Hope Versus Optimism

On his Facebook page, the highly talented and perceptive Christian author Jim Belcher wrote the following on 12/5/2009:

"Optimism is a matter optics, of seeing what you want to see and not seeing what you don't want to see. Hope, on the other hand, is a Christian virtue. It is the unblinking acknowledgment of all that militates against hope, and the unrelenting refusal to despair." Richard John Neuhaus (via Scotty Smith).

Here's the comment I left in response to that post from Jim:

---

Too many modern churches are what I like to describe as "happy face churches," in which folks think the best solution to serious problems is to pretend they don't exist, and to hope that doing so causes them to go away. ("Positive confession" churches are especially prone to this kind of thing.) To me, that sounds more like Neuhaus' definition of optimism than his definition of hope.

The Bible commands Christians to bear one another's burdens. But I can attest from painful personal experiences that it's next to impossible to find anyone in a "happy face church" who will even allow one to tell him or her what one's burdens are in the first place. Pastors are sometimes the worst offenders, because they want to project an image of success, and the honesty of some believers can threaten that image.

How people are supposed to bear burdens when they're unaware of the nature of those burdens is anyone's guess. Meaningful problem resolution and healing is almost possible in such a superficial, uncaring environment.

Far fewer Christians would yield to despair if we had far more hopeful Christians (who therefore offered genuine help to hurting believers) and far fewer optimistic, heads-in-the-sand Christians.

A related and time-relevant note: I've heard that more people commit or attempt suicide during the Christmas season than during any other time of the year. Maybe what exacerbates their despair is their increased awareness of the huge discrepancy between what the church is and what it should be.

---

NOTE: Jim Belcher is also pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church (http://www.redeemerpres.com/) in Newport Beach, California.

Poverty and Dignity

The November 16, 2009 issue of Newsweek features an article entitled "Seeing Dignity in Poverty: Dorothea Lange's Politics of Respect". It's a thought-provoking article pertaining to the idea that poverty-stricken people need more than just material help; they also need to be treated with respect, in a manner which instills them with hope for the future, and which doesn't presumptuously and self-righteously assume that the poverty which afflicts them is necessarily their own fault.

Some Christian charities and churches seem to understand the aforementioned concept. Others, sadly, do not.

NOTE: The aforementioned article argues that Lange demonstrates the dignity of her subjects by showing their stoicism. I agree that Lange's photos portrayed her subjects (such as the famous "Migrant Mother") with dignity. But I think that it's wrong, and potentially harmful, to think that overt demonstrations of understandable anguish, sadness or anger in response to adversity are undignified. After all, the scriptures teach that Christ's strength is made perfect in our weaknesses. There is nothing shameful about genuine tears or other intense negative emotions. Even Jesus wept and expressed anger from time to time. As Christians, we ought, above all, to be authentic and honest. There is nothing dignified about being treated in a dehumanizing manner, as if one's feelings are of no importance.

Heaven and Michael Jackson

The other day, I was sitting in the residents' lounge in the building where I live, and the TV there was tuned in to the memorial service for singer Michael Jackson. Naturally, they brought in a Christian minister to lend legitimacy to the proceedings. I don't remember whether it was the minister or someone else, but someone said, "Michael, we know that you're in heaven now," or something to that effect.

When it comes to the question of who will and who won't go to heaven, I freely acknowledge that only God knows for sure. However, in cases where there's good reason to wonder whether the person will be there or not, I'm inclined to think that it's best to refrain from making definitive statements about that person's eternal destiny after the person has died. It's just as "judgmental" to declare that one is certain that the person is in heaven as it is to declare that one is certain that the person is in hell, is it not?

Scripturally, there is only one basis for salvation. Repentance from one's sins, accompanied by confession of Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord, is a nonnegotiable prerequisite for entrance into heaven. Is there any evidence that Michael Jackson ever did those things? Is there any evidence that he had any real faith whatsoever in Jesus Christ? Where is that evidence?

Michael Jackson had time to sing love songs to rats ("Ben") and to sing songs about zombies ("Thriller"), but he had no time left over in which to use his enormously visible public platform for the purpose of sharing the Christian gospel with others. Is it possible, in spite of that fact, that he loved the Lord anyway? Yes, but it seems very unlikely to me. At the very least, evangelism seems to have been very, very low on his list of priorities. The only time I can recall indirectly hearing anything at all about Jesus, from the lips of Michael Jackson, was when it was reported that he'd referred to wine as "Jesus juice" during one of his many "adventures" involving questionable relationships with very young boys with whom he was not biologically related. Admittedly, he was never convicted of sexual molestation in a court of law. However, if he had not been guilty, I doubt that he would have settled out of court with his accusers, as he did. I know that if anyone ever accused me publicly of such a shameful thing, I wouldn't rest until my name was cleared.

When questioned on national TV about the accusations of sexual molestation, Michael said that the most loving thing a person could do for another person was to share one's bed with that person. Jesus, by way of contrast, said that the most loving thing a person could do for one's friends was to die for one's friends. It seems to me that Michael's definition of love could have used some serious revision.

So again, I ask, what's the basis for the belief that Michael is in heaven? Is such a declaration based on a solid foundation of knowledge about Michael Jackson, or is it based on wishful thinking, motivated either by the naive and unscriptural belief that everyone will go to heaven after death, or on the ridiculous idea that anyone as undeniably talented and popular as Michael Jackson must surely be in heaven? Or maybe the person who made that statement didn't really believe it to be true, but said it anyway in order to comfort Michael's surviving friends and relatives.

God's values are not invariably aligned with the values of the pop culture in America. I believe that some of the people who are considered to be icons of our culture will be seen as nobodies in the kingdom of God. Conversely, I believe that some people who are popularly considered to be "nobodies" who will reap huge rewards in heaven, because they sought first the kingdom of God instead of focusing primarily on gratifying their own (sometimes perverted) lusts and exalting their own egos.

Again, none of this is to diminish Michael Jackson's talents, which were immense. Nor is it to deny that he occasionally did good things for other people. (I haven't forgotten "We Are The World.") But neither of those things is a sufficient basis for salvation. If Michael is in heaven (and I sincerely hope for his sake that he is), it isn't because of his talents or his good works. It's because he asked Jesus to come into his life and be his savior. In terms of one's eternal destiny, that's the only thing that really matters.

