Traditionally, Labor Day is a day off in tribute to, and recognition of, the workers in the U.S. who are the backbone of our society. In many ways it is associated in people’s minds with labor unions, which have also been a significant part of our society for many years.

Unions are a highly polarizing topic. To some, unions are the reason companies hesitate to hire as many people as they really need. They are the reason American-made products are often more expensive than those from other countries. They are the reason companies are struggling under the weight of salaries and pension funds they can no longer keep afloat.

These are all good points… but what about the other side of the coin?

Unions came about in response to horrendous sweatshop conditions being propagated by greedy managers, focused on lining their own pockets while the workers suffered. In the days when the U.S. government paid billions to bail out finance institutions whose officers were receiving millions in bonuses even as their companies failed, does anyone really believe corporations are less greedy today?

Here’s the point.

In a Christian world, there would be no need for unions. Every worker would work hard “as if for the Lord” as the Bible directs, and would be content with his or her wages rather than expecting unsupportable raises. Every employer would share generously with the workers who make business successful, and would treat them with honor and respect every day.

On this Labor Day, it is our prayer that Christians everywhere will consider whether we are being the kinds of workers, supervisors, and employers that God expects. Are we being diligent at whatever our hands find to do? Are we being generous with our resources, or are we busily foused on making enough to tear down our barns and put up bigger ones to store all our goods?

Whichever side of the labor equation you’re on, one thing is clear: there is no biblical support for greed, but great praise for contentment.

A Republican President and Democratic President took very different approaches to another country in conflict—and both are being heavily criticized. It seems likely that President Obama thought he was learning from the example of President Bush by moving slowly. The problem is that he didn’t look far enough back in history and study enough examples. The lesson is not that you should move slowly, the lesson is that leaders will be criticized no matter what they do.

If you decide to drop your traditional service, you will be criticized. If you decide not to drop your traditional service, you will be criticized. If you decide to allow video games with some level of violence in your youth center, you will be criticized. If you decide not to do so, you will be criticized.

If you’re a leader, you are going to face criticism regardless. Even if you decide not to do anything, you will have complaints—and then be abandoned by everyone with any energy to help your church achieve its mission. Therefore, attempting to avoid criticism is a waste of time. Prayerfully decide what’s right and then do it.

Confusion, consultation, and consensus
Many of the same people who complained about the length of time President Obama took to enter the engagement in Iraq are now complaining that his actions are an illegal overstepping of the power of the executive branch of the government. Congressmen and senators from both parties are saying that only Congress has the power to declare war, and that the president is using semantics to make it sound like something other than war so he can bypass their authority over the issue. They’re still saying that he hasn’t made clear what his intentions are. Translation: They got their feelings hurt that he acted without consulting them. He stepped on their sense of ownership and power.

The lesson is that leaders must communicate well and involve others. The president would not have been criticized for dithering if he had been using that time to discuss his plans with congressional leaders. When he did act, he would have announced that he had been in discussions with those leaders for a couple of weeks and people would have concluded that he had indeed been acting from the beginning, just behind the scenes.

There are influential people outside your inner circle that feel a sense of ownership and power in your church. If you surprise them with decisions that affect them, they will cause problems. Now don’t misunderstand; I’m not saying that you should seek consensus before making a decision. Leadership by committee is a guarantee of ineffectiveness. However, you should actively consult in advance with—and listen to—the influencers with a stake in your decision.

Even if your ultimate decision is not what they wanted, you’ll 1) have the opportunity to tailor your plans to make them more palatable to the dissenters; 2) have less backlash because the influencers know you included them in the process and perhaps see ways in which you tweaked your plans in ways that make them more acceptable; and 3) know the objections the congregation might have so you can address them in advance when you make your announcement. Clearly communicate to the church what you’re doing and why, and who was involved in discussion.

I’m not sure whether the U.S. President has a more difficult job than every church leader in the world. Sure, the president may declare war and send people to their deaths, but we’re involved in matters affecting people’s eternal souls. Let’s learn what we can from the challenges our presidents face as we try to lead those to whom God has called us.

