I highly recommend this book for a number of reasons.  True, there is not much new or
ground-breaking here; after all, women have been the same since God created them,
but, the material here is fun and easy to read and offers many practical
techniques to put the findings into practice.
Also, since it is so short and easy to read it is much more likely to
actually be read by a typical guy and since the language is so conversational
it is less likely to be put down.  I
could see this book being used in a men’s small group, taking each chapter per
week and it would be a great book to give to men in pre-marital counseling
sessions or as a gift.  Finally, I appreciated
that the language in the book was very frank.
Jeff deals with things like sex, lust, and communication in ways that
are very direct while still being respectful.
I received a free copy of “For Men Only” by Shaunti and Jeff Feldhahn in
exchange for an objective review from the publisher Waterbrook Multnomah.

Wishful thinking or prophetic observation?  That’s the question I’m left with after reading “The Next Christians” by Gabe Lyons, author of the popular book “UnChristian” and founder of Q.  He begins the book with what could be considered bad news by defenders of the status quo but good news for the thesis of his book.  The news is this: Christianity in America is undergoing a sea change which spells an end to the cultural dominance that evangelicalism has enjoyed for nearly 200 years (a point which is hardly news at this point).  In a nutshell, the church is losing influence in the world of the 21^st century.  However, this is not necessarily bad news for Lyons, who sees a new breed of Christian emerging: the next Christians of the title.  In the past, he maintains, there were primarily five kinds of Christian.  Those who separated from the culture were insiders, cultural warriors, and evangelists while those who acceded to the culture were blenders and philanthropists.  All of these kinds of Christians had flawed methodologies, according to Lyons, and were not effectively sharing the Gospel with the culture.  The good news to Lyons is that the “next Christians” which are emerging are restorers, who do not flee from the culture nor blend in with it but instead are restoring the culture which they are in to a model of God’s Kingdom through five paradigms.  For example, instead of being offended they are provoked to action, instead of criticizing culture they create, and so on.  Lyon rejoices that the old paradigms are withering on the vine and are being replaced with those who are restoring culture by advancing the Gospel.   

I have very mixed feelings about this book.  If Lyon’s prediction is right, then I rejoice with him.  I would love to see the church take seriously the charge to proclaim the Gospel in such a way that culture is changed as people place their faith in Jesus.  I agree with his caricatures of the negative types of Christians and would love to see the church be seen more as a force for good and restoration instead of as a source of comedy for Jon Stewart, Lewis Black and Stephen Colbert.  However, I have a number of reservations.  First, I wonder where all these Christians are that he describes as the “next Christians”.  The book is filled with many anecdotes of people doing things right (though not all of them are Christians: one example he gives is of the gay movement), but I wonder if these anecdotes represent a real quantifiable movement or just a few isolated examples.  He states in the last chapter that it too early to chart this movement which leads me to wonder if his examples are truly representative or are just examples of what he would like to see.  After all, a person could find examples of any kind of Christian in small numbers to list in anecdotal form.  Second, I felt that he danced very close to a message of a social gospel where leading people to Christ is less of a priority than painting schools and cleaning up city parks.  Mind you, I don’t think this is what he is saying, but it would be very easy to come away with that conclusion.  His last chapter insists that sharing the Gospel is of prime importance, but I wish that point were made more clearly and throughout the book (then again, maybe I’m just an “evangelizer”).  Third, I don’t get any idea from his book about why he thinks these “next Christians” are becoming the prime moving force in Christianity.  Is it simply because people are embarrassed to be called Christians due to the negative stereotypes of the other Christians, is there some movement of God, or is this the result of a concerted preaching and teaching emphasis?

All in all, I recommend the book because all of the strategies that he describes the next Christians as employing are commendable if the Gospel is being truly and clearly proclaimed in the process.  I can’t say that this was a life-changing book, but only because it seemed based more on what he thinks should be backed up with individual stories rather than a description of what actually is: I’m simply not convinced that the examples he gives represent a vast movement in Christianity that will be the dominant model of Christians in the coming years.  The book is very well-written and he drops enough big names to clearly indicate that he travels in well-heeled circles in the evangelical subculture, so he carries some credentials by the company he keeps.  I received this copy of “The Next Christians” from WaterbrookMultnomah as a part of their Blogging For Books review program in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.

If you are a fan of allegory in the tradition of “A Pilgrim’s Progress” or, indeed, the parables of Jesus, then you will find Randy Alcorn’s “Chasm” to be a wonderful read.  “Chasm” is the life-story of Nick Seagrave—his rebellion from God, search for meaning, false paths and wrong turns on his spiritual quest, and ultimate salvation through Jesus told as a tale with symbolic elements and figurative language.  In this allegory the choices that we make in life and the values we embrace are depicted by pathways in a bleak land.  All the pathways are grey except for one: the red path.  All the paths ultimately lead to death in an impassable chasm except for the red one.  The chasm is the gulf that separates all people from the beautiful city of Charis (heaven) and thus represents the gulf which separates us from God with only the path of Jesus leading to salvation.  The story begins with Nick standing at the chasm, wondering how he can cross it since it is far too wide and deep to get across on his own.  Then there is a flashback to explain how he got to the chasm through bad choices, sins, and deception from Joshua (the devil).  Finally, he agrees to follow a mentor who is on the red path and meets the Woodsman (Jesus) who sacrificially provides the one and only way across the chasm and towards the heavenly city.

This is a beautiful allegory which thoroughly explains the problem we all have—separation from God as a result of our sins—and the only way that we can be reconciled through the sacrifice of Jesus.  The book is well-written and theologically sound; even though it as the feel of a fairy tale (as do most allegories), this is not a shallow look at the Christian faith but rather a very complete explanation of the Gospel: the bad news and the good.  It’s important in an allegory to be able to understand what the elements represent.  I had no trouble whatsoever understanding what the elements of the allegory stood for and I doubt that any Christian would.  However, someone who is not familiar with the Gospel or with elementary Christian theology would need some things explained, which would make this an excellent book for a book study with new believers or non-believers.  I’m not sure I would recommend just giving this to a non-believer, but would highly recommend going over the book with them or having them read it and then explaining what each part represented.  There is a good study note section in the back which would facilitate this excellently.  Apparently the novel “Edge of Eternity” tells the story of Nick Seagrave in novel form, but I’ve not read that novel and this allegory stands well on it’s own; you will not need to read the novel to make sense of this allegory (though I am now compelled to seek out the novel and read it).  I read all 110 pages of this book in just a few hours and I am a slow reader, which speaks volumes of how fast-flowing and interesting it was.  Randy Alcorn is a very well-respected and gifted Christian writers and one of the most popular authors out there now and this allegory is yet another reason why he has this sterling reputation.  The only real negative criticism I might have is that this book has some elements that might not be suitable for children, but that makes the book all the more useful for adult readers since it shows a very honest look at our sinful proclivities.  Also, I was not very impressed by the illustrations: they seemed amateurish; more like something you would find in a cartoon drawn by a teenager, but they do not detract from the book.  I was given this book by the publisher, WaterbrookMultnomah as part of their Blogging for Books program, but the opinions here are mine and I am free to provide both positive and negative reviews.

