jsin's starred items in Google Reader

How to Invite a FOIA Lawsuit

2012-02-03T22:29:04Z

In the course of our work as the FOIA Ombudsman, we regularly hear from agencies and requesters about FOIA practices that work well. We also hear about practices that don’t work as well. Too often, such problems result in legal action by requesters.

We have observed that the following agency practices can be “litigation invitations”:

Failing to give a requester an estimated date of completion. The 2007 amendments to FOIA require agencies to provide requesters with an estimated date of completion, but many agencies still do not do so. When asked why, agencies report that they have not determined how best to accurately compute an estimated completion date or that they are reluctant to provide an estimated completion date: if the date is not met it would open up a whole set of other problems related to revising the estimated date of completion and to maintaining or re-building rapport with the requester and agency officials if the dates slip.

Aside from the fact that FOIA requires agencies to provide requesters with an estimated date of completion, providing estimated completion dates can be advantageous to agencies. First, an estimate is just that, an agency’s educated guess based on the information it has available at that point in time. Estimated completion dates can also keep an agency on track and in tune with its FOIA process. For example, if an agency figures out how much time it takes for each stage in the FOIA process, it makes it easier to manage its FOIA case load by recognizing bottlenecks in the process. When requesters are given an estimated date of completion, it helps to manage their expectations of when they will receive a response to a request.

If your agency needs to change the estimated completion date, we encourage you to let the requester know as soon as possible and provide an explanation as to why it has changed. A requester may not be happy about receiving multiple estimated completion dates; however, if FOIA professionals are thoughtful about the estimates and consistent in communicating with the requester, then this will provide good customer service that will go a long way in maintaining the relationship. We have observed that some agencies calculate and provide the estimates when they begin processing a request. These agencies also proactively provide the estimated completion date and will update it as needed. While this approach may not work for all agencies, it seems to work well for some agencies. The Department of Justice’s Office of Information Policy provides more guidance on this issue in its FOIAPost.

Failing to talk to a requester. We’ve heard from requesters (and even from some agencies!) that there are agencies that will not speak to requesters regarding their requests—at all. We have observed that communication with requesters is not only good customer service, but it the single most efficient and cost-effective way to avoid disputes. Requesters have told us that if an agency at least lets them know what is going on with their request, they will be less likely to file suit in those cases. We have also seen that once we get involved and just explain the FOIA process to requesters, they are also less likely to file suit. The FOIA process can confuse those on the outside looking in. If you aren’t willing to talk to requesters and let them know what is going onyou are, in their minds, giving them the green light to run to the court house to file suit. Customers also tell us that even bad news is better than no news at all. If FOIA professionals are not sure how to deliver bad news to requesters, please consider taking OGIS’s Dispute Resolution Skills for FOIA Professionals training.

Failing to explain withholdings in final response letters. We’ve seen many final response letters that only cite the exemptions claimed to withhold information. While this may be legally sufficient, misunderstandings and disputes may be avoided if the final response letter provides a brief description of the record systems searched and the nature of the information withheld. When a requester is able to understand where the agency searched for responsive records and the type of information withheld under a FOIA exemption, it can result in fewer administrative appeals. Moreover, when we provide more detailed information about the exemption used and how it applies in a specific case, requesters gain greater understanding and often decide not to file a lawsuit.

So how can agencies improve their response letters? The Plain Writing Act of 2010 is a useful tool in helping agencies re-think their FOIA letter templates to make them more easily understood. The more information an agency gives regarding the reasons for the denial or even going further and explaining the nature of information withheld, the less likely it is that a requester will sue.

Failing to work with OGIS in good faith. OGIS’s process complements the agency FOIA process. Whenever practical, OGIS encourages requesters to exhaust all administrative remedies within an agency before pursuing facilitation or mediation through our office. OGIS’s process is often short, simple and streamlined. There are times when agencies do not fully engage with OGIS, which can lead some requesters to feel like they must sue in order to be heard. Congress created OGIS as an alternative to litigation, so we are here to help, not hinder, the FOIA process. We are not the FOIA police. We advocate for neither requesters nor agencies, but for FOIA. When working with OGIS, the goal is for the parties to work together to find common ground, which in many cases is a win-win situation.

So, in a nutshell: it’s all about good customer service. By making good customer service the focus, you may save time, energy and money that may otherwise go into defending a FOIA lawsuit. Perhaps more importantly, it will improve the administration of FOIA. Let us know if you have any additional tips for avoiding FOIA litigation.

Public Speaking for Normal People [Public Speaking]

2012-01-31T21:00:00Z

Silicon Valley entrepreneur Jason Freedman has done his share of public speaking, and despite experiencing the same racing heartbeat and anxiety common to all of us, he knows how to deliver a relaxed, natural presentation. Here's how he does it.

I just gave a presentation on 42Floors to 150 people. It went well. I was really proud of: 1) our team, 2) our product and 3) the way we were able to present it. It was as if we were telling people about it in our living room, but there just happened to be 150 people there. Afterwards, several people told me that it felt like it was a very polished presentation. But the reality is we didn't practice at all. In fact, three minutes before we went on stage, my co-founder turned to me and said, "Jason, we really should've practiced." I said, "Nah, don't worry. We'll be fine." And we winged it, and it came off ever so naturally.

Before I pat myself on the back too much, let me tell you how I felt inside. Thirty seconds before I was supposed to go on, I was standing there on the side and all of a sudden my heartbeat went from normal to racing like I was in the middle of marathon. Uggghhh. I hate it when this happens. It's kind of like how you feel when you blush: you're reminded how little control you have over your own body. For a brief moment, I was upset with my body for reacting this way. I was upset with myself for reacting this way, actually. I should be more confident than this.

For some background, I've done a tremendous amount of public speaking. I did speech and debate in high school, I've spoken to lots of large crowds, I have given this type of presentation many, many times before. This was also a really friendly crowd, and it was super informal. There was no reason for me to be nervous. But, there I was ready to go on, and I was worried that people standing near me would literally be able to see my heart beating this fast.

