. Laura said to me over lunch that a nice mattress is a luxury. How true, after seeing many people sleep on tiny beds with plywood and a piece of foam as all that cushions them at night. Luxuries do not have to be flashy or ultra expensive. They can be as simple as a nice meal out to eat.

4. We need to think and pray before spending money on luxuries. Now you might be thinking that I am all against luxuries. Honestly I'm not. Just yesterday, Laura and I went to see a movie (a thing we now call a luxury). But what I think needs to happen before we mindlessly drop money on luxuries from $20 to $20,000 is ask God for guidance and spend some time thinking about how we spend our money. Sometimes, I think it will be perfectly alright to spend the money on the luxury, even if it is a little pricey. Sometimes, though, I think that we will be convicted by the Spirit or realize that we don't really need to spend the money, that it is adding nothing overall to our lives, and that it can be better utilized elsewhere. Even if we end up purchasing the luxury, going through this process will only help us think with greater concern and clarity on God's purposes for both ourselves and the nations.

5. Set a cap on your lifestyle. There is a very natural tendency to live more extravagantly the more money you make. If you make $30,000 a year, you don't have a very big house and don't have many luxuries at all. If you make $300,000 a year, you live in an enormous home with all the latest amenities and spend most of that money. After all, you earned it and it belongs to you, right? (See point number two above!) What if making $300,000 a year didn't mean that we lived that way? What if we lived like we had enough to get by and didn't spend everything on top of that? A professor told a story one time of a Harvard professor who had vowed to do this sort of thing. He decided that he and his family could get by on $35,000 a year. Even though he was making over $100,000 due to his job and authoring several textbooks, he lived on $35,000 and either saved or gave away the rest. And he was simply doing this because he thought it was the best thing to do for mankind (or at least so my teacher told me). If our motivation is alleviating spiritual and physical poverty in the name of Jesus Christ, how much more should we be willing to do such a thing.

6. Motivation for this is grace and joy, not guilt. Preachers are notorious for guilt trips. They can sometimes unwittingly preach something with what they see as conviction, but what some people hear as a mere guilt trip. I suppose this is inevitable to some degree, but the motivation for living in this way is not simply thinking about hungry boys and girls or people who do not yet have access to the Bible in their own language (though those are not bad in and of themselves). The motivation comes out of an overflow of the grace that God has poured out into my life. Wes Stafford, the President and CEO of Compassion International, spoke at Student Life last year. He said something that really stuck with me. You will notice in all the pictures of children that Compassion puts out that they do not use pictures with flies crawling on babies or children with distended stomachs. He said that he does not want to resort to what he called "poverty pornography," but would only use pictures that would make those childrens' parents proud. That is a concerted effort to motivate people not through guilt, but through love. Laura and I give and write to our child, Cristian, not because we were guilted into it, but because we love God and we love him.

I'll close with a passage from 2 Corinthians that I think is appropriate here. Paul has been speaking about collecting an offering to send to the Christians in Jerusalem. I hope and pray that we continue to grow in this area and respond to the challenge of God's word in a way that seeks his glory among all nations, regardless of how comfortable or uncomfortable it makes us.

The point is this: whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. And God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that having all sufficiency in all things at all times, you may abound in every good work. As it is written, "He has distributed freely, he has given to the poor; his righteousness endures forever." He who supplies the seed to the sower and bread for food will supply and multiply your seed for sowing and increase the harvest of your righteousness. You will be enriched in every way to be generous in every way, which through us will produce thanksgiving to God. For the ministry of this service is not only supplying the needs of the saints but is also overflowing in many thanksgivings to God. By their approval of this service, they will glorify God because of your submission flowing from your confession of the gospel of Christ, and the generosity of your contribution for them and for all others, while they long for you and pray for you, because the surpsassing grace of God upon you. Thanks be to God for his inexpressible gift!

2 Corinthians 9:6-15

Question of the Week: Radical Spending

What does it mean to sacrifice your money and spend your money in a radical way? Laura and I had a great conversation with Bill and Debbie, Laura's parents, about this tonight. It's something that our church has discussed and is practicing throughout this year, but I think that it can get confusing to some people, and even needs some clarification in my own mind. Laura and I will be thinking about it and hopefully share some thoughts later in the week.

P.S. As you can see, we are back from Peru and everything was amazing. We will have a blog update coming soon.