Rough Edges Can Be Necessary

Every once in a while, someone of my acquaintance has been known to observe that I have a few "rough edges," by which the person usually means that I have a tendency to speak in accordance with what I believe to be true, even if it means saying things which some folks might regard as harsh.

Strange. I always thought that being truthful was a good thing. But some folks just can't handle the unvarnished truth.

Here's the thing: I want to be used by God to make this world a better place. In other words, I want to be a tool in God's toolbox. People who are afraid of speaking the truth may be easy to get along with, but they seldom accomplish much of anything worthwhile.

These days, some folks mean it as an insult when they tell people that they're "tools," but that's obviously not what I'm talking about here. To be a tool in God's toolbox is a wonderful thing. It's an investment in eternity.

What kind of a toolbox would God be likely to have? Well, we know that Jesus was a carpenter. Carpenters use a variety of tools --- tools such as saws, rasps, sanders and so forth. Many of those tools have rough edges, without which they would not function properly. The purpose of those rough edges is to shape the wood and (ironically) to smooth the wood. So rough edges are not necessarily bad. This is as true in the metaphorical sense as it is true in the literal sense.

Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying that tact and diplomacy are unimportant. I'm not saying that people are justified, in the name of speaking the truth, in riding roughshod over the feelings of others. Nor am I saying that every conflict should be treated as if it's a major crisis. One must choose one's battles carefully. There are times when it is necessary to make minor compromises in order to stay focused on the issues and battles which really matter the most.

Nevertheless, there are times when having rough edges can be both admirable and necessary, in order to build what God wants to build.

So to those who've accused me of having such edges, I have this to say:

DEAL WITH IT.

Forgiveness and Community

At the Lifeway book store at Moody Bible Institute, I recently bought a book entitled Death by Church, by Mike Erre. Mike is a teaching pastor at Rock Harbor church.

There's a lot of quoteworthy material in the book, pertaining to various problems in the modern church. Here's a perceptive quote, from page 114, which I found particularly interesting:

Pastoral ministry has now been reduced to marketing and psychotherapy --- disciplines that both concentrate exclusively on the individual. The message of the gospel is treated the same way. The American gospel concerns itself solely with the inner, private world of people as they exist in relation to God. There is usually no talk of community, tradition or public accountability. (After all, who are you to stand between me and God?) Faith exists as a private exercise, a personal option, an individual choice.

The problem with the approach to ministry described in the preceding paragraph, is that such an approach does a poor job of resolving the myriad human problems which are relational in nature.

Ironically, the end result is that such an approach doesn't even work very well in terms of addressing problems concerned with individuals. The state of mind of an individual who has been harmed by the sins of others cannot be divorced from the larger context of the community in which that individual lives, if one wishes to accurately perceive the problems of that individual and the solutions to those problems.

I am thinking, in particular, of the way that many people define our obligations and relationships with one another in relation to the extremely important issue of forgiveness.

There are many Christians today who, based on the correct observation that God's love for mankind is unconditional, and based on erroneous interpretations of certain passages of scripture pertaining to forgiveness, have concluded that God's forgiveness of sinners is likewise unconditional, and that our forgiveness of others who have sinned against us should therefore also be unconditional.

This teaching (found in books such as Forgive and Forget by Lewis Smedes) contradicts the scriptures, which clearly teach that God's forgiveness of sinners is predicated on the willingness of such sinners to ask for forgiveness and to repent.

If forgiveness were unconditional, then defiant and unrepentant sinners would nevertheless go to heaven. There would be no hell. That's the gospel of wishful thinking (otherwise known as "universalism"), not the gospel of Jesus Christ which is found in the Bible.

From Forgiven to Forgiving, by Jay Adams, is a book which provides a welcome antidote to the fallacies advocated in such books. Here's a link to an interesting related blog post also written by that author.

In particular, some people seem to have missed the point with regard to the primary reason for forgiveness. They have taught that the primary function of forgiveness (or at least one of the primary functions) is to serve as "therapy" for the sake of the forgiver. (That's why I was reminded of this subject when reading the preceding quotation by Mike Erre.) In other words, people who teach this doctrine believe that the forgiver forgives for his or her own sake (e.g., to enable the forgiver to "find closure" and "get on with life"), not for the sake of the person being forgiven or for the sake of the relationship between the offender and the offended party.

On the face of it, that's nonsense. Tell me: Who is the primary beneficiary when God forgives a sinner? God? Or the sinner?

The answer is obvious: The sinner is the primary beneficiary. God needs no therapy. God is Lord of the universe.

I'm not denying that God's heart is broken (to put things in somewhat anthropomorphic and therefore inaccurate terms) when we sin against God. But there is a reason God's heart is broken by our sin, and the reason isn't that his feelings have been hurt. The reason is that God earnestly, even passionately desires intimate relationships with all of the people God has created. Sin makes such relationships impossible, because God is a holy God. Sin thwarts God's desire for fellowship with people. Therefore, God offers forgiveness, for the purpose of a restoration of the fellowship relationship between God and the forgiven sinner.

Notice that I said that God offers forgiveness to all sinners (which is within his power to do, without compromising his holiness, because of the atonement of Christ's sacrificial death on the cross). I didn't say that God grants forgiveness to all sinners.

It would be nonsensical to say that God had forgiven a person, but that God had sent that person to hell nevertheless. What would be the point of forgiveness if it did not alter one's eternal destiny in the slightest?

God is indeed an incredibly loving and merciful God, and he is willing to forgive us, if we will only call on the name of Jesus Christ and ask for forgiveness. But that "if" is all-important.

If we could be forgiven without repentance, where would be the incentive to repent? There would be none. The same principle is equally applicable to human relationships. Unconditional forgiveness has the effect, intentional or not, of encouraging people to continue in their self-centered patterns of behavior. Such forgiveness was correctly described as "cheap grace" by Dietrich Bonhoeffer (and as "sloppy Agape" by others).

I have actually heard some Christians say that forgiveness is completely separate from the issue of reconciliation. They will tell you that one can forgive others, without the expectation that such forgiveness will result in reconciliation.

When one meditates on the fact that God's forgiveness of sinners is offered to us for the precise purpose of reconciling sinful man to a holy God, it boggles the mind to think that anyone would think that human forgiveness would be any different in that respect.

True reconciliation requires honesty, because the perpetuation of lies prevents the kind of emotional and spiritual intimacy which is the object of reconciliation. If one has to deceive one's self in order to believe that a level of trust has been restored in a particular relationship, then the so-called reconciliation is pointless.