Normally when you think of a monk from Kentucky who writes challenging books on spirituality you think of Thomas Merton, but in this case the monk is Michael Spencer and I can honestly say that his book “Mere Churchianity” is one of the best books on the Christian life that I’ve read in years and one that I will certainly be reading again soon (I normally don’t read books more than once).  If I were to write a book on the church and my frustration with it, this would be it.  Michael Spencer was the author of a very popular blog called “The Internet Monk” where thousands of readers found his analysis of the church and modern evangelicalism to be challenging, inspiring, and sometimes infuriating in its honesty.  Spencer is no outsider lobbing brickbats at the evangelical church: he was a minister and a teacher in a Christian school until his death in 2010 and his frustrations are those of an insider.  He has his credentials and has paid his dues to write this book and it is a tragedy that he is not able to follow up on it.

“Mere Churchianity” is ostensibly written for those who have “left the church in search of Jesus” and for those who are in the church but are thinking of checking out, not because they don’t believe in Jesus or no longer want to follow him but for just the opposite reason: because they love Jesus but don’t see him represented by the church.  Spencer’s analogy in the beginning of the book is of “Deer-crossing” sign on the highway; the implication of such a sign is that deer could be expected to be near such a sign.  He points out that he has never seen a deer near such a sign.  Likewise, a person would expect that a building with a sign promising that it is a Christian church would be a place where Jesus could be expected to be found; sadly this is often not the case.  Spencer attacks the idea that a church-centered spirituality, which so many of us are familiar with, is the true or only way to follow Christ.  Indeed, he empathizes with those who have left or are leaving the church and insists that the failure of the church to lead people to Christ (as opposed to a counterfeit church culture) is the reason that many people have left the church rather than some kind of apostasy or moral failure.  Spencer relentlessly skewers the church for missing the point and lays out a Christian life which is centered on following Jesus: he calls this a Jesus-shaped spirituality.  This is a life in which believers actually study the bible on their own to find Jesus, live honest, grace-centered lives, and serve Christ by serving the needy instead of just attending church programs.

Spencer really spoke to my heart as a minister in a Christian church.  I suspect that even though this book is written to those who are outside or leaving the church it will really resonate more with those who are in the church.  It must be emphasized that Spencer is not anti-Church;, he’s just against churches which are not pointing people towards Jesus.  Most of his ire is directed towards fundamentalism and consumer-driven mega-churches, but its obvious that any church which is failing to emulate Christ and provide a honest, grace-filled place to find community would be considered a failed church (in other words, this is not just a reaction to fundamentalism or a critique on mega-church excesses).  To be honest, there were times when I was greatly disturbed and even angered at Spencer’s analysis of the church, but in most cases my anger was not because he was saying something wrong but because what he was saying was absolutely right.  Many of his assessments are hard to read because he is speaking as an insider—a former minister and a teacher in a Christian boarding school for decades.  He knows what he is talking about and is not just attacking the church from the outside.  On many topics he strays very close to the third rail—you think he is going to cross a line which would place him into heresy—but he always manages to say things which are challenging and even disturbing without going too far or being unbiblical.  For example, he stresses that true Christian life should involve social work without falling into the camp of those who would ignore the Gospel in favor of good deeds.  “Find a community that encourages servant Christianity.  Wherever God places you, make it the place you serve him.  Whenever possible, seek out the little corners of darkness and pain in our world.  Go there and the Jesus-shaped path will rise up to meet you.  While crowds rush to a megachurch to be entertained, you go to the poor, the obscure, and the forgotten” (pg. 204).  He encourages people to drop the pretense of trying to be a “Good Christian” and instead rely on the grace of a God who loves us in our fallen state without slipping into antinomianism.  He attacks the failings of the church without being anti-church, more of a Martin Lutheresque reformer than a bitter critic.  Suffice to say, if you are an evangelical who is invested in the church you will get mad at what he has to say but you will most likely have to agree that his views are correct.  Furthermore, if you are simply someone who despises the church or has left the church with a chip on the shoulder you will not find ammunition in this book to attack Jesus: his goal is to lead people to Jesus, whether they do so in their current church or denomination or not.  “..My purpose in writing this book is to talk to you as someone who is willing to follow Jesus, not as someone who has decided to give up on Jesus.  You may have given up on a kind of religious experience or a particular kind of institutional religion, but you haven’t given up on Jesus” (pg. 198-199).  He does stress the need for community in the Christian faith—which is what the church should be—without insisting that it has to be in the traditional church setting.  As he says in the last page of the book (pg. 221), “It is my hope that the time we have spent together will encourage you to keep pursuing Jesus, no matter where you are in your journey.  Don’t neglect the search for authentic, Jesus-shaped spirituality.”

If you are involved in a church and yet you sometimes wonder if the church in America, especially the evangelical church, is somehow missing the point, you must read this book.  Oh, it will challenge you, it might even enrage you, but you will find that your anger is only because Spencer is pointing out the dirty secrets that we like to keep hidden in the church: that often the church is more interested in promoting the church than it is in glorifying Jesus.  Spencer speaks not as an outsider-critic but as an honest insider.  At the end of the book you may find yourself more determined than ever to get closer to Jesus and in the process to bring the church closer to Jesus.

Disclaimer: I received this book for free from WaterBrook Multnomah Publishing Group for this review, but the thoughts are mine and I am under no obligation to give a favorable review.