Let’s overlook for the moment the question of whether this particular change would make sense; I’m sure we all had a reaction to that first paragraph one way or the other. Instead, let’s look at something more significant.  The PETA folks implied that the NIV translation committee deliberately changed the text of the Bible–not to make it more accurate, but to satisfy an agenda of gender inclusiveness. The question is: Should agendas such as gender inclusiveness be part of any Bible translation effort?

Now before some who are in love with their favorite translation claim that no more translations or updates are ever needed, we should acknowledge that the English language changes. As the NIV translation committee says on their website: Who would have guessed in the 1970s that, within a few decades, an ‟alien” would mean, thanks to the influence of ET and other movies and TV shows, an ‟extraterrestrial being”? In the updated NIV, ‟alien” has been replaced with ‟foreigner” or similar words in order to communicate the intention of God’s Word accurately to contemporary English readers. See, for instance, Genesis 23:4: ‟I am a foreigner and stranger among you . . . ”

That’s a really good point.  For those in the Baby Buster or younger generations, the word “alien” has an entirely different meaning and it makes good sense to update a translation so it’s appropriate for them.  I’ll never forget hearing a pastor explaining what “divers diseases” were from the old King James.  Like many, he simply didn’t realize that’s how the word “diverse” was spelled in the 1600′s when the KJV was done.

What we’re talking about here are changes not driven by changes in language, but culture. On their site the translation committee also says: In general, much more often than not … “People” and “humans” (and “human beings”) were widely used for Greek and Hebrew masculine forms referring to both men and women. In other words, they deliberately changed passages in the new version to remove some references that were specifically masculine.  The question is whether the change today is genuinely based on a change in the English language, or a change in our culture’s expectations.

So what do you think?  Should Bible translators update editions, for example, to reflect the fact that homosexuality is much more accepted today?  Are there any Bible translations today that you think were driven by someone’s agenda to the point of being doctrinally unsound?  We’ve launched a discussion at https://www.facebook.com/PreachingU?sk=app_2373072738 and invite you to join in.

Before we judge Bell’s theology, I think we have a responsibility as Christians to acknowledge certain things about him:

1) Bell’s ministry is reaching people for Christ. Mars Hill is drawing young adults in ways most churches can only dream of. His Nooma videos have influenced countless thousands to consider Jesus and Christianity.

2) Mars Hill is demonstrating Christ’s love to their community. Their outreach programs include sponsoring fundraisers for AIDS and provide winter clothing for those in need in their part of Michigan. Those are just two small examples of ways in which they are tangibly being the hands and feet of Christ.

3) Bell’s position is based on love, not hate. At a time when two people calling themselves Christian pastors in Kansas and Florida are drawing headlines for their completely unChristian positions of hate, we need to acknowledge that Bell’s position is based on an extension of what may be the most firmly established of all biblical principles: God is love.

4) Bell is a sincere seeker for Christian truth. Even a casual look at the whole body of his teaching demonstrates that he is not trying to attack Christianity, he is sincerely trying to understand the Bible’s teaching, apply it to today’s world, and teach it in a way that transforms lives. Whether we agree with his conclusions or not, we should acknowledge the integrity of his search.

Personally, I don’t agree with Bell’s conclusions. But I respect a man who has dedicated his life to bringing Christ to his community, and whose ministry shows every sign of being blessed by the Holy Spirit. I admit that I don’t fully understand how to reconcile Jesus’ words that if he be lifted up (on the cross, which he was) that he would draw all people to himself. I know the theological justifications we use because we can’t stand to leave any part of the Bible in tension, nevertheless the tension remains.

This kind of discussion can be a very healthy thing for the Body when handled properly. Iron sharpening iron helps all of us grow ever deeper in our understanding of God and his Word. Unfortunately, the vehemence of the discussion has moved it into the public eye as yet another example that Christians can’t even agree with each other, and another excuse for unbelievers to cast many of us as “haters.”