Repentance does not offer any 100% guarantees (because even repentant people are fallible, and may yet sin again), but it does offer a foundation of understanding which makes eventual and total reconciliation possible. Without such a foundation, there is no logical reason for forgiveness.

It is an enormous disservice to Christians who have been harmed by other Christians or by others to essentially tell them to sweep all of the very real issues which hinder the process of reconcilliation under the rug and pretend that issues which have not been resolved have been resolved. Such false and irresponsible counsel constitutes an abdication of the moral responsibility which rests upon church leaders to hold Christians accountable for their actions. In the final analysis, it even constitutes an abdication of their responsibilities to offending parties, because failure to hold such people accountable hinders them from engaging in the acts which are necessary in order for them to experience the benefits of genuine forgiveness and reconciliation. The process of genuine spiritual and emotional growth is hindered when people are not held accountable for their actions.

In Mike Erre's book, he talks extensively about a "disparity between belief and behavior" which characterizes the lives of many professing Christians. That's easy to understand, when one considers the exceedingly harmful results of church practices based on a false understanding of forgiveness. Such a doctrine negates the possibility of the "public accountability" Erre talks about in his book.

True forgiveness which is offered to all, but which is actually granted only to those who meet the necessary condition of repentance, respects the needs of others in the community who might conceivably be hurt in the future by similarly hurtful acts. Unconditional forgiveness fails to respect those needs, inasmuch as it fails to uphold the common-sense principle that there is a connection between actions and consequences. Therefore, any definition of Christian discipleship which does not include the necessity of holding people accountable for their actions is a definition which is based on a failure to understand the idea that the kingdom of God has ramifications for communities, not just for self-centered individuals.

None of the aforementioned ideas negate the very real biblical responsibility of Christians to forgive others who sin against them and who then ask for forgiveness. The "seventy times seven" scripture still applies, because that scripture pertains to the infinite number of times we are required to forgive genuinely repentant people, not to the conditions under which people should be forgiven.

My Life is Like A Soapbox Derby Car

Lately, my life has reminded me of a soapbox derby racing car: Going downhill fast, and picking up more speed with each passing moment. To put things in less metaphorical terms, the hope that my life here on earth will substantially improve before I die seems to diminish with each passing day. Very few people seem to care very much. That includes most of my fellow Christians, notwithstanding all of their lofty talk about unity in the Spirit, loving one another and bearing one another's burdens.

Thank God for the promise of heaven.

Bad Advice (A Poem)

The following poem isn't intrinsically Christian, but it was inspired recently by some experiences I've had in various churches over the years:

-------------

BAD ADVICE
© Mark Pettigrew

"Don't rock the boat";
a piece of advice
typically offered
to make one think twice ---
Think about saying
what might cause offense,
even if what one says
makes perfect sense!

"Don't rock the boat;
let sleeping dogs lie."
Don't dare to ask,
when it isn't clear why.
Better to yield
to defeat and despair.
Better to act
like you really don't care.

"Don't rock the boat"
is what cowards say.
Problems would fester,
if they had their way.
Some boats need rocking,
whatever folks claim.
Truth's not negotiable.
Life's not a game.

-------------

Jesus was a boat rocker. He said things which made people uncomfortable, as had John the Baptist before him. Both of them were eventually killed on account of what they said. But they spoke the truth.

The same thing could be said about many noteworthy Christians over the years, such as Martin Luther and Martin Luther King.

Unfortunately, such courage and truthfulness is in short supply today among Christians who claim to be followers of Jesus.

Loyalty, Disloyalty and Dissent

The May 11-18 issue of Newsweek has an essay and a book excerpt by Richard N. Haas, who worked in both Bush administrations. In the essay entitled "The Dilemma of Dissent," Haas acknowledges that dissent is sometimes seen as a sign of disloyalty by leaders, but he makes a case for the idea that that isn't necessarily the case.

Dissent has been hailed as noble and necessary by our leaders. None other than President Dwight Eisenhower said that Americans should "never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion." Fomer senator William J. Fulbright declared, "In a democracy, dissent is an act of faith."

He continues, on page 34:

Speaking truth to power is actually a form of loyalty. It is the best and at times only way to make sure that government (or any organization) lives up to its potential.

I agree; and I think that the aforementioned quotation would certainly be applicable to the local church (which would fall under the categorical heading of "any organization").

Pastors have a tendency to assume that criticisms of their policies or their actions are tantamount to attacks against them or their churches. But that's an unfair assumption to make, inasmuch such criticisms are sometimes motivated by a desire to see those churches and their pastors live up to their potential.

It's a shame that so many of our churches are led by egotistical pastors who act as if disagreement with them is synonymous with disagreement with God. There are exceptions, thankfully, but it seems to me on a purely subjective level (based on personal experiences) that such humble Christian leaders are getting harder and harder to find.

I remember one pastor saying the following from the pulpit, roughly 20 years ago (when I attended that pastor's church in southwest Missouri): "The church is not a democracy." That was his response to people who had the audacity to think that they ought to have a voice in church policies, in spite of the fact that they weren't part of that church's privileged "inner circle".

When he said that, I was tempted to reply, "No, but neither is it a dictatorship." I suspect (based on his leadership style) that if I had replied in that manner, he would have begged to differ.

Humility is an essential aspect of discipleship. How do such pastors expect to teach humility to others, if they do not lead by example?

Emotional Healing Doesn't Come Overnight

On March 30, according to an article in the NY Daily News as well as other news sources, a 23-year-old man from Milton, MA named Kerby Revelus stabbed his 17-year-old sister Samantha Revelus to death. Then he turned on his 5-year-old sister Bianca (whose birthday cake from her party the day before still sat on the kitchen table) and beheaded Bianca. The third sister, 9-year-old Sarafina, called the police, who shot Kerby and killed him before he could murder Sarafina.

(For you gun control advocates, it's noteworthy that all of this carnage occurred in spite of the fact that Kerby didn't have a gun at the time. When taking everyone's guns away fails to solve the problem of lethal violance, will we start taking people's kitchen knives away from them next? Hopefully, we'll eventually get a clue and start assigning the blame where it really belongs: The darkness of sinful human hearts, which is a problem as old as Cain and Abel.)