You can read an excerpt of the book here: http://waterbrookmultnomah.com/catalog.php?isbn=9780307459176&view=excerpt

Please take a moment and rank my review if you don’t mind, it will only take a moment:

http://waterbrookmultnomah.com/bloggingforbooks/reviews/ranking/3257

I started preaching from Matthew about 2 years ago, and since I preach verse-by-verse I’m only in Matthew 12 now and will probably be in Matthew for a while, but I think this is the best way to really get at the message of Matthew.  I couldn’t find Matthew 1; the earliest one is Matthew 2.  Hope this can be of help to someone.  I’ve not gone through and edited, so there may be typos in the text.

“The Adoration of the Magi”

Matthew 2:1-12

Robert Warren

January 18^th, 2009

Matthew 2: 1 After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem 2 and asked, “Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star in the east and have come to worship him.”

3 When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him. 4 When he had called together all the people’s chief priests and teachers of the law, he asked them where the Christ was to be born. 5 “In Bethlehem in Judea,” they replied, “for this is what the prophet has written: 6 ” ‘But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for out of you will come a ruler who will be the shepherd of my people Israel.’”

7 Then Herod called the Magi secretly and found out from them the exact time the star had appeared. 8 He sent them to Bethlehem and said, “Go and make a careful search for the child. As soon as you find him, report to me, so that I too may go and worship him.”  9 After they had heard the king, they went on their way, and the star they had seen in the east went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was. 10 When they saw the star, they were overjoyed. 11 On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of gold and of incense and of myrrh. 12 And having been warned in a dream not to go back to Herod, they returned to their country by another route.

Last week I introduced our Great Commission Mission and if you remember the very first and most important part of that mission was to Adore God.  Loving God is the first and greatest of all the commandments; in fact, every other commandment hinges on our command to love God with all our heart, all our soul, all our mind, and all our strength.  Today I wanted to get us back to our verse by verse study of the Book of Matthew when Lo and Behold, we get one of history’s greatest examples of adoration of God: the visit of the Magi.

I’m going to examine the Magi in greater depth and I imagine that there is much about these guys that we didn’t know, but even the little bit we do know reveals to us a group of people who truly adored God in the form of Jesus and certainly put their money where their mouth is.  They were looking for a Messiah to come and when they saw his star appearing in the east they loaded up their greatest treasures and headed out to find him, traveling over field and fountain, moor and mountain as the carol tells us, though I’m not sure why they travelled through fountains.  Upon arriving in the house where May and the infant Jesus where they didn’t just check things out for their records, they bowed down and worshiped him, which as we will see in a bit, was very significant.

Now, this is a great story and we tell it every year as a part of our Christmas celebrations, but I wonder if we have ever really considered the implications of what was going on here.  After all, there had to be a reason for Matthew—guided as he was by the Holy Spirit—to include this story in his Gospel.  Matthew was a very organized writer and he wasn’t just writing a story, he was writing a systematic description of who Jesus was, and one of the descriptions that he gives us of Jesus is that he was a King; in fact, he was the King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

So, we would do well to scratch below the surface of this account and ask ourselves what significance there is to this account of a group of mysterious men who arrived from the east to worship Jesus.  Matthew didn’t just write about this because it was an unusual story, as though here were the first century equivalent of the National Enquirer.  He wasn’t just bragging about the fact that Jesus had such distinguished visitors at what amounted to the first baby shower.  There was a specific significance of their visit that when we see it should astound and inspire us.

I’ll admit: before I started to prepare for this sermon there was much about the magi that I did not understand.  But once I found out the background of these guys I was truly astounded.  So, let’s start out with what most of us know—and what most of us think we know.  We know very little from the reading here in Matthew: we know that some guys who are called Magi from the east come to Jerusalem seeking “the one who has been born the King of the Jews”.  They show what would appear to be an astounding lack of political awareness by coming to the current King of the Jews to find out where he was, given the fact that Herod was the King of the Jews and he was a paranoid and homicidal king who killed two of his sons for fear that they would take power from him.  After checking with the scholars of Israel they find that the Messiah was to be born in the City of David, otherwise known as Bethlehem, since that was the town where David, the chosen king of Israel was from.  So, they go to Bethlehem and finding Jesus and Mary in a house they give him gifts of frankincense, myrrh, and gold and bow down to worship him.  Then, having been warned in a dream not to go back to the murderous Herod (though you don’t think they would need a dream to tell them that… here’s your sign!) they return by another route.

That’s what we know about them from the bible.  Here’s a few of the things that we think we know about them that is not grounded in the bible.  They were not kings.  In fact, they were just the opposite, these were the guys who chose kings.  We don’t know if there were three of them; we have usually assumed that because they brought three gifts, but as we will see later, there is a significance to what they brought that has nothing to do with their number.  There could have been any number of magi, it’s just that they brought those three items.  Also, we don’t know their names: history says that their names were Caspar, Belthizar and Melchoir, but that is just legend.    Finally, and I hate to ruin your nativity scene, but they probably didn’t ride camels or come by themselves, historically it’s more likely that they rode Persian horses and were accompanied by Persian cavalry.  Oh, and one more thing that will ruin your Nativity scene: they most assuredly did not arrive in the stable where Jesus was born on the night he was born… the shepherds and the magi probably didn’t meet. The bible is very clear that the Wise Men came to a house, not a stable, and given the fact that Herod killed all the children under two it’s possible that Jesus was as old as two years old.  If you remember, Mary and Joseph offered up a dove to dedicate Jesus, which was the offering that poor people gave.  They wouldn’t have given that kind of offering if they were carrying gold, incense and myrrh; a fortune in those times.  So, next year you can put the magi out with your nativity scene, but take off their crowns, put them on horses, and put them far away from the shepherds and the stable!

But, as interesting as all this might be for those into history, there is an important lesson that we can learn from these mysterious magi.  Let’s begin by looking at who they were and what they were doing traveling all the way from Persia to bow before a toddler.