However, in those thirty seconds, from when my anxiety took hold until I started speaking, I squashed that nervousness almost completely. And that's what this post is about.

The key to public speaking is establishing a routine that solves for the thirty seconds between when your anxiety starts and when you need to go up on stage. After that nothing else really matters. Most normal people do not engage in public speaking regularly enough to be able to actually change any of the fundamentals about how they speak. The very best you can hope to do is to not sound worse than you do when speaking in your own living room. And that itself is actually a really good axiom to start with:

Don't try to become a good public speaker, just try to speak like a normal person while in public.

And the key to speaking normally in public is to squash your anxiety thirty seconds beforehand. Here are a few tricks that I know. Give them a shot.

How to Speak Like a Normal Person While in Public:

Dribble Twice, Spin Once

So this trick will take a little bit of time to develop, but it's probably the single most important thing that I'd recommend. When you watch a basketball player go to the free-throw line with the game on the line, he or she does the same routine every single time. It's always some sort of dribble twice, spin once routine. With the spotlight on him, he doesn't want to think about some small aspect of his form. He wants to not think at all. So he focuses on his trivial routine: dribble twice, spin once, shoot. The best he is hoping for is to shoot as well as he normally does in practice.

I do the same thing with public speaking. I have found a very specific set of physical actions that I do seconds before I start speaking. For me, it's a specific stance that I get into where I stand up very straight, my toes are slightly pointed out, I take my hands and I clap them together. I grasp my hands together really firmly and rub them slowly with my elbows held high.

I do it this way for one key reason – this is what I usually do anyway. As in, if you see me in my own living room, surrounded by friends, recounting a story of a time when I did something really awesome, you will often find that I am naturally in this stance. This is my natural confidence stance. So, when I'm feeling nervous, I force myself deliberately to take on my confidence pose.

Jumping back to this public speaking event the other day. At T minus 30 seconds, my heart was beating incredibly fast, but at T minus 25 seconds I had one thing on my mind – hands clasped together, assume the pose, everything else will work out.

You need to find your confidence pose. Whatever your two dribble, spin once routine is going to be, you need to find it long before your public speaking moment. The single best way to find it is to ask your co-founder or friends to find it for you. Show them this post, tell them you want help finding this pose, and then at some point in the next several weeks, they will see you do it naturally and can point it out for you. And then, you need to figure out exactly what it is about this pose that feels good and practice it over and over again. So the next time when you're up on stage and you're getting really nervous and you have that weird feeling where you just don't know where to put your hands and you just know that in your pockets is like the most awkward thing in the world...at that point – dribble twice, spin once, and shoot.
Death to Powerpoint

Powerpoint is this devious device that takes reasonably good speakers and makes them painfully bad. Traditional bullet-point laden Powerpoint decks are only useful for communicating your ideas with visuals and emailing them to people. They are not useful for aiding you in your speaking ability. And that's why most really good speakers stopped using Powerpoint in the traditional way. Throw away all slides that have more than ten words on them (or move them to an appendix).

It's okay to use slides when they takes almost no focus off of you, the speaker. That's for two reasons. The first is, the focus really should be on you, so having an Apple-like slide with one or two words on it is totally fine because it communicates a point and gets the focus back on you. (Note-the only exception is when you demo your product. Then you do want the attention on the screen.) The second reason is even more important: Powerpoint bullet slides take away your attention from your audience. When you turn around to read a slide, you are forcing yourself out of your own rhythm.
Speak to Two People

Remember our goal is to speak like a normal person in public. The best way to speak like a normal person is to actually talk to a real person, and not hundreds of people. So, as I stand there about ready to speak – in my stance, rubbing my hands together – I look to the left side of the room and to the right side for a random person that seems comforting. When I actually start speaking, all I want to do is speak to those two people. I've never met them but I want to lock in on those two people and just tell them a simple story as if they were sitting in my living room. I can pace back and forth and look left and right in the crowd, and yet all I'm really doing is going back and forth between my two people. It's super simple; it totally works.
Embrace Your Ums

Um is a verbal tick. It is unconscious and nearly impossible to remove. If your career is going to be an actor, public speaker, politician, whatever . . . go work on your ums and this post was never for you anyway. If you are a normal person, you are not going to get rid of them. And anyone who harps on you because of them is actually doing you a disservice because they are forcing you to speak differently than you speak as a normal person. Paul Graham is one of my favorite public speakers, and he says um all the freaking time. But, he's a powerful speaker, he's lucid and most importantly, he's authentic. Focus on what really matters.
Don't Memorize

Memorizing does absolutely nothing for you. The only thing worse than a scripted, memorized speech is a ‘read' speech. So, don't ever read your speeches, either. You are pitching your start-up and trying to inspire people to believe in your vision. It doesn't matter what the actual words are, they're all judging you anyway. And when you memorize your speech, or read your speech, you are communicating that you suck at this. And you don't. You're a normal person – you have the capacity to speak like a normal person.
Practice with Live Ammunition

Over-practice can really hurt you, especially if you do it in a fake way. One of the worst things you can do to prepare is to practice over and over again alone. Because that is nothing like the situation that you are going to be in. We speak very, very awkwardly alone. When you are making passionate speeches inside of your car, you look like a crazy person and you feel like a crazy person. Your performance there will be nothing like your performance on stage. Your goal, always remember, is to get back to how you speak in your living room. So do that.

Ask your co-founders to put you on the spot in front of groups of people. So, if you guys are at some random party, empower your co-founders to play this little trick on you: Without giving you warning, they can yell out for everyone to get quiet because you want to tell them something. You will have zero time to get nervous, you will have to start immediately, and you will do the best job that you can. And if you do that five times before your big public speaking engagement, you will be far better prepared than if you had spoken to the mirror a hundred times.

One final note to that group of 150 people that just saw me speak: Yes, I was absolutely, totally, freakin' nervous. If that's you as well, you already know how to reach me, let's practice together.