Today's RedEye reported another comparable incident, as did this MSNBC article. A 34-year-old father in Lakeland, FL (Troy Ryan Bellar) murdered two of his three sons, as well as his wife, and he tried unsuccessfully to murder his third son (13-year-old Nathan Bellar) before turning his rifle on himself and committing suicide.

In both of these cases, there was one surviving family member who barely escaped death the hands of a family member who murdered numerous other family members. Those survivors will have to live for a very long time with incredibly painful, traumatic memories.

Can Christ heal such painful memories? As a Christian, I have to say that he can, at least to the extent that Sarafina Revelus and Nathan Bellar will eventually be able to live reasonably productive lives, if they choose to do so. But that doesn't mean that such healing is likely to come overnight, or that it will come easily. Nor is it to say that those survivors will ever be completely free from dark memories in this life, barring complete and total amnesia. (And even then, they are likely to be reminded of the past in a variety of ways, such as searching for their own names on the web.)

Sadly, there are pastors and other Christian leaders in this country who, to put it mildly, need a reality check when it comes to incidents such as these, as well as other less extreme incidents which nevertheless are capable of creating issues which cannot be easily or quickly resolved merely by offering flippant, uncompassionate advice to the effect that such people should "get over it" and "move on with their lives". To insist that such people put on a deceptively happy face and pretend that all is well in their lives is to promote the kind of dishonesty which ought to be deemed repugnant by all Christians.

There's no question that Jesus offers emotional healing to such victims, but complete and total healing (sometimes described as "closure") may not come until we are safely in heaven, where such tragic events will be no more. Meanwhile, we Christians need to take our scriptural responsibilities to one another seriously. We need to bear one another's burdens. That includes allowing victims such as Sarafina Revelus and Nathan Bellar to talk about their pain, without judging them, even if listening to them makes us extremely uncomfortable.

That, after all, is what Jesus would do.

Ted Dekker: Not Your Typical Christian Writer

I've never read any books by Christian novelist Ted Dekker, yet, but I'm intrigued by what I've seen, and I'm hoping to check one or more of his books out of the library here, because he appears to be a writer who transcends the limitations of the stereotypical "Christian novel" in order to write pulse-quickening novels which would appeal even to unbelievers.

Here's a link to an interesting article about Ted from CNN. Maybe the fact that he isn't the typical Christian writer is due to his unusual upbringing, having been raised by missionaries in an area where cannibalism was still practiced.

Are You Churched? Does It Matter?

Back in the 90's, I bought a book by Lee Strobel (of Willow Creek Church) entitled "Inside the Mind of Unchurched Harry and Mary". The book focuses on evangelism, and has a lot of useful observations and ideas (many of which have been implemented at Willow Creek) with regard to how we might make our churches more friendly (and less intimidating) for unbelievers, so that cultural barriers do not hinder such people from listening to the gospel with an open mind.

Overall, I have no problem with that idea, provided that it doesn't result in a church in which spiritual "meat" is seldom offered to believers who are ready to go on to the next level, and provided that it doesn't strip out the harsh but nevertheless true aspects of the gospel which are essential to an accurate understanding of the Christian faith.

Unfortunately, some Christians think that it has in fact done just that, in the case of Willow Creek and other "seeker friendly" churches such as Joel Osteen's Lakewood Church. Such critics appear to think that the slogan for such churches ought to be "all of the milk, none of the meat" --- or perhaps "quantity, not quality".

That may be an unfair exaggeration, but I still think that we ought to take such criticisms seriously. There is a balance, and we ought to seek that balance. It ought to be possible to create a "seeker-friendly" church which nevertheless makes no moral compromises. We shouldn't confuse our human traditions (many of which alienate unbelievers to an unnecessary degree) with God's word. However, even if we make adjustments to our methods in order to create church environments which are more "seeker-friendly," there is no way to please everyone. Pleasing God should always be our first priority, even if it sometimes makes the marketing "experts" unhappy.

I think that the title of the Strobel book also raises some interesting questions which ought to be discussed by all Christians in more depth:

1. If someone is currently "unchurched," does it logically follow in every instance that the person is therefore an unbeliever? Does it logically follow, for that matter, that the person is a shallow or immature Christian? Is it possible that there are situations in which the fact that a person is "unchurched" says less about that person than it says about the churches to which that person has access? Might there not even be cases in which obedience to the Lord would demand that one refrain from participation in the activities of specific churches?
2. Conversely, if a person is "churched," does it automatically follow that he or she is a faithful and spiritually mature disciple of Christ who has a vital relationship with God? (I think that the obvious answer is NO. I'm reminded of preachers who have correctly pointed out that living in a hen house doesn't make one a chicken.)
3. Should our goal be to make people into "church people," into converts, or into disciples? What are the differences, if any, between those three things? Why did Jesus tell us to go and make people into disciples, not into church people or converts?
4. What is the basis for the assumption that the only way or the best way to win unbelievers to Christ is to persuade them to attend church with us? Is that the most appropriate or effective way in which to do evangelistic work? What about the role of individual Christians insofar as evangelism is concerned? Is their role merely to get folks to come to church so that they can hear formal evangelistic presentations? Isn't it somewhat lazy to rely primarily on the "professionals" for evangelism, rather than learning to actively share one's faith with one's friends, relatives, neighbors, coworkers, etc.? What are the best ways to teach people to allow God to directly use them in such a manner?
5. Why aren't we Christians making more of an active effort to infiltrate the surrounding culture with the gospel of Christ so that it isn't necessary to bring people to church in order to present the gospel to them in a manner which leads to conversions?

It would be simplistic, I think, to focus solely on one method of evangelism to the exclusion of other methods. God can and sometimes does bring people to salvation in Christ as the result of being invited to church services or special evangelistic events sponsored by churches. But I think that it's unfortunate when we ignore the numerous other opportunities with which we are presented. We need to encourage fellow believers to be bold and creative in terms of sharing their beliefs with non-Christians.

We can do so by setting up group activities which enable people who have never "witnessed" to others before to get their feet wet so that they eventually feel very comfortable about talking about the Lord with others, and by creating environments (such as storefront Christian coffeehouses) which are particularly conducive to such conversations with unbelievers. (Most churches, even the best churches, are NOT conducive to such honest conversations.)

People learn how to do such things by doing such things, and by observing other Christians as they engage in such conversations. I also think that we ought to invest time in training people in advance (using role playing exercises, for example) so that they are encouraged to spend time thinking about how they might most effectively answer specific objections when engaging in conversations with unbelievers. We should also make people aware of various training resources (such as Paul E. Little's book "How to Give Away Your Faith", which helped me quite a bit when I was young) pertaining to personal evangelism.