First, who were these guys?  They are correctly called Magi in the NIV, though the note says that they are traditionally called Wise Men.  Wise Men is not a bad name for them, but they were certainly not kings.  The best name for them, though, is Magi; which is their actual name, not the description of who they are.  The Magi were a tribe of eastern people who go way back into antiquity.  They were the tribe that was given the task of being the religious leaders; it was their job to study the holy books, study the stars (for back then people thought that the stars gave answers… what we call astrology), interpret dreams, and advise the kings.  When you think back to the life of Moses, you might remember that the Egyptian court had people like that too.  Do you remember in Exodus 7 when Aaron threw his staff down and it became a snake?  What did Pharaoh do in response?  Verse 11, “Pharaoh then summoned wise men and sorcerers, and the Egyptian magicians also did the same things by their secret arts.” Most of the cultures back then had people who were priests: people who were adept in the religions and superstitions of their culture.  The Egyptians had their wise men and sorcerers, and the eastern people had their magi.  In fact, you might notice that the word magi sounds a lot like magician, and that’s exactly where that word comes from, but they were so much more than magicians, they were more like priests and advisers to the kings.  The Magi were a tribe of people who were set aside to tend to the religion of the eastern people.

A tribe of people who were set aside to take care of the religious matters of a culture.  That ought to sound like something you are familiar with from your knowledge of the bible.  That’s right, in a lot of ways the magi were a lot like the Levites of the Old Testament.  Their job was to study the holy works, discern the signs, and advise the leaders with their wisdom.  In fact, they even had ways of casting lots to make decisions like the priests did with their Ummim and Thummim.  Granted, they were pagans who did not faithfully worship the one true God, but they were seekers of truth (and historians suggest that they did believe that there was only one god, though they did not recognize him as the God of the bible).

Now, here is where it gets interesting and makes Matthew 2 make a whole lot more sense.  As I’ve told you, the magi were a tribe of priests who lived in the east and were responsible for tending to the religious affairs of their culture.  Racially, they were from a tribe of people called the Medes.  I don’t want to get into a lot of history, but the Medes lived in the area that we now call Iraq and Iran.  They were a very ancient race of people, going all the way back to the time when Abraham left Ur of the Chaldeans to come to the Promised Land.  The very first major world empire was the Babylonian empire and the Medes were people in that empire, the Magi serving as the religious tribe to that culture.  Watch how this works out in God’s plan.  Remember, it was the Babylonians who came and conquered Israel, taking many Jews away into captivity to their land in—wait for it—the east, including a young man that we know as Daniel.  Later, another empire overthrew the Babylonians.  That empire was known as the Medo-Persian Empire, and you can see the name “Mede” in the Medo-Persian Empire.  While the Jews were in Babylonian captivity the Medo-Persian Empire came to power, so Daniel ended up serving in a Medo-Persian court.  In that court were Medes who were a part of ruling religious tribe known as the Magi.

What I’m getting at is this: Daniel had contact with the Magi way back over 500 years before Christ was born.  But it gets even more exciting.  Daniel had more than a passing acquaintance with the magi.  We read in the book of Daniel that he was chosen to serve in the king’s court.  In Daniel 4 we read of a time when the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar had a dream that terrified him.  As we know from the bible, dreams were often used by God to give people a message: Joseph was famous for interpreting dreams, for example and God spoke to Joseph in a dream when he told him about the birth of Jesus.  Anyway, the Babylonian king had a dream that bothered him.  Remember, it was the job of the Magi to interpret dreams, so he called them all in.  Daniel 2:2 says, “So the king summoned the magicians, enchanters, sorcerers and astrologers to tell him what he had dreamed.” These were the magi that he called forth, the ones who were supposed to interpret dreams for the king.  But, he did something strange this time: instead of telling the dream to them for them to interpret he upped the ante; he told them that they had to tell him the dream and then interpret it.  Obviously, they cried out in outrage.  That wasn’t the way it was done, in fact they said that it was impossible for a magician to both tell the dream and interpret it.

Listen to what the magi said: Daniel 2: 10 The astrologers answered the king, “There is not a man on earth who can do what the king asks! No king, however great and mighty, has ever asked such a thing of any magician or enchanter or astrologer. 11 What the king asks is too difficult. No one can reveal it to the king except the gods, and they do not live among men.”

The king didn’t like this, so this is what he ordered: 12 This made the king so angry and furious that he ordered the execution of all the wise men of Babylon.

Now here is the part I want you to see: 13 So the decree was issued to put the wise men to death, and men were sent to look for Daniel and his friends to put them to death. Did you catch that?  The king ordered all the wise men—the magi—to be put to deaths, so the men went to look for Daniel and his friends.  That’s right, Daniel had been made one of the wise men of the Babylonian court.  Of course, as a result he was about to be put to death.  But, Daniel prayed to God and told the chief of the guards that he could interpret the dream.  So, verse 25, The chief of the guard took Daniel to the king and said, “I have found a man among the exiles from Judah who can tell the king what his dream means.” Long story short, Daniel told the king what he dreamed and then he interpreted it for him, giving all the glory for the interpretation to God.  The King then made Daniel the chief magi, the head of all the wise men in Babylon.  In chapter 4 Nebuchadnezzar has another dream and he calls Daniel to him and says this: “Belteshazzar (which was Daniel’s Babylonian name), chief of the magicians, I now that the spirit of the holy gods is in you, and no mystery is too difficult for you.” Not only was he a magi, a wise man, but he was the chief of the magicians.  Obviously, he was a well-respected and honored man with great influence over the court.  In fact, the Babylonian and Persian kings in the book of Daniel often give God praise because of the example of Daniel.

Now, here is the point of me telling you all this, and it involves a little bit of logical conjecture.  Daniel was an exile from Judah, he was Jewish.  He was selected to be put into the company of the wise men and because of God’s powerful working he becomes the chief of the magi.  The magi were men who studied holy writings and were looking for answers to the deep questions of the world: who was the true God and what was his plan for the world?  We know without a doubt that Daniel told these magi about God—we know this because it is recorded in the book of Daniel that he always gave glory to God.  We can also imagine that because all of the holy articles in God’s Temple were carried away to Babylon that they had access to the Old Testament, which Daniel no doubt translated and explained to them.  Consequently, the Magi would have known about God and his promises to send a Messiah, one who would be King of the Jews.  Therefore, for 500 years the Magi would have been looking to see how the God of Daniel, the one true God who had proved himself so dramatically—not only by interpreting dreams but by saving Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego in the fiery furnace and Daniel in the lions’ den—would send the Messiah.  We have no way of knowing, but it’s entirely likely that they had copies of the Old Testament and were studying it with the same intensity that the Jewish scribes and scholars should have been doing.  Remember, these guys were not just fortune-tellers and tricksters, they were scholars of religious matters and God had made quite an impact on them through the example of Daniel.