Public Speaking for Normal People | humbledMBA

Jason is a serial entrepreneur, based in Silicon Valley. He's currently the founder of 42Floors, building a better way to search for commercial real estate: 42floors.com. You can read more from Jason at his blog humbledmba.com and keep up with him on Twitter @jasonfreedman.

What to see your work here? Send an email to submissions@lifehacker.com!

Susan G. Komen Drops Funding for Planned Parenthood

2012-02-01T06:24:47Z

The Story: The Associated Press reports that Susan G. Komen for the Cure, the nation's leading breast-cancer charity, will cut off its partnership through which it provided cancer screenings at Planned Parenthood clinics. According to Planned Parenthood, Komen grants totaled roughly $680,000 last year and $580,000 the year before, funding at least 19 Planned Parenthood affiliates. Komen told the AP that it ended its partnership with Planned Parenthood because of a congressional investigation into the organization.

The Background: The House Energy and Commerce Committee is investigating Planned Parenthood because of allegations of abuses ranging from financial disparities to its compliance with federal regulations on taxpayer funding to concerns that it is covering up cases of sex trafficking.

As Christianity Today notes, "activists on both sides of the abortion fight are speculating on the involvement of Karen Handel, Komen's senior vice president of public policy, in the decision." When Handel, the former secretary of state of Georgia, ran for governor in 2010, part of her platform was to eliminate state grants to Planned Parenthood.

What It Means: Planned Parenthood contends that the Komen foundation is yielding to longstanding pressure from anti-abortion groups, which Komen denies, says the New York Times.

As the NYT notes, "Anti-abortion advocates and Web sites have criticized the Komen foundation's financing of Planned Parenthood for years. And in December, LifeWay Christian Resources, which is owned by the Southern Baptist Convention, said it was recalling a pink Bible it was selling at Walmart and other stores because a dollar per copy was going to the Komen foundation and the foundation supported Planned Parenthood."

[Note: If you find a story our community should know about, please send the link to joe.carter *at* thegospelcoalition.org.]

Pastors, Don’t Let your People Resign into Thin Air

2012-02-02T03:41:06Z

Does your church let people resign into thin air?

A church member simply submits a letter or has a conversation with a pastor, and then poof!—they’re gone. And your church couldn’t say whether the person has joined another evangelical church or dropped off the face of the earth.

My brothers, this should not be.

TWO WAYS CHURCHES LET MEMBERS DISAPPEAR INTO THIN AIR

An encouraging number of evangelical churches seem to be regaining meaningful practices of church membership and discipline. But I’m concerned that even some of these churches, however unintentionally, are leaving their back doors wide open.

One way churches do this is procedural. In some churches, an intent to resign, whether submitted verbally or in writing, is regarded as a fait accompli. If someone “resigns” their membership, then they’re gone. After all, the church can’t coerce people into staying, can it? (More on this below.)

Another way churches might do this is situational. Let’s say that to resign from First Baptist Smallville you have to submit a resignation, then the pastor or elders look it over, and then the congregation has to vote to dismiss you from membership. Most of the time, people are moving away and joining a church in another town. Once in a while somebody leaves to go to another nearby church.

But this time, a cranky troublemaker who’s been giving the church headaches for years has finally had enough and decides to throw in the towel and resign. In a huff, this person says he’s just giving up on church—at least for now.

It would be tempting to simply stand aside and allow this troubler to cease troubling your church. The last thing you want is to invite more trouble by detaining him at the back door.

But should the church simply allow this individual to resign into thin air?

WHY YOU CAN’T LET PEOPLE RESIGN INTO THIN AIR

I think the biblical answer is a resounding “No.” Here’s why: When your church made that person a member, you were declaring to the world that this person belongs to the kingdom of Jesus (Mt. 16:18-19). By regarding this person as a member, your church affirmed that he is indeed a “brother” in Christ (1 Cor. 5:11-13).

So what’s the problem? Hebrews 10:24-25 commands us not to forsake assembling together. Therefore, any professing Christian who quits going to church is living in habitual, unrepentant sin. And the way a church addresses unrepentant sin is not by merrily sending that person on his way, but by removing their affirmation of “member” and “brother” (Matt. 18:15-17; 1 Cor. 5:1-13). When the player quits showing up on game day, the team has to take back his jersey.

By the way, to cite just one stream of church history, this is something that previous generations of Baptists affirmed repeatedly and emphatically. Consider the Charleston Association’s A Summary of Church Discipline (1774): after criticizing someone who wants to leave an acceptable church for one he likes better further away, the association affirms that, “To dismiss a member to the world at large, would yet be more preposterous, and ought never to be done in any other way than by excommunication” (Mark Dever, ed., Polity, 124). And Samuel Jones, in his 1805 Treatise of Church Discipline, says simply, “It is certain there can be no dismission to the world” (Polity, 153).

A quick way to get a handle on this is to consider church discipline. If someone tries to resign mid-process in order to “escape discipline,” should the church just let them go? Of course not. That would defeat the whole point of church discipline. Instead, the church must retain the right to refuse someone’s resignation and send them out another way—through excommunication.

When a church releases a member in good standing, they are repeating their judgment that this person is a brother or sister in Christ. Even as the person is walking out the back door, you’re saying again, to them and the world, “We affirm your profession of faith in Christ.” That’s inherent in dismissing a member because apart from death, the only two ways to leave a church’s membership are being dismissed as a brother or sister in good standing and being excommunicated. If a church does accept a resignation from someone who’s disappearing into thin air, that church is telling the world that Christians are free to drop out of church with no consequences and no questions asked.

Of course a church can’t coerce people to stay. That’s not what I’m saying here. What I am saying is that the church has the responsibility to oversee the lives of its members as long as they are under its watch—which includes their trip out the back door.

The upshot of all this is that a church should not accept a member’s resignation who is not doing what Christians do—in this case, regularly assemble with a church.

FOUR PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Here are four practical implications of this.

1.The troubler of First Baptist Smallville needs to either reconcile with that church or join another one where he can be more content. He can’t simply resign his membership and sit on his couch on Sundays. If that’s what he intends to do, FBC Smallville’s response should be church discipline, not “See you later!”