I also think that it's vital to emphasize the idea that listening to unbelievers and attempting to honestly grapple with their questions and issues is an essential aspect of effective evangelism. Far too many Christians approach unbelievers with an attitude which borders on disdain or condescension. Such "evangelism" can be worse than no evangelism at all.

No methodology can replace a personal one-on-one relationship with Jesus Christ in terms of training people to engage in witnessing and evangelism, but having such a relationship doesn't necessarily mean that one will be an effective evangelist. That's why people need to be actively trained and encouraged to share their faith with people who aren't saved.

When people become personally involved in kingdom building by sharing their faith directly with unbelievers --- instead of merely promoting the evangelistic activities at their local churches --- then they are well on their way to becoming real disciples, not just church goers or converts.

The Real Night of The Living Dead

Years ago, I saw the black-and-white movie "Night of the Living Dead" by George Romero. In spite of its low budget and occasional continuity errors, it was a pretty scary movie, featuring hordes of half-decomposed "zombies" who were obsessed with their goal of eating the brains of the living in order to survive. Throughout the movie, there were scenes of gore in which various zombies were seen feasting on various human body parts. Subsequent to the making of that movie, a number of sequels were also made.

Years later, I was walking through a cemetery, not to pay my respects but merely because it was the shortest path between me and my destination at a nearby shopping mall. As I walked through that peaceful place, I began meditating on the fact that many people, even adults, have been afraid of cemeteries, especially at night, presumably because they feared that such places might be haunted. Perhaps they even feared that they might encounter reanimated dead people comparable to the ones depicted in George Romero's film.

It occurred to me as I was walking through that cemetery that the George Romero film was based on the assumption that if indeed the dead were to rise from their graves, they would be malevolent, mindless beings who posed a great threat to humankind. But what if that isn't actually the case?

This is not mere idle speculation, because Christians believe that the Bible is the true Word of God --- and the Bible actually records an incident in which the dead did rise out of their graves and walk the earth! Strangely, even though the incident is recorded at the end of the very first book of the New Testament, it seems to receive scant attention from the pulpit of most churches. Here's the relevant passage, in Matthew 27:50-53...

And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit. At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

When was the last time you gave any serious thought to those last two sentences?

First of all, take note of the fact that there's nothing to indicate that the resurrected dead looked frightening or disgusting. In fact, it seems highly likely (in the absence of any evidence to the contrary) that their resurrected bodies looked pretty much like their bodies had looked before they died. There's also no mention of any incidents in which they ran around killing people and eating people's brains. Now isn't that a big relief!

Second, take note of the fact that they appeared to "many" people. I don't know how many Matthew meant when he wrote "many," but I'd guess that it was more than just one or two people. And the people who were raised to life must have been people who had died fairly recently, because they had no photos back in those days, so the only way to know that they weren't just ordinary people would be if they appeared to people who had known them when they were still alive, and who could vouch for the fact that they had died.

There's a lot that's left unsaid in the passage. Did they just "appear," or did they have conversations with the living people they met during their little excursions through Jerusalem? It's hard to tell. But it must have caused quite a buzz in the city, especially combined with the concurrent earthquake, and with the fact that the curtain (or veil) in the temple was supernaturally ripped in two.

Imagine how spooked Pontius Pilate must have been when news reports about all of these strange occurrences started coming into his office. In view of such things, it's no wonder that he made a special effort to secure the tomb (Matthew 27:62-66). The advice he got from the chief priests and Pharisees probably wasn't the only thing on his mind when he did so.

In my Bible, the commentary which accompanies Matthew 27:50-53 says, "This event is a prophetic sign that Jesus' death and resurrection guarantee our glorious resurrection at his return. His resurrection marked the defeat of death. (see 1 Co 15:50-58; 1 Th 4:14)." I'll buy that.

Here's the part I find fascinating: If the followers of Jesus were the kind of unsophisticated rubes who were prone to worship anyone who appeared to have been the recipient of a miracle, then why didn't they worship those other resurrected "holy people" as well, instead of just worshipping Jesus? For that matter, why didn't they worship the people Jesus raised from the dead prior to the crucifixion? What was so special about Jesus' resurrection, if in fact other people had already been raised from the dead prior to Easter Sunday?

I think that the answer is simple: It wasn't merely the resurrection which caused the disciples to conclude that there was something special about Jesus, even though that would have been very unusual in and of itself. It was the fact that all of the other resurrections seemed to be connected in some way with Jesus' extraordinary ministry, which had been characterized for the past three years by miracle after miracle after miracle. Moreover, Jesus' prediction of his own death and resurrection (Matthew 16:21-23) showed that he was firmly in control of the situation all of the time, in spite of temporary illusions to the contrary!

St. Paul wrote that if Christ had not been raised from the dead, then the faith of all Christians would have been in vain. We Christians have been celebrating the resurrection for so many years that we sometimes tend to take it for granted, but it is the very heart of the gospel. Jesus holds the key to eternal life --- and thanks to his redemptive work on the cross, so do all of those who call upon his name and ask for forgiveness of their sins. But if indeed resurrection power is available to us, we need to remember the source of that power. We have no more control over such things than did the "holy people" who were raised from the dead temporarily right after Jesus was crucified. If it were up to us, death would indeed be the end of everything. Thanks be to God that Jesus came in order to conquer death and open the doors of heaven to us, in spite of our utter unworthiness to receive such a magnanimous gift.

Jesus Wept. Why Can't I?

In recent years, there have been changes in many American churches, with regard to how those churches and their leaders deal with people who are in crisis.

There was a time when people who were suicidally depressed were advised to consult with their pastors. There was a time when church leaders believed that they had moral responsibilities to such people. No more!

We are now living in the age of the "happy face" church. It's not about real ministry anymore. Now it's all about marketing and maximizing the number of people in attendance, even if doing so means marginalizing certain people and dismissing their very real needs as unimportant. It isn't good public relations for churches to admit that there are struggling people in their midst. Therefore, Christians who admit that they are less than perfect, and who admit that they have sometimes been depressed to the point that they have been tempted by thoughts of suicide, are shunned, even to the point that such churches sometimes refuse to engage in any further communication with such people. Never mind that such Christians may be struggling with a wide variety of issues, including poverty and persistent unemployment, as well as the shameful legacies of neglect passed on to them by their abusive alcoholic parents. There is no room for such people in the Church, unless of course they are extremely adept at burying their pain (in the name of "forgiveness") and pretending that all is well when it is not.