Now, before I get back to Matthew, I want to share one more thing about these Magi.  These guys were VERY powerful.  They were basically the “king-makers” of their time.  No ruler was selected among the empires of the East if they were not first approved of by the Magi.  Since rule was supposed to be determined by the gods they turned to their priests to decide who was to be a king: if the magi were not behind a guy, it was not likely that he would be the king.  They played this role for many centuries and were a real force to be reckoned with their prestige and influence.  Keep this in mind.

Now, I hope that I have set the stage for you to understand what was going on here.  There’s a reason I give you all this history and background.  I want you to be totally amazed at the way that God was working even through history to prepare the way for Jesus to come into the world.  Through the tragedy of the exile he prepared a people to await the Messiah.  You might think it a tragedy for Daniel to be enslaved in the court of the Babylonian king, but like Joseph he was in a position to reveal the glory of God and the coming Messiah.  God did all this work behind the scenes so that when the Messiah did come there would be people there awaiting him.  All of this should just astound you when you consider the way that God worked through time and history to prepare the way of Jesus’ arrival.  Those magi did not just appear in Jerusalem, they were prepared to be there over 500 years before Jesus was even born.

You sometimes hear people describe the Magi as being little more than astrologers.  The description is that these guys were staring up at the sky and one day they saw something incredible in the sky, something unusual and out of the ordinary.  There are lots of explanations about what the star of Jesus could have been: a supernova, which is an exploding star which shows up as a new, very bright star.  Others have suggested that it could have been a comet or a meteor.  One theory even holds that the star was actually the conjunction of Saturn, Venus and Jupiter, which is when all three planets line up to make what appears to be one very bright star.  Naturally, if these guys believed in superstitious signs and were astrologers accustomed to looking at the sky they would have been very curious to find out what this new sight in the sky was and would go to check it out.  But, that makes them out to be little more than curious bystanders.

Knowing what we now know about them, I think it is far more likely that they had been looking towards the land of Judah for centuries for the Messiah King that they had learned about in the time of Daniel, the Jewish Magi.  Remember, the Jews were looking for a king, too.  No doubt the Magi thought, like the Jews, that God was going to send a king who would unify the Jewish people and no doubt overthrow the Romans who were oppressing the people of the East just as much as the Jews.

So, having learned about the Messiah from Daniel, and having lived in expectation of a King of the Jews for centuries, at last they saw his star in the east.  What was this star?  Here is what I think they saw, and it might surprise you.  Remember, they did not get to the stable on the night that Jesus was born, they were hundreds of miles away in the east when he was born.  So, what could they have possibly seen?  Let me read something to you that may give us a clue: you remember the story of the shepherds who heard of Jesus’ birth on the night he was born.  They were out in the fields when who appeared to them?  Luke 2:9, “An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them…” I never really thought of this before, but what do think the glory of the Lord looks like?  All throughout the Old Testament we read about the glory of the Lord appearing, which is called the Shekinah Glory of God.  I don’t think I have to elaborate much for you to remember what the Glory of God looks like when it comes: it was like a pillar of fire and cloud to the Israelites, and when the Glory of God appeared to Moses he couldn’t not even look on it fully.  After the Glory of God appeared to Moses his face glowed for the rest of his life.  Suffice to say it’s a VERY bright light.

The word for star here in Matthew is aster, which can mean star, but it can also mean ‘shining’.  I wonder if what the Magi was seeing was the Glory of God which came down when Jesus was born and which led them to where Jesus was, since it’s hard to see how a literal star could lead you anywhere, especially as specifically as over one house.  In fact, I think it’s very likely that this glory was only seen by the magi since they were the only ones looking for it.  We read that it led them to the exact house where Jesus was, which means it was not a literal star and since Herod was trying to find this new king, it’s likely that he couldn’t see it.  This was most likely a supernatural phenomenon which was specifically leading the magi to this house.  In any case, they were looking for God to send a Messiah and they saw a shining, the star of Jesus, and they came to see what God was doing.  But note this: they did not just come out of curiosity to see what was going on.  They knew that God was sending a Messiah King, so they said, “Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews.  We saw his star in the east and have come to worship him.”

And here’s the point: they knew that God was going to send a Messiah and they were looking for him to come.  When they saw the glory of God shining over Israel they had only one response: to go find this king and to worship him.  To adore him and pay him proper honor.  They set off on a long and dangerous journey because there was only one reaction to what the God of the Israelites was doing: that reaction was to bow down and worship him.  They brought the finest gifts that they had in that culture: gold, incense, and myrrh, a costly ointment.  If you remember the little jar of nard that the woman poured out on Jesus’ feet, it was said to be worth more than a year’s wages; this was what they were bring to Jesus, the king.

But notice the reactions of the other players in this drama, reactions that are more surprising than that of the Magi.  We can understand that these Gentile wise men, who had been looking for the Messiah for over 500 years, would want to come and worship the new King who had come from heaven.  What is surprising is not that these men would make such a treacherous journey to bring such elaborate gifts to the King of another land; what is surprising is what the people of Israel did; or rather, what they didn’t do.

First, notice the reaction of Herod.  I don’t have time to go into all the details, but Herod was a ruthless king.  He basically had gone to the Romans and had been given the title “King of the Jews.”  The Romans wanted someone in Israel who would keep the peace in this rebellious warlike territory. And keeping the peace was something that Herod did well.  He kept the peace by crushing any rebellion and killing any rival to his power, including his own children and his own mother.  The Romans said that it was safer to be Herod’s pig than his son; he wouldn’t eat pork, but he would kill his own son.

Remember, I said that the Magi were king-makers; they were often the ones who would announce that a new king had been chosen.  No matter how powerful they were, it didn’t really matter what the Romans said, if God had revealed to the Magi that there was a new king then the people would know that a new king was going to arrive.  The people then understood that it was God who was ultimately in charge of who would rule.  So, the Magi, these powerful, wise, influential king-makers arrived in Jerusalem looking for the king.  Why did they come to Jerusalem when Jesus was born in Bethlehem?  They assumed that the new king of the Jews would be found in Jerusalem, the ancient capital of the Jews.  They showed up and no doubt they figured that all the people would be rejoicing that God had finally sent them the Messiah that they had been expecting.  Matthew 2:2 says that they were asking, “Where is the one who been born king of the Jews?” Essentially they were on the streets asking the people for information about the Messiah, but none of the people had any idea what they were talking about.  They had not heard of any new king… they had enough trouble with the king they had.