2. Churches’ membership procedures should reflect the fact that the church, not the individual member, has authority to accept and dismiss members. A member cannot unilaterally resign. A member can submit their intention to resign to the church, and the church will either accept or reject that intention.

Different polities will work out the procedure differently, but I’d argue that Scripture gives final responsibility over the matter to the whole congregation (1 Cor. 5:4-5; 2 Cor. 2:6). This means that the church as a whole should have the final say in the matter.

3.Churches’ governing documents (constitution, by-laws) should reflect the fact that individual members do not have the unilateral right to terminate their membership. Instead, that prerogative belongs to the church. Therefore, the church has the right to refuse someone’s resignation and pursue discipline instead. It’s important to have this clearly stated in a church’s documents for both pastoral and legal reasons.

Here’s an example of the kind of language I’m talking about, from the constitution of the church I’m a member of (Third Avenue Baptist in Louisville):

“Clause 3. The church shall have authority to refuse a Member’s voluntary resignation or transfer of membership to another church, either for the purpose of proceeding with a process of church discipline, or for any other reason the church deems necessary or prudent.”

One important note: Numbers 2 and 3 in this list should probably be well established before a church attempts to resist someone’s resignation, whatever the circumstances.

4. The pastoral specifics of how churches handle individual resignations will vary. For members who have moved out of the area, I’d suggest that a baseline requirement on this front might be something like “they intend to join another evangelical church in the immediate future.”

I’m using slightly squishy language like this because churches’ membership practices vary. Some churches only take in new members once a year, for example. And some metro areas have a number of solid evangelical churches, and it might take a while for a family to settle on one. And it doesn’t always help to keep a church that’s 3,000 miles away on the line that whole time.

For members who intend to go to another church within the same metro area, the standard should probably be a little bit tighter. This will help to ensure that the member doesn’t fall through the cracks before they’re safely tucked into another sheepfold.

KEEP AN EYE ON THE BACK DOOR

So pastors, just as you pay careful attention to the front door of your church, keep a close eye on the back door, too. Make sure that the sheep can’t simply open the gate themselves and disappear from sight. Refuse to allow people to resign into thin air, both for the sake of your church’s witness to the gospel and for the good of every single sheep—especially those who tend to wander off.

Tim Tebow Cancels Speech at Event Organized by Prosperity Gospel Preacher

2012-02-01T17:59:16Z

The Story: Denver Broncos quarterback Tim Tebow is canceling an appearance at a revival organized by prosperity gospel preacher Rod Parsley.

The Background: The year's most talked about Christian athlete was scheduled to speak at a three-day Columbus event in March led by televangelist Parsley. In a phone interview with the Associated Press, Tebow's brother Robbie said his brother's speakers' bureau hadn't researched the event before saying yes to the invitation.

"I know for a fact that Tim is not going to be a part of it," Robbie Tebow said. "That's being resolved."

Parsley pastors World Harvest Church in Columbus, Ohio, and heads up World Harvest Ministerial Alliance (WHMA). His church services and personal appearances are telecasted over TBN-TV and Daystar-TV in a program called Breakthrough. Along with his confusion about doctrines like the Trinity ('The Holy Ghost is no different than Jesus and Jesus is no different than the Holy Ghost. . ."), Parsley teaches that God wants believers to be wealthy. As the AP notes, last year Parsley asked followers to donate more than $1 million to ward off satanic attacks.

Why It Matters: The young quarterback understands that by speaking at the event he would be lending his credibility to men who preach a false gospel. By refusing to speak at the event, he may be able to signal to people unfamiliar with the prosperity gospel that those who believe in the true gospel should avoid publicly associating with these false teachers.

The President, the Pill, and Religious Liberty in Peril

2012-02-02T20:13:37Z

In 1808, President Thomas Jefferson stated the matter bluntly: “I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises.”

Fast forward 204 years and President Barack Obama has reversed that logic, ordering religious institutions to provide insurance coverage for employees that must include contraceptives, including those that may induce an abortion.

Secretary Kathleen Sebelius of the Department of Health and Human Services made the announcement January 20, stating: “Today the department is announcing that the final rule on preventive health services will ensure that women with health insurance coverage will have access to the full range of the Institute of Medicine’s recommended preventive services, including all FDA-approved forms of contraception.”

The ruling had been much anticipated as a consequence of President Obama’s health care reform. The new law required the administration to determine what elements would be included in the mandated coverage. The administration first determined that the preventative care provision would include coverage of contraceptives. The second step was determining that this coverage would include, as Secretary Sebelius restated it, “all FDA-approved forms of contraception.” These include drugs known as Plan B, which is taken after the possibility of fertilization, thus functioning as an inducer of abortion. The plans must also provide sterilization procedures for women without deductibles or co-payments.

The final step in the process was the decision to require all employers to provide this coverage, including church-affiliated institutions and organizations. The only exemption is offered to churches and religious bodies that neither employ nor serve any significant number of people who do not share their faith. As one church leader commented, this would not allow an exemption even for the ministry of Jesus and his disciples, who ministered to those outside the faith. Keep Reading

Feds Seize 307 Sports-Related Domains Ahead of Super Sunday

2012-02-02T19:31:17Z

Photo: Matt McGee/Flickr

Federal authorities said Thursday they had seized and shuttered 307 domains, 16 allegedly engaged in unauthorized live sports streaming and the remainder accused of selling fake professional sports merchandise, including National Football League paraphernalia.

The seizure, the biggest to date under the Immigration and Customs Enforcement crackdown known as Operation in Our Sites (.pdf), brings to more than 650 domains shuttered since the program began in June 2010. The latest seizures, which quietly began in October, were announced days ahead of Super Sunday, when the New England Patriots play the New York Giants in the NFL Super Bowl, one of the world’s most popular sporting events.