That's not the way things ought to be. The church leaders who have abdicated their responsibilities to such people ought to be deeply ashamed of their depraved indifference to such people. Pretending that suicidally depressed people do not exist within the Church will not make such people go away, but it may very well drive them over the brink and cause them to do the things they've contemplated doing. If and when such things occur, their blood will be on the hands of those who turned them away when they cried out in desperation for the help which they needed.

Live Like You're Dyin'

Some time ago, I heard a country song by Tim McGraw. The title was "Live Like You Were Dying". The song talked about how important it is to do the important things in life while one still has the opportunity to do so, because one never knows when life will come to an end. I think that's good advice. Having lost quite a few family members and friends to death during the past couple of decades, I grow more and more aware of such things with each passing day.

One of the most important things to do in order to achieve closure in life is to thank the people who have treated one with kindness and Christian charity along the way. So I've decided to use this blog post for that purpose.

Truthfully, the list of those who have treated me badly in this life is a lot longer than the list of those who have treated me the way they ought to have treated me. I don't want to sound like a whiner, but that's my candid assessment of the situation.

There are also people who, due to their inconsistencies, would rightfully show up on both lists.

In either event, it isn't my job to punish people for the wrong things they've done. I can tell them how I feel about the things they've done, and I can tell them why I believe they should have acted differently; and I see nothing wrong with doing so. But God alone will judge people for their sins in a manner which is beyond contention. I have resolved in my mind that I will therefore leave final judgment up to God.

I don't want to be guilty of focusing solely on the negative aspects of my life, so I want to be sure that I acknowledge the positive things which have occurred in my life. I want to offer recognition to the people responsible for those things, even if they haven't always treated me with as much kindness as I felt I deserved.

For example, both of my parents have grievously hurt me in the past. But my mother and father also did some things right in terms of the way they raised me.

Many of my best moral values came from having spent many hours sitting on the front pew and listening to my father's sermons when he served as a lay minister in the Methodist church. He could have gotten drunk every weekend when I was a young child, choosing to live only for himself, but he did not do so. He did eventually deviate from his righteous lifestyle, which is why he was an alcoholic by the time of his death in 1999, but I am thankful for the early foundation which was provided by the good example which he did provide to me for a limited period of time. Dad could have been far more consistent in terms of the extent to which he demonstrated love and affection for me, but he also could have been far worse than he was in that respect. I'm also thankful for the fact that he was concerned about matters of basic justice, particularly with regard to racial issues. He expressed that concern by serving as a Chairman for the Mayor's Commission on Human Rights in Springfield, MO during the late sixties. I admired him greatly for taking a principled stand against racism. I aspired to be like him in that respect. I still do.

My mother was a very positive influence on my life insofar as issues of personal morality were concerned. Her constant messages in opposition to alcohol and drug abuse might have seemed like indoctrination or brainwashing to some people, but they helped me to resist temptation in spite of the fact that I grew up in the late sixties, when it seemed as if most people in my age group were doing drugs. The role Mother played in providing me with a strong foundation in traditional Christian values should not be underestimated. She also made a strong effort to insure that I grew up in a home where expressions of love were frequent, whether those expressions took the form of delicious cookies and other baked goods, or whether they took the form of hugs before I went to bed at night. And of course, there were plenty of other examples as well, especially during the Christmas season.

It should go without saying that my grandparents also did loving things for me during the time when I was growing up. I am especially grateful to my maternal grandparents for the strong moral foundation they provided to me, and for the fact that they often went out of their way to provide me with fun and memorable experiences when I visited them in their home in St. Louis.

Over the years, I have known a number of other people who have exhibited the love of Christ in practical ways. Some of them will have to go unnamed, because I have forgotten their names. For example, I am grateful to the numerous people who kindly offered rides to me when I hitchhiked from place to place during the seventies and eighties because I lacked adequate money for a reliable car of my own. On several occasions, people I met during those adventures even offered me a comfortable place to rest my head at night so that I would not have to sleep on the side of the road.

I have been helped on a number of occasions by people who have given me substantial monetary gifts when I badly needed such help, or who offered other forms of help which were equally useful. A partial list of those people would have to include the following: Andy Pratt, a Christian musician who helped me with a gift of $500 when I was living in the Boston area; pastor Jordan Greely, who allowed me to freely use the piano at his Jamaica Plain, MA church for practice purposes, when I was desperate for a place to play so that my skills would not deteriorate; Jon and Debby Speckman, who allowed me to live with them several months rent-free during a very stressful time in 1992 when I had nowhere else to go; Joseph Hollingsworth, who has offered me numerous opportunities to earn extra spending money by doing office work for him; Paul and CeCe Ellingsen, who offered me an opportunity to earn extra money by helping them to paint a room in their house last year; Pastor Donald Abrahamson, who helped me with $1,000 from the church's Benevolence Fund (in late 2005) when I was facing possible eviction; Kenny Kissane, a fellow Christian blogger from the East Coast, who sent me $60 back in 2007 when I needed help; Jim and Marg Rehnberg, who offered a substantial monetary gift of $600 to me back in 2007, when I needed that gift in order to avoid eviction (and who also gave me the opportunity to earn additional money by helping Marg to paint her art studio); Chris Shannon, who gave me $800 in early 2008; my mother, who helped me financially last spring with a gift of $1,000, and with another gift of $300; Dywen Lauren, a Christian woman from Perth Australia, who sent me an incredibly generous gift of $2,000 even though she'd never met me face to face. I've tried to be reasonably complete, but there may be people who I've left off of the list, not out of lack of gratitude, but simply because my memory is less than perfect. (And, in one case, because a man who donated $500 to me in 2005 expressed a strong desire for anonymity.)

It's been said that it's more blessed to give than to receive, and I agree that that's the case. I've tried to be generous with my own resources during times in my life when I was presented with needs and when I was able to help. I picked up countless hitchhikers during the seventies and eighties, because I knew what it was like to need a ride, and I wanted to give as good as I got, even though it meant taking some risks. I once invited a guy I'd never met before to sleep overnight in my apartment in West Somerville, MA because he had no other place to sleep. And I have helped needy people with small financial donations on occasions. But I haven't been able to help people as often as I would have preferred, simply because I didn't have the resources with which to do so. That has been a disappointment to me.