Now, notice what Herod’s reaction is.  Rather than reacting with joy to the sight of these wise men, no doubt on fine horses and accompanied by Persian cavalry, we read instead that Herod was disturbed.  And why was he disturbed?  Because if God was sending a new King of the Jews that meant that he was about to lose his position of power and prestige.  Remember, this was the guy who killed his own son because he thought that his son might try to take his power… what would his reaction be to the thought of a divinely appointed challenger to his throne?  Well, we know his reaction, he tried to have Jesus killed by killing all the children under two in Bethlehem.  It is sad that this earthly king of the Jews did not seek Jesus, the true King of the Jews in order to worship him.  Instead, he tried to have him killed for fear that Jesus would upset the life that he loved so much.

But, he was not the only one who did not want to worship God because of the disruption that a Messiah would make in his life.  We read in verse 3 that not only was Herod disturbed, but “all Jerusalem with him.” They had good reason to be disturbed.  If there was going to be a new king, a challenger to Herod, then there was a very good likelihood that there would be a civil war.  Their homes could be besieged, burned down, and destroyed.  They might lose their lives or be forced to flee to the countryside.  Instead of rejoicing that God was sending them a Messiah they feared the political repercussions that this new king might bring.  Essentially Herod and all Jerusalem with him did not adore the Messiah because they did not want their lives to be disrupted.

There is another strange reaction that we find here too.  These wise Magi, who had heard of a coming Messiah and who were eager to worship God’s king of the Jews came to Jerusalem expecting that people would also be celebrating this new Messiah.  Instead, when they came they found that nobody seemed to even know what they were talking about.

What’s worse is that the wise men of Israel, the Jewish scholars, the chief priests and teachers of the Law, were unaware of the coming of the Messiah.  You would have thought that these guys would have been the first to know of the coming of Jesus: after all, they had had over a thousand years to be looking for him.  The Messiah was the hope of Israel, he was the ultimate culmination of all that the Old Testament had been promising.  They should have been studying the scripture and looking for the coming of the Lord more than anyone.  But we know from the life of Jesus that it was the very ones who should have been looking for Jesus, the religious leaders of Israel, that were the most clueless of his arrival and the most antagonistic towards his Gospel.

Sadly, they had lost sight of what they should have been looking for.  Instead of looking and praying for the Messiah to come they were arguing about how many steps a person could take on the Sabbath and how big their prayer boxes should be.  They were majoring in the minors, as the saying goes.

In fact, Herod had to call them together to find out where the Messiah was to be born.  To their credit, they did know the prophecy found in the Old Testament book of Micah 5:2, 2 “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.” So, they knew that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem.  Then Herod called the Magi and asked them when they had seen the glory of the Lord shining.  Now, to me, this is sad.  It’s sad that it took Gentiles to notice when the star of Jesus first appeared.  You would think that the wise men of Israel would have been spiritually prepared to be awaiting the coming of Jesus; they should have been the first to see the star and the first to arrive to worship Jesus, but they had no clue.  They were so caught up in their own world that they totally missed the coming of the Messiah.

We know the rest of the story.  Herod called the Magi and told them that they would find the Messiah in Bethlehem, so they headed to the house where Mary and Joseph and Jesus were living.  Herod told them to return and tell him where the new king was so he could “worship him.”  Of course, his desire was to murder the new king to preserve his seat of power.  The magi went to Bethlehem and led by the shining of Jesus’ star they found the house where he was.

What they did next is so awe-inspiring.  These Gentile wise men, who had been looking for the coming Messiah since the time of Daniel, saw the child with his mother and Matthew says, “…they bowed down and worshiped him.  “Then they opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of gold and of incense and of myrrh.”

Here’s my challenge to you, the challenge that we get from reading this, and perhaps even the challenge that Matthew intended.  You see, one of the major themes of Matthew’s Gospel is that Jesus is the King of Kings who is worthy to be worshiped and adored.  In this passage he shows us that if these noble, wise, powerful and scholarly magi thought it worthwhile to seek Jesus for over 500 years and then make a treacherous journey in order to worship and adore Jesus, then we should do the same.  He shows us that God was working through the centuries to prepare these men to come and give Jesus the worship and adoration that he deserves.

So, my invitation for you today is to be a wise man or woman, to see God’s working in the world and in your life and come with the only reasonable response: to come worship and adore him.

Sadly, there are a lot of people in our world who are more like Herod.  They don’t like the fact that Jesus will disrupt their life, so they will not bow and worship him.  You see, for Herod to bow down and worship Jesus he would have had to leave his throne and acknowledge that Jesus is the true King of the Jews, a title that Herod himself now had.  We are no different.  If we acknowledge the Jesus is the Lord of our life it means that we have to climb down from our throne.  Before I was saved I was the King of Robert, but when I made Jesus my lord I had to admit the Jesus was the true King of Robert.  That’s not easy to do, we have to be broken and humbled before we can do that.  Folks don’t normally give up the control and power of their life without a fight.  We don’t like the disruption that will come if Jesus is our king: it means that we have to give up the sins that we love, we have to give up the pride which drives us, and we have to give up the control of our life that we think we have.

Today you might be like Herod, unwilling to give Jesus the Kingship of your life that he demands.  My invitation to you today is to recognize that Jesus is the King, the one and only king, and that he alone deserves the position of Lord of your life.  Humble yourself before God, repent of your sins and let Jesus be your Lord.

Or maybe you are like the other group of people who missed the coming of the Messiah.  The Jewish scholars would have told you that they were looking for the Messiah to come; that was supposedly the thing they were most looking for.  If there was anyone in the whole world who should have been expecting the Messiah it should have been the scholars and priests of Israel.  Yet they totally missed him.  They missed him because they were distracted by the things that don’t matter; religious things that didn’t matter.  They were arguing over interpretations and nuances of the law and missed the Messiah.

I think that describes a lot of us in the church.  We who claim to be Christians should be the most aware of what God is doing in the world and what he wants to do in our life.  Yet, we religious people can sometimes fail to worship and adore Jesus because we are too busy with the things that hardly matter.  We are focused on nonessential doctrine, worship wars, and silly nuances and yet miss out on the truly important things: worshiping God and living our life in total adoration of him.