“While most people are focusing on whether the Patriots or Giants will win on Sunday, we at ICE have our sights on a different type of victory: defeating the international counterfeiting rings that illegally profit off of this event, the NFL, its players and sports fans,” said ICE Director Morton. “In sports, players must abide by rules of the game, and in life, individuals must follow the laws of the land. Our message is simple: abiding by intellectual property rights laws is not optional. It’s the law.”

The sites allegedly sold fake jerseys, caps, shirts, jackets and other paraphernalia. The government said it had also seized $4.8 million worth of fake NFL goods, up from $3.72 million the same time a year ago.

Federal authorities are taking .com, .org. and .net domains under the same civil-seizure law the government invokes to seize brick-and-mortar drug houses, bank accounts and other property tied to alleged illegal activity. The feds are able to seize the domains because Verisign, which controls the .net and .com names, and the Public Interest Registry, which runs .org, are U.S.-based organizations. Under civil forfeiture laws, the person losing the property has to prove that the items were not used to commit crimes.

The program come under intense scrutiny in December, when Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) asked the government why it kept a hip-hop music site’s domain for a year without affording its New York-based owner a chance to challenge the seizure of dajaz1. Another site, Rojadirecta, a Spanish sports-streaming site, is contesting its seizure last year, saying it is innocent of infringement and only provided links to streaming sites to which it has no affiliation.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement leaves behind a message to online visitors that a site has been seized. Those messages have received more 77 million page views, the government said.

The government said Thursday that a Michigan man, Yonjo Quiroa, 28, was arrested and charged with a single count of criminal copyright infringement for operating nine sites that streamed sporting events without authorization.

A list of the seized sites is here. (.pdf)

An Elephant, Rock Star Mega-Church Pastors and Discernment

2012-02-02T21:28:00Z

I am perplexed! No, I am troubled! I am concerned, or maybe I am just a "hater." I pastor a small church, so who cares what I am, how I feel, and what I have to say. I am sure I am just jealous, or a fundamentalist, or a failure. Whatever I am, I am sure I will not be classified as "discerning."

Why am I troubled? Because Reformed Christianity appears to have fallen victim to the Hollywood pop culture where a few celebrity mega-church pastors have more influence upon younger Christians than a multitude of ordinary pastors who remain faithful and unknown. It is difficult to sound the alarm (Hey! There’s an elephant in the room and he kind of smells) because of the likelihood of sounding jealous, but the elephant has gotten so large and stinky that it's hard not to say something. This is not to say that it's wrong to pastor a mega-church or have a large following, but it is dangerous to place a person on a pedestal just because he pastors a mega-church and to fall all over ourselves in seeking to win their approval and a few of their internet followers. Credibility should never be based upon how many twitter followers a person has, but upon how faithful a pastor is with the truth. As said in the intro of the Mike Corley Program, “…the messenger does not validate the message, but rather the message validates the messenger.”

Human nature desires fame, envies those who are famous, and seeks the friendship of those who are famous. It is amazing how fame subconsciously and quickly warps our perspective and judgment. The most undeserving and despicable famous person in Hollywood may be Paris Hilton. Not even a fan of hers (I don’t like her at all), I thought I had great bragging rights after I ran into her in London. I remember eagerly and shamelessly walking back to the hotel so I could tell my friends. As if somehow the value and worth of my life went up some degree due to running into someone who is famous. Silly, I know, but this is human nature. We want to be famous or at least connected with those who are famous. I think it is because if we can get near to those who have the spot light we may somehow get out of the shadows. Even famous people do not seem exempt from the influence of this phenomenon. Have you not noticed that famous people befriend, date and marry other famous people? Maybe it's because famous people think that being connected to other famous people will bring more popularity for themselves, as though two famous people coming together brings each a broader fan base than they would have had on their own. Whatever the case, fame has a gravitational pull on all of us, and I am afraid that the church along with her discernment is being sucked into its black hole. Here is some of the refuse the elephant is leaving behind in the church, and I personally believe it smells.

1. Reverse Fundamentalism

We can't use discernment and question the actions of various well known celebrity pastors without being judged as a fighting fundamentalist or just flat out jealous of their success. We can be more liberal than they are, but we dare not be more conservative. If we happen to be more conservative, we are automatically villainized as belonging to the fundamentalist camp that only wants to fellowship with the King James Only Advocates. For instance, Steven Furtick, who is a mega-church pastor in Charlotte North Carolina went on this rant:

All of a sudden I am the hater because I take a more conservative and cautious approach to the ministry. I could believe the prosperity gospel and be a muddled modalist and be tolerated and even accepted with a cool, manly fist bump (as was the case with Driscoll and T. D. Jakes in the Elephant Room 2), but I dare not question the methodology of a pastor who pastors a mega-church or I will be labeled as a hater. Even worse, I may be threatened to be arrested, as was the case for our Lutheran friend Chris Rosebrough when he attempted to attend the Elephant Room 2 conference (see here).

The point is that we are charged with being haters because we voice our concerns, but our voices are the ones that are being cut off from the conversation.

2. Jumping on the Bandwagon Just because There is a Long Boarding Line

Have you ever gone to Walmart and counted the people wearing jackets with the little words "North Face" stamped in the corner? Probably not, but I have, and you would be amazed at how many people want a jacket just because of that little logo. Everybody seems to have one, and that seems to be the reason why everybody wants one, me included! Don't say that it's the quality, because I can go get a Snozu jacket, which is just as nice at T. J. Maxx's for half the price. Yet without that North Face logo, a Snozu jacket just doesn't seem as cool. If the herd of people were not wearing North Face jackets, I am sure I wouldn't feel so tempted to buy one. The point is, it's human nature, so it seems, to follow the crowd without really examining why.