Galatians 6:1 tells us that when we believe we’ve found a fellow believer in error, we are to be very careful in correcting him or her lest we act inappropriately ourselves. As part of the same thought, verse 2 reminds us that our responsibility is to be part of the support system for fellow believers, not something that tears them down. And verse 3 reminds us to keep a healthy humility in our own opinions.

May we all bear this in mind.

In one of my interviews with John Ortberg for Smart Ministry, he laughingly shared that sentiment. “My wife doesn’t want to be around me first thing in the morning, my kids don’t want to be around me first thing in the morning, and I don’t think Jesus wants to be around me first thing in the morning.” His point was that spiritual disciplines are very individual, and the concept of a morning quiet time with God isn’t universal. What matters is that we spend time with God during our day, not when.

I agreed with him completely, and still do—sort of.

Here’s the thing. In the Old Testament we’re frequently told to give God our “first fruits.” That’s not just because God wants the best. He knows that once the harvest gets under way, the crop is making its way to markets and tables and it’s easy to get busy and leave God out. Once our days get started, it’s harder to carve out dedicated time for God. More often than not, I found myself giving him little snippets of time here and there because I was in a hurry to get to the next thing I needed to do.

I’m still probably not at my best in the morning; but I have trained myself to wake up within a few minutes either way of 6:30 and be in my study ready to spend time with God after a quick stop to pour a glass of orange juice. And honestly, I still find it hard to stay focused on prayer while my mind is trying to take me to the day’s To-Do list. (Note to self: find some way to prevent my computer from even turning on before 7:00 a.m.) But I think God honors my desire to give him the “first fruits” of my time and attention.

The last thing I’d ever want to do is turn this into a legalistic thing that says there’s something wrong if I or anyone else fails to spend the first part of our days with God. I still think that you do so is more important than when you do so. But I do think there’s some biblical support for the idea that it’s a good thing to give God the “first fruits” of your day, and I can tell you from experience that—with practice—I’ve found that I’m spending higher quality time with him this way.

P.S. I’ve published my second commentary with Yahoo! News. If you’re interested, see: Despite Japan’s Fukushima Disaster, Nuclear Still Safe

I’ve spoken of grace, and immediately been attacked in strong terms as being soft on sin.  (Anybody remember Jesus and the woman caught in adultery?)

I’ve spoken of loving our neighbors, and immediately been attacked as being a liberal and even against immigration laws.  (No, they didn’t bother to actually ask my position on those issues–or even to read Jesus’ words about love, apparently.)

The U.S. is giving us a practical example now.  Both Republicans and Democrats are threatening a government shutdown on March 6.  The Democrats say they need a two-week extension beyond March 5 to understand our economic mess well enough to propose a new budget.  The Republicans say they’re not agreeing to any more extensions of the current spending.  In everyone’s extremism (and desire to be able to blame the other side for a government shutdown), they’re missing the obvious: Grant a two-week extension with the proviso that everything be cut 10% from current levels during those two weeks.  Every line item, no exceptions, everyone’s pet project hurt equally.  The Democrats get the extra time they want, the Republicans get the cut they want, and the American people see leaders that are more interested in finding solutions than posturing.

Once we get past our own attitudes of extremism, other possibilities emerge.  Once we start loving people the way Jesus commanded his followers to love, we’re less likely to label and pigeonhole them based on their behavior and more likely to want to minister compassionately to their souls.  Once we come to grips with the reality of our own sins and the incredible amount of love and grace from God that has prevented him from treating us as we deserve, we’re less likely to be so judgmental of the actions of others with whom we disagree.  How easily we ignore the words of Jesus in Matthew 18:21-35, and his warning that God will treat us in the same way.

The uncomfortable truth is that God chose to leave his Word nuanced in many areas, rather than black and white.  Is sin bad?  Yes.  Did Jesus stop the people who were attacking the woman, tell her he didn’t condemn her, and let her go without punishment?  Yes.

It’s so easy to see the world through “absolute” eyes.  Unfortunately, that usually does nothing to bring real improvement.

Abu Dhabi’s Minister of Higher Education Scientific Research, Sheikh Nahyan bin Mubarak Al Nahyan, hosted a symposium at Zayed University on Christian-Muslim relations.  The symposium was titled Fifteen Centuries of Love and Affection, and was sponsored by the university and Abu Dhabi’s General Authority for Islamic Affairs.