If this describes you—someone who is very religious yet who is missing out on God, then I encourage you to do what the magi did: come and worship God anew.

Both types of people: those who refuse to be humbled like Herod and those religious people who miss out on God because they are distracted need to take a lesson from the magi.  The only proper response to Jesus is not to resist him or to miss him, but to drop everything and make a journey of faith to give him the best we have and worship and adore him.

How about you: is the adoration of God the first and foremost thing in your life?

Then he asked something which really touched and humbled me.  ”How long are you going to be here?”  In other words, do you plan to stick around for a while?

That really got to me, because it shows me just how important the longevity of the minister is to the health of the local congregation, and I think there are some warnings to both ministers and congregations here.

Now, I know that the congregation should not be based solely on the minister.  There is a real danger when a congregation sees the minister as the personification of the congregation or when he has too much power in the church to a negative effect.  We are all in the priesthood of believers and the minister is no closer to God than anyone (though he should be held to a high standard).  But, let’s face it, in a lot of ways the congregation will take on the personality, doctrine, and vision of the minister as he is often the point-man of the church.  He is the one people look to as a leader in the church (even if he has very little leadership responsibility or is just a hired hand).  He also literally has a bully pulpit since he is in front of the congregation constantly in his preaching and as the “face” of the church.  Let’s face it, no matter how good the congregation is, if you can’t stand the preaching you’re not going to last long.  He is also the person that people will have the most contact with in most churches in an official capacity.  I think most visitors to a church will judge a church by its worship service, the preaching, ministries offered (usually for children), and the friendliness of the people, probably in that order (flip worship and preaching depending on how interested in doctrine a visitor is).

I’ve also found that congregations that have the best long-term growth usually have a minister who has been there for a long time.  I can think of three churches around here which have steadily grown and are seemingly healthy and have had a minister there for over 20 years.  Contrast that with congregations that change ministers every three years and are extremely unhealthy (not sure which is the cause and which is the effect, though).  Some churches will have flash in the pan growth with a dynamic preacher, but if he leaves soon so will the growth.

All of this is just to say that it’s a humbling responsibility to be a minister.  Yes, you are usually hired, but hopefully you consider your ministry not to be a job but a calling to be a shepherd.  I hope that ministers will consider the impact they have on their congregation before they consider an opportunity to leave.  Yes, there are valid times when it is best to leave and many valid reasons to do so, but that decision should not be made lightly.  And, congregations should think very hard before they rush out to dismiss their minister.  Again, there are valid times to do so, but often ministers are let go because it’s easier to change a minister than to actually start being the church or to make the “lay leaders” be held accountable.

A new couple joining a church most likely has decided that the preacher is someone with a heart for God and a good message if they commit to join.  I can understand why they might be reluctant to be part of a church where that might be changing.  I hope that congregations and ministers alike consider the importance of the shepherd to the “sheep” of the local congregation.  Congregation: pray for, encourage, and support your minister if he is a man of God.  Ministers: take seriously the trust you’ve been given by your congregation and lead well and live a life worthy of your calling.

I was attracted to “Churched” because it sounded like a book which would give a candid and amusing look at what it is like to grow up in a fundamentalist church and hopefully provide some insight into how that journey ended once the author became an adult.  This book delivered on half of that expectation: much was said about the upbringing, but very little about how the author fared after becoming an adult.  Let me say from the beginning that this was a very enjoyable book and I would recommend it to anyone who is looking for some light, enjoyable, reading; it would make a great book for reading on a plane, on the beach, or in any room of your house where you require short chapters that can be read easily.  “Churched” is Turner’s account of growing up in a fundamentalist church, written in more of a humorous tone than descriptive.  Early in his life his parents began attending IBBC, an independent fundamentalist Baptist Church led by the domineering Pastor Nolan.  What follows are a series of vignettes showing various aspects of life as a young fundamentalist as seen through the eyes of a young child.  His fundamentalist church is described in ways that paint it as absurd, extreme, “weird”, and hypocritical.  All in all it’s a good read.  Mind you, if you’re looking for deep theological insight, an honest examination of the perils of growing up as a fundamentalist or deep soul-searching about how our religious upbringing affects our later adulthood then this book is not for you.  However, if you are looking for an amusing and often funny book based on shared religious experiences then you will not be disappointed.  I found the writing style to be both endearing and slightly annoying at the same time; it is a mix of Dave Barry and Garrison Keillor.  That is, the humor is often forced and the descriptions of life in a fundamentalist seem a tad exaggerated for humorous effect.  To be fair, I don’t really know: his church could have been as absurd as he lets on, but I got the sense that he was portraying his experiences more as a stereotype or caricature of fundamentalist life than as it really happened.  If his goal was to just paint a caricature then the effect was good, but if he were really trying to describe things as they were then the accounts seemed hard to believe (again, think of Garrison Keillor’s descriptions of Lake Wobegon: funny, but a little hard to believe).  All in all, though, the description of his upbringing was very amusing and enjoyable to read, as long as you are expecting farce and not documentary (I was expecting documentary, which is why I was a little disappointed).  My other complaint is in a similar vein.  I expected that he would give some discussion as to why he rejected fundamentalism and how he came to the spiritual place he is now.  After all, the subtitle of the book is “One Kid’s Journey Toward God Despite a Holy Mess.”  The journey toward God is missing in this book.  Essentially he shows how absurd and, his words, “weird” his church life was a child and then jumps ahead in the final chapter to explain that he wandered from church to church until finally settling on Cross Point Church in Nashville after meeting with the minister, a Ryan Seacrest lookalike.  From what I could tell his reason for feeling comfortable at that church was that the minister did not highlight his hair even though it appeared that way.  I found the last chapter to be the most engaging: it was real, the writing was not forced humor or caricature, and it showed a bit of the spiritual journey of the author.  Unfortunately, there was little in the way of detail about how he ended up where he is now or an explanation about what he rejected in fundamentalism and why.  Yes, fundamentalism made him look weird compared to the rest of his culture (especially the way he portrays it), yes, they have extremely negative views about culture and yes, they are very ardent in their beliefs about the bible and morality, but what was lacking was an explanation as to why he rejected these things.  Often there were times when he would begin to explore why he rejected fundamentalism, like in a chapter when he is perplexed about why his dad is friends with a man who rejects Christianity or when he describes a woman who challenges his fundamentalism while he was witnessing to her.  I wanted him to go a little deeper to explain why these encounters were obviously profound to him, but he left those stones unturned along with any insight into his feelings toward them.

