I recently read an article in Christian Ministry magazine about the television work of Joel Osteen and Phil Cooke. For those unfamiliar, Joel Osteen pastors the largest church in the United States with some 40,000 attendees. Phil Cooke is widely know in television and movie circles as an excellent producer who helps bring Christian TV productions up to Hollywood standards.

In Christian Ministry magazine, Cooke interviews Osteen about the quality of his television productions. The entire emphasis is on investing in the right equipment and expertise to produce a preaching program of the highest technical standards. Many Christian media productions are average and in fact, many are of poor technical quality. Both Cooke and Osteen point out that in today’s America, technical standards—the form of delivery—are of equal importance to the message being shared. In many ways I agree with this. But at the same time, high technical standards don’t guarantee an audience. The bottom line of all media productions is that the content you are delivering must be absolutely engaging. A pastor behind a pulpit isn’t enough. That person must be engaging. Of course, being the professional that he is, Phil Cooke knows this.

There is no doubt that Joel Osteen is an engaging speaker. His raw and refined talent and his commitment to technically flawless presentations are truly engaging. The only problems is what Osteen is engaging people with.

Who am I to judge the servant of another? I’m nobody, except that since I work in the same field and care passionately about the Bible and the Christian message, I think we should pursue standards of excellence as much as possible. But when it comes down to the “what” being presented we must be sure that we are actually preaching the Bible and Jesus instead of the “Christianity Lite” that Osteen is so famous for.

What should we, as Christian media professionals, be communicating regardless of the technical and talent issues? I think it’s rather simple. There are three things as Christian media professionals we must communicate:

Several years ago I asked a good pastor friend of mine, Chris Bayer, this question about the Bible: “If God never spoke to you ever again, would this book be enough for you?” He thought about it for a while then said, “No. I need God to speak to me to tell me who to pray for and who to heal and to do my ministry. I need God to speak to me.”

Now, as we were just getting to know each other I have to confess that at the time I didn’t really like his answer. You see, for me, no matter what situation I’m in I want my reliance on God’s word to be supreme. This is because the Holy Spirit is the author of scripture. What he says is timeless in its ability to transform lives. The Holy Spirit, if he were to speak something new, would never contradict what he’s already said, or anything he’s previously done. Therefore, I always go back to the Bible as my final authority for all in the Christian life.

Recently, however, something came to mind that has given me reason to back off my own answer to that question. If God never spoke to me again, would the Bible be enough for me?

Over the weekend two news items stood in contrast on the subject of religion, radicalization, and restriction. On Sunday the 28^th CNN’s Belief Blog presented four signs that a person’s religious beliefs might be radicalized. This stood in contrast to a TED presentation released on the 27^th that showed that 75 percent of the world’s population live in countries that impose legal restrictions on religion.

It was CNN’s Belief Blog that raised my ire (as it sometimes does). It’s four signs of radicalization are so broad that virtually any religious founder, or significant leader, or even people attending evangelical churches might be considered radicalized. Here are the four signs that, according to CNN, your religion might be evil:

1.) I know the truth and you don’t

2.) Beware the charismatic leader

3.) The end is near

4.) The end justifies the means

How broad are these “signs?” Consider that under these wide-ranging statements, Jesus would be a religious radical meeting three of the four criteria. The Apostle Paul would also fit the bill. In fact, many, if not most evangelical pastors would fit the bill, for three out of four signs. Yet, ironically, the Pew Research Center’s data on worldwide religious restrictions notes that 3/4^th of the world’s population live under restrictions on religious expression. Ironically, most of those countries that have such religious restrictions are those imposed by truly radical religious influence or regimes. These include Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iran, Tunisia, China, Syria, Burma, Yemen, and others. In fact, “During the latest year covered in the study, there also was an increase in harassment or intimidation of particular religious groups. Indeed, five of the seven major religious groups monitored by the study—Jews, Christians, Buddhists, adherents of folk or traditional religions, and members of other world religions—experienced four-year highs in the number of countries in which they were harassed by national, provincial or local governments.” (1)

Let’s go back to CNN’s idea of radicalization. How do your religious views measure up to CNN’s Belief Blog article? Here’s my self-evaluation:

What drips from your lips?

We all know them, those people whose speech is often laced with sarcasm. In many situations we find sarcasm humorous. Who hasn’t laughed at the comedian who effectively uses sarcasm to point out the absurd? Sarcasm is even found in the Bible as a tool used by biblical prophets to point out the absurdity of idol worship (II Kings 18:27; II Chronicles 18:12-15). But most of the time sarcasm used in daily speech is the sign of something lurking underneath, deep inside the person who uses it: bitterness.