The growing mega-church and celebrity pastor phenomenon seems to be under this spell as well. Grab people’s attention by talking about sex and the use of controversial and slightly seditious methodology, and then the momentum of the crowds rushing in will do the rest. People want to go where all people are going. If you stopped and asked them why North Face, why this church? The honest answer would likely be, because it’s cool, and it’s also where all my friends or potential friends go. The right music, the right aesthetics, the right web-design, and throw in a bigger than life personality for the pastor and then presto—you have created the perfect combination for a mega-church, and the rise of the latest celebrity pastor. But, if we step back and ask why is Paris Hilton so famous? What has she really done to deserve such a large fan base? Besides some questionable behavior and a little bit of charisma, there is no substantial reason for her to be so popular. She is not the prettiest girl, she can't sing, she is not much of an actor, but for some reason she is famous. In the same way, many of these celebrity pastors have nothing substantial to justify such a large following. I am not saying that they have no spiritual gifting, but I know many obscure pastors who are more knowledgeable, spiritually gifted and devoted who remain out of any national or international spotlight. Martin Luther, George Whitefield, Charles Spurgeon, and even contemporaries like John Piper, R. C. Sproul and John MacArthur have something unique about their spiritual gifting that sets them apart. These men deserve a broad hearing. Yet, other than their personal charisma and charm there is not much that makes ministers like Rick Warren and Steven Furtick worthy of such attention within the Reformed community. My point is, the most faithful, the most gifted and the most devoted pastors do not always equate to the most famous in the kingdom of God. Nevertheless, fame has the tendency to warp our judgment, for in many cases the most faithful and gifted pastors are overlooked, while the celebrity pastors grab all the headlines. Carl Truemen rightly noted:

One thing that is so striking about the rise of celebrity in the wider world is that it has been accompanied by the rise of the myth of the polymath. Thus, a pop star who can write a song that becomes a hit also becomes a person who is consulted about things like gay rights, Third World Debt and global warming. They are no more qualified (and in some cases much less qualified) than you or I to offer such advice; but we are never asked because we have not written a pop hit or starred in a movie. We now see this phenomenon in the evangelical world: fame and a big church make you competent to speak all over the theological map.

There has been a downgrade in the Reformed Community. I was afraid of this back when Mark Driscoll was introduced as a Calvinist. For years, Calvinism was despised and marginalized by mainstream Christianity. Pastors were run out of their churches and they sacrificed greatly for their faithful stance for the truth. Now with the rise of this neo-Calvinism, God's sovereign grace is cool and fashionable. Yet it appears that this new form of Calvinism is only cool when it comes to Jonathan Edwards screen-printed T-shirts, but has nothing to do with one's methodology of ministry. The famous Calvinistic ministers of old where known for their commitment to truth in all facets of life, but these new Calvinists are known for how fast they can grow a church and cumulate a fan base by marketing themselves as cool and providing a multi-sensual worship experience. Worse yet, these young Calvinists, who know little to nothing of the hardships of the previous generation of Calvinists, are telling that generation to get out of the way, for they have discovered a better and less offensive way to do ministry.

3. Mega-Pastors' Gravitation Toward Each Other

It’s weird, but it does seems that the larger the objects the greater their gravitational pull. Mega-church pastors seem to attract other mega-pastors, regardless of their doctrinal stance. I love John Piper and think his books (especially his book on missions, Let the Nations be Glad) are excellent! With that said, I am disappointed with his endorsement of Rick Warren. I am sure we can learn something from Rick Warren, but whatever we may be able to learn from him we could learn from someone else without all the seeker sensitive baggage. The question I have is why? Dr. Piper, why Rick Warren? Whatever the reason, if Rick Warren was not so popular I am almost certain that Piper wouldn’t be so drawn to him. But worse than John Piper’s association with Rick Warren is the latest Elephant Room fiasco. The mega-church pastor T. D. Jakes is treated as a hero even though he will not take a firm position on the Trinity, and even though he perverts the glorious gospel of Jesus Christ by preaching a man centered health and wealth gospel.

It almost seems as bad as this mock conversation below:

“Okay Benny Hinn, get ready! I am sure you’ll be the next celebrity who will be welcomed into the fold. Maybe by reaching out to you, our Reformed celebrity pastors may be able to win some of your audience and followers over to Reformed Theology.”

“You’re crazy, Jeff,” the mega-church pastors may respond back to me, “don’t you understand that unity is not about Reformed Theology, it’s about the gospel!”

To which I would replay, “Is it?”

In which they respond, “Well, okay, it’s technically not about the gospel because we accepted T. D. Jakes and his prosperity gospel.”

To which I would reply, “Well, since it’s not about the gospel, at least you celebrity pastors may be able to broaden your fan base by reaching out to these other celebrity pastors.”

Finally they agree, “What a good idea! Your right, Jeff! Hey, Benny Hinn come on over and bring us some of your followers.”

4. Multi-Sight Campuses

I wonder why mega-church pastors are not willing to plant new churches rather than feeling the need to open various satellite campuses. I understand that any given locality has its limitations, and people are willing to drive only so far, but what are the reasons to divide a local body when starting a new work seems to be more in line with the biblical pattern? Do these mega-pastors think so highly of themselves as to think that no other preacher is as capable? Are they unwilling to share the glory? If it’s the people who would rather have a famous virtual pastor than an unknown pastor who is present, then are not these mega-church pastors unwilling to teach their followers of the danger of exalting a man? Is it about building a kingdom that is centered around a mega-church personality? Is it all of a sudden acceptable to have a bishop pastoring multiple flocks? Is it biblical to divide a local body, or can it even be called a local body? How do you effectively pastor a flock in an off site location? It seems slightly better than handing a group of people a pile of recorded sermons and then telling them that I am happy to be your Shepherd who watches over your souls. I am sure there may be some good motives mixed in with opening satellite campuses, but I can't help but think it’s not about reaching more people (planting local churches could do that), but about ego and building a fan base. I know I am a "hater" for bringing up such concerns, but all this celebrity Christianity seems to be getting out of control.

There is an elephant that has squeezed into the church and hardly anyone wants to admit it. Maybe it’s because we're scared that we will be judged as envious or overly scrupulous. Also, if I am seeking popularity among young teenage girls, the last thing I want to do is vocalize any criticism towards Justin Bieber. In the same way, if I want to broaden my ministry opportunities, and if everybody loves these mega-church personalities, then the last thing I should do is offend the followers of Mark Driscoll. I think it's the desire to be famous which is a large part of the problem, and the elephant in the room is so big it's time for us to say something regardless of what it may cost us.