I am not a self-centered person, or at least I don't think that I am, but I have had goals as a musician and artist, and those goals have involved the need to acquire expensive equipment which was, for the most part, beyond my reach financially. In some cases, I've experienced extended periods of unemployment (or, in some cases, underemployment), not because I didn't want to work, but because my search for a good job was not successful. That fact has influenced the level of generosity I've been able to exhibit in my own life. I know that God understands that I would have done more to help others if I could have done more. I also know that he understands that one of the reasons I want to prosper more in the future is so that I will need help from other people less frequently (if at all), and so that I can have the resources which I need in order to be as generous to others as I would like to be.

I don't know how much more time I have on this earth. God alone knows the measure of a man's life. But regardless of whether my remaining time here is long or short, I want to make certain that when I face my Maker, I will be able to honestly say that I was appreciative of the good things people did for me, and I want to be able to say that I was grateful for God's provision for my needs on those occasions when he provided for my needs.

When Prayer Is A Cop-Out

Prayer is an integral part of the life of any Christian believer, or at least it ought to be. I would be the last person to suggest that prayer is unimportant. But even prayer can be abused.

Let's say, for example, that a person comes to you and tells you that his house is burning down and he needs someone to come and help him to put out the fire. Here are some possible ways that you might respond to him:

OPTION ONE
"Brother, I've prayed about it, and God has told me that I haven't been called to perform that particular task. But don't worry. I'll pray that you'll soon find someone who will help you to put out the fire, before your house burns down to the ground and kills the children still trapped inside. Trust in God, brother --- trust in God."

OPTION TWO
"Show me what you want me to do, and I'll do it right now, before you lose your home and your children."

Now, it ought to be clear to anyone with a brain or an ounce of compassion that the second option is the correct response. To respond in a manner comparable to the first option is despicable, no matter how religious one's language might be. Yet, I have found that there are many people who claim to believe in Christ who typically respond to crises in a manner analogous to Option One, not to Option Two. My own cries for help have met with such responses on multiple occasions. Thankfully, I've also known a few people who responded in a more appropriate manner, but such people have been far too rare in my experience.

Christians ought to spend more time reading the biblical book of James (particularly James 2:14-17) and meditating on its significance. While it is true that we are saved by our faith in Christ, and not by our good works, it is equally true that faith is useless if it is not accompanied by good works. It is an incredibly poor witness to neglect to use the resources which are available to us when presented with needs which could easily be met if only we were less self-centered and inflexible.

None of this is to say that people do not have legitimate limits. God doesn't expect the impossible from us. But God does expect us to do everything we can do to help those in need, instead of making lame excuses and then "spiritualizing" those excuses by using language which suggests that God endorses our apathy.

Good and Bad Things About Megachurches

Some of my earliest memories pertain to the tiny country churches where my father, a professional optometrist, served as a Methodist "lay minister" (back in the sixties, shortly before a merger caused that denomination to change its name to the United Methodist Church). There really weren't many "megachurches" in those days, if any, but even by the standards of that time period, the churches where my father preached were incredibly small churches.

Over the years, I've watched as local churches have developed and expanded, to the point that some of them now have to meet in sports arenas or in buildings of comparable size. Or they may have four or five church services every Sunday. Or they may have numerous "satellite" churches which serve various communities throughout the city. Or all of the above, in some cases.

On one level, I think it's great that there are churches which have experienced that level of success. There are definite benefits associated with such growth, such as the fact that larger churches have considerably more resources with which to put on presentations which can compete in terms of quality (to some extent) with the secular concerts and other events which increasingly compete for the attention of their friends and neighbors. I think there's a lot more that could be done in order to achieve that goal (particularly in terms of remuneration of the musicians and others who are involved with such presentations, so that those people can afford music instruments and other related expenses which will enable them to achieve their full potential), but there's no question that the presentations already being offered at many megachurches are extremely impressive in comparison with the types of presentations which were once common in traditional churches.

In theory, such churches should also have far more resources with which to deal with crises (particularly economic crises) which affect the lives of their members. Unfortunately, the theory doesn't always match the reality.

That's just one aspect of the megachurch phenomenon which bothers me tremendously. Another aspect is the tendency of the leaders of such churches to develop supersized egos which can make it very difficult for them to humbly accept criticism. This can lead to some abusive situations, some of which have been documented in several well-known books.

There are different levels of abuse, of course. Most churches don't become as abusive as the infamous cult which was led by Jim Jones, and which led to the mass suicide of most of his followers at Jonestown in Guyana. But even lower levels of abuse can lead to a substantial diminution of the pleasure which ought to be associated with being involved in a church.

When I use the word "pleasure" here, I should hasten to specify that I am not talking about worldly or carnal pleasure. I am talking about the legitimate satisfaction which comes from believing that one is genuinely loved by one's fellow Christians. I am talking about the satisfaction which comes from believing that God is using one's association with other local believers in order to accomplish his purpose on earth. People who attend churches which are devoid of those types of pleasure and satisfaction are being cheated out of what is rightfully theirs. No one should go to church solely for the purpose of receiving benefits, but it is equally true that no one should feel more drained and dissatisfied after leaving church than they felt before they came.

Megachurches also tend to foster a sense of isolation and distance from one's leaders, and that sense of isolation further exacerbates the tendency to place such leaders on a pedastal. No one should feel intimidated by the thought of inviting his or her pastor to dinner, but some Christians do indeed feel that way. A certain amount of delegation is necessary in any large church, but it can become excessive. When one has to get on a waiting list and wait for several months in order to sit down and have a personal discussion with the lead pastor of one's church, then something is seriously wrong with that church. There is a difference between a preacher and a pastor, and one of those differences is that a pastor is accessible!

In megachurches, it's easy for people in leadership positions to get the attitude that they have no real need to resolve conflicts or address problems within those churches, because it's no big deal if people leave on a regular basis because they're dissatisfied with the way that they're being treated. After all, there are always new people where those people came from. It's like there's a revolving door on many megachurches. If you dare to voice a complaint or criticism, you're likely to hear a subtle version of the old statement, "Don't let the door hit you on the way out!" People with unusual needs are particularly vulnerable to this kind of thing. Such people are often denied a voice because their needs are considered unimportant relative to the needs of the majority of those who are relatively satisfied with the status quo.