Here are six truths about sarcasm that can help us know what lies deep within our own hearts.

Recently I’ve become aware of some churches that prefer to send out their congregants on short term missions trips and have moved away from, to some degree, sponsoring full time missionaries who work with organizations like Cru, Wycliffe, Navigators, and others. These churches want to engage their people in the missions experience so that they will become more excited about soul-winning and sharing their own faith. It is a great motivation! However, I’d like to touch upon seven advantages that missions organizations have to offer churches and missionaries on the field. To be honest, churches, while serving a critical role in the development of the body of Christ, can’t take on the task of the Great Commission alone. Neither can missions organizations do it alone. Both need each other to bring Christ to the world—especially difficult areas of the world where many sponsoring churches have few to no inroads. 

Let’s briefly touch on seven advantages that missions organizations provide for the advancement of the Great Commission.

A recent report claims that the Shroud of Turin has now been dated to with 200 years, plus or minus, of the time of Christ. Many believers regard the shroud as a legitimate relic from the time of Christ, espousing the view that the image on the shroud was created supernaturally during Jesus’ resurrection from the dead. The shroud is something that people often look to as affirmation of their faith in Christ. They see it as a form of evidence that Jesus existed and was raised from the dead.

 

I am not one of those people.

 

To be sure, Jesus Christ did rise bodily from the dead, never to die again. The scripture’s accounts of him are accurate, faithful, and true. It is enough for me that the scripture testifies to these things. It gives us eyewitness accounts of the risen Jesus under circumstances that can only be properly and historically judged as Jesus risen from the dead. But sometimes, people want more than what the scripture says because the scripture is not enough for them. Even Jesus remarked on this when he quoted Abraham saying, “If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead” (Luke 16:31).

 

Ultimately I don’t think the Shroud of Turin matters and I don’t think it does anything positive for our faith. 

After watching the first three episodes of "The Bible," on the History Channel I've become more convinced that my initial impressions were correct. After writing my previous article I began to wonder if I properly evaluated the beginning of the series. Perhaps I was too hard? As one person on Facebook noted, we should consider the motives of the people producing the series.

But as I watched the last two episodes I realized that motives are one thing and results are another. Now, I could write an article about how the producers butchered the stories of Samson and Daniel, completely missing the point of the stories as they are presented in the real scripture. I can tell you why the Jesus portrayed in "The Bible" series is somewhat different than the Jesus presented in the scripture. I can tell you why the presentation so far is somewhat out of context of the history it is trying to portray. Instead, I'd like to focus on the two most important things missing from the series (so far) and why they are critical if you really want to know the Bible's story; and not just its story, but its meaning. Before I do that, however, let me wax a bit positive as I don't want to focus solely on the negative.

Are you watching the History Channel miniseries called, "The Bible?"  All of the hype and marketing of the series captured my attention. I love the Bible and am eager to see new ways it is represented through media. Being a media missionary these things grab my attention even more, so I was eager to watch it. But after seeing the first installment of the ten-hour series I was sorely disappointed.

If you want to know the story of the Bible then "The Bible" series is not something I'd encourage you to watch. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that this series represents a low view of the scripture. Let me briefly explain why.

Pastor, I know you’ve got a lot on your plate and the last thing you need is more stuff to deal with. But you ought to know about a few needs that your missionary has. And not just you, but your staff and congregation as well.

I’ve been fortunate to serve Christ in two countries for a total of 11 years. There were times when I wished my home church knew about some issues I was facing, but felt like they might not understand what I was going through, or perhaps think badly about it, so I kept my mouth shut. That got me thinking about other missionaries, wondering if they had the same thoughts I did. So I surveyed a number of missionaries currently serving overseas to ask them what was the one thing they wanted you, their pastor, to know. From their answers I’ve come up with five things that the average missionary wants you to know.

Now, I want to warn you, you might not like some of what you will read. In fact, you might be a little offended. But please don’t be. You see, your missionary has a unique point of view and set of experiences that the vast majority of pastors and congregants never get to have. In addition to spiritual warfare, they face unique pressures of culture, loneliness, and anxiety for a host of reasons. So when they come home for a furlough or time of rest they want to escape their host culture for a while and enjoy their home culture. But guess what? 

1.) Home no longer feels like home.