Internet SOPA/PIPA Revolt: Don’t Declare Victory Yet

2012-01-18T23:50:09Z

Protestors against SOPA and PIPA took to the streets in New York City Wednesday outside the offices of Senator Chuck Schumer (D). Photo: Richard Drew/AP

There’s a bit of a dancing-in-the-street mentality online Wednesday in response to a widespread internet revolt against anti-piracy legislation that many believe goes too far fighting online copyright and trademark infringement.

Thousands of sites, big and small, went dark or altered themselves to protest the Protect IP Act in the Senate and the Stop Online Piracy Act in the House.

But by no sense of the imagination are these bills scuttled, despite Senate websites reportedly buckling under the weight of constituents weighing in against the measure.

Sure, the worst part of the proposals — mandated DNS redirecting of websites deemed dedicated to infringing activity — appear to be history. But there’s still plenty to protest, as we spelled out in an earlier story Wednesday, including possible mandatory orders for the nation’s ISPs to build a version of the Chinese Great Firewall to prevent users from visiting sites such as The Pirate Bay.

Most important, amended proposals are likely to rear their ugly heads soon in response to White House criticism of the Domain Name System features of the bills.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) says he will bring an amended version of SOPA to the House Judiciary Committee sometime in “February.” And Senate action on an amended PIPA, either on the floor or before the Senate Judiciary Committee, is tentatively scheduled next week.

For the moment, however, those participating in what is believed to be the largest online backlash to proposed U.S. legislation should briefly pat themselves on the back.

Among other things, the revolt prompted Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), who voted in May to move the Protect IP Act to the Senate floor from the Judiciary Committee, to declare Wednesday that the measure “is not ready for prime time.” A handful of other lawmakers echoed the senior senator’s sentiment.

And Rep. Darrell Issa (R-California) introduced a competing measure, with the support of more than a dozen lawmakers, that would open the U.S. International Trade Commission to investigate intellectual-property infringement claims.

All the while, at least 4.5 million internet surfers signed a Google-sponsored petition against both measures Wednesday.

We won’t bore you with the details on what sites went dark or altered themselves. But we should point out that the protests have put the content industry, the main backers of the legislation, on the defensive.

The Motion Picture Association of America sent out a factsheet saying “Nothing in the Protect IP Act can reasonably be construed as promoting censorship.”

And the Recording Industry Association of America tweeted “Perish the thought” that students must do “original research” Wednesday because of Wikipedia’s self-inflicted 24-hour outage.

The best-case scenario? In this election year, the bills would become too polarizing and die.

But word to the wise, keep the anti-blacklisting celebrations short: PIPA and SOPA aren’t dead yet.

Strategies for Becoming a Post-Program Church

2012-01-19T09:00:00Z

Churches shouldn’t rely wholly on programs to do the work of ministry, which means that a lot of churches need to think about cutting some programs and reworking others. More importantly, program-driven churches should work to cultivate a culture of discipleship.

But how? How can you wean a church off of an excessive dependence on programs and move toward a culture of discipleship? How can you slim down your church’s diet of programs without causing a shock to the system?

STRATEGIES FOR BECOMING A POST-PROGRAM CHURCH

Those are big questions, and sometimes they have high stakes. In some churches, the adult Sunday school program is like the electric third rail: touch it and die. Further, as with most practical questions, many of the specific answers will vary church to church.

Still, here are a few suggestions. I hope they will be useful for church leaders who are trying to wean their churches off programs and cultivate a culture of discipleship and evangelism.

1. Put better content in the programs you’ve got. If you’ve got programs that aren’t going away any time soon, figure out how to more biblical content into them. Sunday school is a good place to start.

2. Find other ways to reform existing programs. For example, train and deploy new teachers in Sunday school or small groups. Find and cultivate people who are growing as Christians and are eager to help others do the same. Help them develop a vision for how a program can be used not as a social club, but as an engine for discipleship.

3. Let sick programs die. Attrition can be your friend. If a program is not generating enough interest to keep it afloat, discover the smiling face behind the frowning providence. It’s much easier to lay a dying program to rest than to get rid of something that is apparently vibrant and successful.

The loss of a program is not necessarily a loss to the church. It frees up members’ time. It frees up church leaders’ time. It cuts down on clutter. It allows you to redirect people’s efforts toward more valuable uses of their time, like loving and serving their non-Christian neighbors.

4. Reprogram people when they come in your front door. Almost every prospective church member will ask, “How can we get involved?” For many, this translates as, “What programs do you offer?” So, from the very beginning of your relationship to new folks, help them to reframe their ministry mindset. Encourage them to see their commitment to the church as more basic than their commitment to any program or small group. And encourage them to live out that commitment by regularly attending the church’s public services, building relationships throughout the church, and serving in whatever ways are needed. Encourage them to see church involvement as more about people than programs.

In short, reprogram new people to think in terms of the ministry of the pew, not merely participation in programs.

One good place to have a conversation about this is in a membership interview. When people are about to commit to your church, encourage them to see their church involvement in terms of attendance, prayer, service, giving, and personal relationships. Some of these things may be facilitated by programs, but programs can’t do the work for them.

5. Redirect traffic toward better programs. Not every program deserves an equal share of the spotlight. If you can’t kill a program or significantly reform it, at least you can use public airtime to positively direct people to other ministries that will be more beneficial. You don’t need to say a word against the program—you can just gently direct people’s attention elsewhere.

6. Labor to transform your leaders’ (and potential leaders’) ministry mindset. The most deep and lasting change will come when all of your elders champion and model it. So invest deeply in cultivating a biblical philosophy of ministry in them. And plant lots of seeds in men who have the potential to serve as elders down the line.