In his keynote speech, the minister (who is also president of Zayed University) said, “We must affirm through word and deed that the Christian Arabs are noble brothers who stand together with their fellow Muslims in a single rank to serve the cause of the nation and preserve the welfare of the nation.  There is no difference between a Muslim and a Christian in this respect as both support each other in honest fraternity.”  He added that during more the fourteen centuries since the advent of Islam, the relationship between Islam and Christianity thrived in the context of the divine command in the Quran, “There is no compulsion in religion,” as well as God’s proclamation “Had your Lord willed, He would have made the mankind a single nation.”

We need to stop and celebrate the fact that many influential Arabs joined together to talk about Muslims and Christians coexisting peacefully.

A week earlier, a diverse group of leading Iraqi clerics gathered in Copenhagen for a conference called the “Emergency Summit for Inter-faith Dialogue in Iraq.”  (Apparently they like frequent flier miles as much as we do.)  The group included Shiite, Sunni, and Christian leaders who discussed the recent surge in attacks on Christians.  According to the Iraqi Minister of Displacement and Migration, Dindar Najman Doski, more than 5,000 Christian families moved out of Iraq in 2010.

The conference ended with the signing of the Copenhagen Relief and National Reconciliation Agreement, which stresses that violence is not compatible with Islam, and calls on the government to make the incitement of religious and cultural hatred a criminal offense.

As we hear conflicting reports of violence being committed by Islamists while others talk of Islam being a religion of peace, many have asked why Muslim leaders aren’t speaking out against the violence.  The reality is, they are.  Our media will continue to pepper us with stories about mullahs (usually in Iran) who are stirring Muslims up.  They are a concern, certainly.  But let us take hope in–and wrap prayer around–the growing indication that there is a significant number of moderate Muslims who are trying to show that those extremists are renegades who don’t represent Islam.

Jesus said, “Blessed are the peacemakers.”  May we follow him.

Islamic extremism gets the most attention in U.S. media, but Hindu extremism–and violence–is becoming a serious problem in India.  Even Buddhist terrorism is occurring.  And make no mistake, Christian extremism is on the rise as well.  When we look at people threatening public Quran burnings and desecrating funerals by shouting hate slogans, it can be easy to dismiss them as fringe loonies–and that’s exactly how most Muslims reacted to the beginning of extremism in their religion.  The Oklahoma City bomber claimed to be Christian, and most of us can remember abortion clinics being bombed “in the name of Jesus.”

Where does it come from?
Some of it comes from each group’s set of basic beliefs or scriptures.  And again, Christianity is not immune.  No one can read the Old Testament and escape the incredible amount of violence done in God’s name–even at his command!

But the majority of it comes from human nature.  Each of us has determined the belief system we’re going to follow in our own lives, and by definition each of us is convinced that his or her decision was the best one.  If we didn’t feel that way, we’d have chosen something else!  So if we believe our decision was the best one for us, then many…let’s say most…people think that that decision is the best one for everyone else.  As Christians we have no choice!  Jesus himself said that he was the only path to salvation, so we can’t believe his teaching and also think everyone else can find whatever path works for them.  Well, the same urge that causes us to suggest that people watch a movie we liked drives us to suggest that people consider the belief systems we’ve decided are right.

Now add to that our innate desire for self-preservation.  As we feel threatened, our natural tendency is to fight back.  And then, of course, the others feel threatened and they have to fight back harder.  The vicious cycle escalates almost inevitably.

How should Christians respond?
The Christian Old Testament is filled with examples of people fighting, killing, and being praised for killing people who didn’t follow our God, our way.  But the story doesn’t end with the Old Testament.  When Peter drew his sword to defend Jesus from those who were threatening him, Jesus told Peter to put his sword away.  Jesus healed the ear that Peter had cut off the soldier threatening Jesus.  There is not a single example–not one–of Jesus telling his followers to fight for him.  Let that sink in, if you claim to be a follower of Jesus.