Is it possible for a church (or a parachurch ministry) to experience phenomenal growth without becoming impersonal and insensitive to the needs of all of its members? Yes, I believe that such a thing is possible, but it's uncommon. It requires leaders who actively cultivate personal humility, and who guard against the temptations which are inherent in such growth by resolutely determining that their churches will not become victims of their own success.

No One Is Expendable

One of the Bible stories which made a big impression on me when I was a child pertained to the idea that Christ cares for every single individual, no matter how insignificant that person might be considered to be by other people. The following excerpt is from Matthew 18:12-13:

How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray? And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that sheep, than of the ninety and nine which went not astray. Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.

In context, the preceding verse pertained specifically to children, and more specifically, to those who have strayed from the truth --- but I believe that it is equally applicable to all human beings, since the scriptures make it clear elsewhere that God loved the entire world, and died so that the entire world might be saved.

The general principle which is behind the preceding verse is that God does not regard any human being as unimportant, unloved or expendable.

Sadly, the same cannot be said of modern American society, or even of the Church.

Perhaps one of the most potent examples of the chasm between God's attitude towards human beings and the wrongful attitude of fallen human beings can be seen in the way that we treat the poor, or in the way that we treat people who seem to be lacking in qualities we regard as essential for full "personhood," such as retarded or disabled people or unborn children.

Even in churches which are conservative with regard to issues such as abortion, there is often a distinct lack of love for those who are considered to be more trouble than they're worth. I personally have felt as if I was regarded as unimportant and expendable by numerous churches and their leaders, on the occasions when my personal circumstances put me into a position of needing to ask for help from my fellow believers. I can attest to the fact that it is incredibly painful to be treated in such a manner.

Just as the Declaration of Independence says that "all men are created equal," the Bible teaches us that "God is no respecter of persons." All people are equally valued and loved by God, even though they sometimes fall short of God's glory. When churches and their leaders treat people in discriminatory ways (whether the discrimination is based on race or on any number of other factors), they nullify their witness to a watching world by misrepresenting God's attitude towards the human beings God has created.

The Philosophical Foundations of Modern Science

It is ironic that modern science is so often seen as an enemy of faith. In the early days of modern science, many of the most influential scientists were motivated to pursue their interest in the sciences by theological considerations, and often by their own deep personal faith in God.

For example, I was recently reading a book, edited by Kathleen Stewart Howe, entitled Intersections. The book, which features articles by a number of different contributors, pertains to the relationship between photography and lithography in the early days of the 19th century, when both methods of producing images were extremely new.

In an article by Douglas R. Nickel, pertaining to William Henry Fox Talbot, it discusses the scientific method which enabled Talbot to essentially invent the form of photography which enabled people to create multiple prints from their original negatives:

The cornerstone of this approach was a belief in the interconnectedness of all matter: nature was understood as a book --- the book of God's universal and perfect design --- and the natural sciences were essentially reading tools, whose ultimate purpose was to detect and describe the divine organizational principles coded into all natural phenomena.

I find it particularly interesting that such truths are contained even in publications which are not in any way designed to promote religious belief.

While some would argue that Talbot was "merely" an inventor, he was hardly the only scientist to embrace theistic assumptions. Consider, for example, the following quote from an online article about Sir Isaac Newton:

A humble and reclusive figure, Isaac Newton was a Christian who studied the Bible daily and believed that God created everything, including the Bible. He believed that the Bible was true in every respect. Throughout his life he continually tested biblical truth against the physical truths of experimental and theoretical science and never observed a contradiction, according to his many biographers. Newton's writings reflected his belief that his scientific work was a method by which to reinforce belief in biblical truth.

It is sad that men such as Richard Dawkins waste their time trying to pit science against Christianity, and indeed, against all forms of religious belief. It is only by appreciating the nature of God that one can fully appreciate the universe which God has created.

Refuting A Nonsensical Claim

Recently, I was browsing through the books at Borders, and I came across a book by Guy P. Harrison, entitled 50 Reasons People Give for Believing In A God. Harrison appears to be an atheist, and the book appears to scrutinize and critique arguments sometimes used in order to justify belief in God. I'm not in a position to assess the legitimacy of his arguments, because I haven't yet had the chance to read the book. As a strong believer in God, I suspect that I will find a lot of holes in his arguments, if and when I do read his book. But even unbelievers are capable of insight every once in a while. Such was the case with regard to the following text (on page 215) which I found while scanning through the book:

Some believers think that all religions are equally valid and that all paths lead to heaven. This sounds wonderfully optimistic, but it only makes sense to people who know nothing about the conflicting and irreconcilable claims of the world's religions.

I agree. Some people allow wishful thinking to take the place of sound judgment.

When Christians make claims regarding the exclusivity of Christianity, they aren't being snobbish or arrogant. They are merely taking Christ at his word. Either Jesus knew what he was talking about when he said, "No man comes to the Father but through me," or he didn't. If he didn't know what he was talking about, then he certainly isn't worth worshipping, and people who believe that he didn't know what he was talking about ought not to call themselves Christians. If Jesus did know what he was talking about, then it is impossible for people to have access to God the Father without believing in Christ.

Some people want to have it both ways, by claiming to be Christians while denying that Christ offers the only way to have access to the Father. Such people lack integrity. People who lack integrity are unworthy of respect.

Put On Your (Custom) Gospel Shoes!

Not long ago, I got a promotional e-mail from Zazzle.com, which (like CafePress.com) allows one to create a variety of products customized with one's own graphic designs, art and photos. This particular mailing made me aware of a very cool new option offered by Zazzle.com. One can now create a variety of shoes decorated digitally with one's own custom designs! Click this link for more details.

I got to thinking that this could be a very cool way to share one's faith in Christ. I was reminded of a couple of scriptures which I thought were applicable:

And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace, who bring glad tidings of good things! ... Romans 10:15

Stand therefore, having girded your waist with truth, having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace; above all, taking the shield of faith with which you will be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked one. ... Ephesians 6: 14-16

Since both of the aforementioned scriptures focus on the gospel of peace, one might choose to emphasize that aspect of the gospel when designing the shoes.

Too bad Zazzle only seems to offer such custom shoes for women and kids. Admittedly, some guys might think that such shoes were a little bit fruity. But I think it would be possible to design some bold, masculine shoes which even straight men such as myself would be proud to wear.