Still, I go back to my early assessment: if you want a deep book that explores spiritual truths, this is not for you.  If you want a good, amusing read in the tradition of Dave Barry, this is a great book for you.  To those who grew up as a fundamentalist you might find this book to be a fun look at your early life, to those who didn’t this book might be a good way to reinforce the image of fundamentalists portrayed in popular culture.

I would recommend “Churched” and found it to be worth my while to read: it’s a fun, easy read.  It is well written and there are many places where you will laugh out loud.  Turner’s new book is called “Hear No Evil” and I would be tempted to read it to find out if he gives more details about how he made the leap from fundamentalism to a grudging tolerance of church in general.  Oh, and here is my disclaimer: “I received this book for free from WaterBrook Multnomah Publishing Group for this review”.

Here is a link you can follow to read the first chapter: http://waterbrookmultnomah.com/catalog.php?isbn=9780307458018&view=excerpt

I’m not going to say that there is only ONE way to preach, like a lot of guys do.  There is a place for both kinds of preaching and so long as the Word is faithfully examined I am happy.  Besides, even with expository preaching the preacher ends up looking at other sections of the bible where the topic of the passage is dealt with (this last week I preached on temptation and quoted verses from 1 Corinthians, James, 2 Corinthians, 1 Peter, Genesis and 1 Kings, for example).  However, I do think that expository preaching, for the most part, is the best way to preach the bible as far as getting across what God meant and being true to the context of the bible.  In addition, it helps keep preachers from just preaching what they think and using the bible as a proof text while ignoring things they don’t want to preach on (for example, next week I’m preaching on fasting, something I normally wouldn’t do).

In the last year I’ve really enjoyed going through the Book of Matthew in this way and have learned a lot from taking each verse in order to see what God is saying.  I just finished preaching through the Lord’s Prayer in Matthew 6 and learned so much more about prayer and God’s heart than I would have in just preaching a series on “Prayer” and using the Lord’s Prayer as an illustration.  I’ve also had to deal with some hard subjects, like divorce and remarriage, that I might have just avoided if I were just preaching topical sermons.

Once again, I’m not criticizing topical preaching, but I do want to encourage preachers to consider expository preaching and for everyone to listen to great expository preachers like John McArthur, Matt Chandler, Mark Driscoll and John Piper (among others).  I think you will see that their preaching opens the bible in ways that you’ll enjoy.

I should write a book about my journey.  But here’s the short version.  I knew that I did not want to be in any of the dead, tradition-for-tradition’s sake, culturally irrelevant churches that are dying all around America (and sadly, that I was a minister in until coming to my current congregation).  When the average age of the membership is over 60, the worship style is stuck in the 50′s and the baptisms are measured in single digits per decade you know that this is not a church you want to be a part of.  That’s a no-brainer.

So, on Saturday nights and other times when I could attend a church as a visitor I would seek out the uber-contemporary churches, sure that they were what I would want if I were seeking a church.  For the most part I liked them better than the 1950′s era churches I was used to.  There was more energy, the music was more like what was playing in my car, the dress was more casual (why that mattered, I don’t know), and the sermons were more interesting.  Not only that, but these were the churches which were growing: their average age was in the 20′s, 30′s at most, the parking lots were full, their buildings were huge.  I would leave those churches feeling better about church and wishing that I were a part of them instead of the dying church I was in.

Yet.  Yet.  Yet, something was still missing.  It was almost like going from spinach to cotton candy.  Sure, it tasted better, but I didn’t feel like I was actually full.  I couldn’t see those churches being a place where I would grow if i were a member.  Sure, I enjoyed the show and the professionalism and the music, but that’s not really what being a part of the Body of Christ is all about.  It finally occurred to me that things like musical style and dress code (or lack thereof) shouldn’t really matter in the long run: those things are not what make a church.  I enjoyed the show in the contemporary church (it was like getting a free Christian concert), but could not see a lot of growth coming from there and the message preached was usually superficial and trite.  They seemed to be appealing to the lowest common denominator; not really challenging the congregation for fear of losing numbers.

What was the answer?  I thought about home churches, even liturgical churches, but it all seemed lacking.

I think I’ve finally found some guys who are doing it right.  What is “right”?  “Right” is faithfully proclaiming the Gospel, preaching the Word unashamed (one church I went to was loathe to quote scripture or have a cross displayed for fear of offending the lost), teaching the truth about sin, punishment, redemption, grace and sanctification while still being culturally relevant and having an impact on the world.  Translated, this means a church that has muscial and preaching styles which speak to the culture while not diluting or changing the message of the Gospel.  You can play music that sounds cool which says “Jesus is Lord and we are sinners in need of saving” instead of “Jesus is my boyfriend and I’m so happy”.  You can preach messages which are interesting to listen to and which speak to people in our culture without them being sappy, pragmatic, “How to be happier in our culture” sermons.  You can be a church that speaks to our culture without selling out to it.  You can impact the world with mission and love while still proclaiming the Jesus is Lord and the only way to be saved.

I’m glad to know that there are churches doing this.  Although my experience with them is only through podcasts and books, I think Mark Driscoll’s Mars Hill Church in Seattle is doing this.  Matt Chandler’s Village Church in Texas is doing this.  They are actually impacting and changing their culture without selling out to it.  Here locally I’ve been glad to visit Sojourn Church in Louisville on a regular basis; I can honestly say that if I moved to Louisville as a plumber I would be more than glad to be a member there.  The worship is very relevant to today’s culture but their message is one of belief, repentance, and obedience to Jesus as Lord.  They speak the language of the culture, but in so doing they are speaking the Message of the Gospel.  And the cool thing is these churches are large, growing, appeal to younger people, and are making a difference in their cities.  They are showing that you can be “successful” in our culture while still being faithful to the Gospel.

My goal as a minister is to model that in my own congregation: to reach our culture (which is very different from that of downtown Louisville) without compromising the Gospel.  Instead of spinach, instead of cotton candy, it’s savory meat that only the Lord can prepare.