But won’t we be overrun by unbelievers?
When Jesus told Peter to put his sword away he said, “Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?”  His message is clear: yes, we should be loyal to Jesus and boldly proclaim our faith in him.  But he doesn’t need us to fight for him.  He can handle that himself.

This will sound controversial, but consider this: It has been observed throughout history that Christianity has flourished most when it was under persecution.  When and where people suffer for Jesus, the number of people who become his followers multiplies dramatically.  We can see it today in parts of the world such as China, where the church is persecuted.  Far from being overrun by those with other belief systems, the more Christians are pressured by them the more true Christianity thrives.

But doesn’t God want his children to prosper and have good lives?
Of course, that’s why Jesus told us he was preparing a place for us in heaven!  We will have more wonderful lives than we’re capable of imagining for countless thousands of years in heaven.  This microscopic little sliver of time we’re experiencing right now is insignificant from an eternal perspective.  Why would God care whether you’re prospering during a time no more important than the blink of an eye?  What matters during this time is how many others are being influenced to make the decisions that will allow them to enjoy that eternal happiness.

The book of Acts says that when Jesus’ followers were imprisoned and beaten for their beliefs, they celebrated!  They didn’t fight against the people with other beliefs that were persecuting them, they prayed for them and continued to speak out about Jesus.  They were “rejoicing because they had been counted worthy of suffering disgrace for the Name.”

We aren’t supposed to like threats to Christianity.  But we are supposed to look at things from the “biggest picture” view.  If Christians being threatened and persecuted means that more people become Christians, then perhaps we should be celebrating.  Perhaps more pressure on Christians in the U.S. is the best thing that could happen to Christianity in our country!

Instead of focusing on keeping our own lives as comfortable as possible, how many of us are willing to pray, “Please God, let me life during this insignificant little sliver of time on earth be as uncomfortable as possible–if it means that more people will come to know you and be able to share eternal life in heaven.”

Are you?

What is the Christian response to suicide?

The US. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports there are more than half a million people each year admitted to emergency rooms with self-inflicted injuries. Who knows how many more people are on the edge of trying and are stopped? According to a report from the National Conference of State Legislatures, 19.3 percent of high school students have seriously considered killing themselves, and 900,000 have gone as far as planning their suicides. Unfortunately, the National Institute of Mental Health indicates that in 2007 nearly 35,000 Americans succeeded in causing their own deaths. It’s the third leading cause of death for young people aged 15 to 24.

No doubt there will be much speculation as to what drove this young man with his whole life in front of him to make such a decision. Most likely, we’ll never know. But the more important question is whether there is ever a set of circumstances in which suicide is the correct response.

A foundational tenet of Christianity is that God loves…me. Not just humanity, not just really good people; God loves you and me as individuals, despite our flaws. Now put that fact together with the Christian belief that God is the creator of the universe; a being whose power truly can’t be understood by the human mind. It’s hard to reconcile the belief that the God who can manipulate the cosmos actually loves me personally and wants the best for me, with the level of lack of hope for the future that would drive someone to suicide.

The Bible contains six specific descriptions of suicide: Abimelech (Judges 9:54), Saul (1 Samuel 31:4), Saul’s armor bearer (1 Samuel 31:4-6), Ahithophel (2 Samuel 17:23), Zimri (1 Kings 16:18), and Judas (Matthew 27:5). We know that five of them were evil people who had rejected God. We aren’t given enough information about Saul’s armor bearer to guess at more than his panic.

The point is, there isn’t a single example of a godly person taking his or her own life. On the other hand, we do find references to God deciding the time was appropriate for a person’s life to end. In Enoch’s case, there’s an implication that he might not have even died but was taken directly by God to heaven.

In other words, the biblical model is that it is up to God, not us, to decide when we are to die.

World-renowned Christian leader Chuck Swindoll has described suicide as the most selfish and cowardly act he can imagine. Those seem like harsh words, but when you consider the effect of this tragedy on McKinley’s infant son—not to mention all the others touched by this in our city…perhaps they are appropriate.