I’ve heard Mark Dever recommend that in an effort to develop a “culture of discipling” mindset, a group of church leaders could read and discuss the following four books, in this order: The Gospel Blimp by Joseph Bayly, The Master Plan of Evangelism by Robert Coleman, The Trellis and the Vine Colin Marshall and Tony Payne, and The Deliberate Church by Mark Dever and Paul Alexander. And I’d add Jonathan Leeman’s Reverberation to that list.

7. Build discipleship into everything you do as a pastor. One of the most effective tools you have in this process is your own personal model. So lead by example through faithfully discipling others.

8. Find as many ways as you can to make discipleship a defining feature of your church’s culture. Here are twenty suggestions to get you started.

9. Make membership meaningful. This last one is one of the most important. The clearer the distinction between the church and the world, the more the very existence of your church will help Christians grow in Christ.

Conversely, if you’ve got hundreds of non-attenders on your roles, your church is effectively saying that living like Christ has no bearing whatsoever on being a Christian. And if you’ve got non-members serving and leading, you’re sending the message that committing to and submitting a church is merely one option for Christians.

So make membership meaningful. You’ll find that when your church is full of genuine, committed Christians, the culture of the whole church will begin to change organically.

Narcissistic Evangelism: Telling YOUR STORY is not Evangelism

2012-01-04T04:13:00Z

• Predictions for 2012 from the Patricia King Gang
• Atheist Christopher Hitchens Schools a Liberal Pastrix
• Beth Moore "Exegetes" a Picture She Claims Jesus Put in Her Mind
• Sermon Review "Narcissistic Evangelism" by Tom Skiles SOS Church

---

Please Support This Important Radio Outreach

---

You can email us at talkback@fightingforthefaith.com

Subscribe to this program

The Pinnacle Example of Narcissistic Evangelism

2012-01-05T04:28:00Z

• Email
• Train Wreck of Praise
• Pat Robertson's Revelations for 2012
• Carlos Whittaker Explains How to Have Your Dream Chase You
• Carl Trueman Weighs in Sex Books Like Driscoll's Real Marriage
• The Pinnacle Example of Narcissistic Evangelism by Dr. Ergun Caner

---

Please Support This Important Radio Outreach

---

You can email us at talkback@fightingforthefaith.com

Subscribe to this program

How to Lead an Unbeliever's Funeral

2012-01-06T09:00:57Z

Although I had been in professional ministry (off and on) for 15 years when I moved to rural Vermont in 2009, I had never officiated a funeral. Weddings, yes. Funerals, no. But I was quickly baptized by fire in this small town, and in the last two-plus years as pastor of Middletown Springs Community Church I have lost track of the number of funerals I've either participated in or officiated over. And the majority of those funerals have been for those who did not publicly profess faith in Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins and the receiving of eternal life.

It turns out that even in irreligious New England, where a large percentage of the populace have not set foot in a church building in several decades, and a growing percentage have never set foot in a church building their enter lives, tradition wins out when a loved one dies. You can ignore religion your whole life but never at death. And because I am the pastor of the only Protestant church in our town, I most often receive the call to bless those who mourn.

I have officiated funerals for old men who went out shaking their fist (metaphorically) at God, for middle-aged men well-regarded but without much use for religion, for young men who overdosed and committed suicide. (In God's providence, I have also presided over the funerals of dear saints---all elderly women so far---and I am grateful for the tone of victory that more accompanies these services.) Each of these funerals presents its own unique challenges. As I have preached several funerals for one large family in the last two years, I have even presented the gospel from different angles and from different biblical texts than the customary funeral references.

I am still learning how to do this. I don't believe I have it all figured out. But I have done a lot of thinking through this sort of service and the stakes involved. While I would not say everyone ought to do it the same way, here are some thoughts born from much reflection and continued experience with preaching the funerals of unbelievers.

Presence Before Professionalism

When funeral home directors call to ask about availability to officiate a non-churchgoing family's funeral for a loved one, the last thing I want to be thinking is business as usual. No family wants the pastor they've contacted to treat this aspect of his ministry as the florist does the flowers. Many times they do not know what to ask for and what they expect. So after saying yes to the one making the funeral arrangements, I make contact with a member of the family to let them know I am thinking about them, praying for them, and would like to meet with a representative of the family at their earliest convenience to talk about the service.

Sometimes families don't care to meet with me, and that's okay. But most often I host a relative or two in my office, or I go to their homes to discuss the arrangements. But the first thing we always discuss is the departed. I may ask to see pictures. One particular meeting around a family's kitchen table I could sense was particularly helpful for them, largely because at one point they started reminding each other of funny stories about their son/brother, something I had facilitated but then merely observed. I didn't even say much in that meeting, but afterward they related to church member how impressed they were by my presence and how much it meant to them.

I have sat with the dying in hospitals and funeral homes, sharing the joy of Jesus with them in their final hours. I have counseled feuding family members in my office as they seek to honor their loved one while sorting through animosity long-held with each other. I have held hands at a crime scene and at the morgue while a mother waited to identify her son's body. When a loved one dies, it is not business as usual for their family, so it cannot be business as usual for the minister either.

When possible, I also attend the post-funeral receptions and luncheons. I am introverted by nature, so it's difficult sometimes to strike up conversations with strangers, but I fit in very well in this regard with Vermonters. I'm not expected to be gladhanding and inserting myself into family conversations and sharing. But I have been told that being available has been very helpful. Never underestimate the power of presence. Coming alongside a family, even in silence---sometimes, especially in silence---beats making their needs look like something you're checking off your to-do list.

Nevertheless, there is a sense in which professionalism can be expected, needed, and quite helpful.

Professionalism Can be Pastoral

It is true, brothers, that we are not professionals. But I've learned from visiting with families deep in fresh grief that taking on the burden of planning the funeral service without leaving much up to them can be very comforting. Few have put much forethought into these arrangements. And many families who are not churchgoing don't have much preconception about what a minister does, what a service ought to look like, or what's appropriate to include. I am asked for permission about Scripture readings and reflections quite a bit; despite the irreligious bent of Vermont, there is still respect for and deference to tradition. Families whose mourning takes precedence often defer to me in determining how a service goes.

When I go over a funeral service order with families, many times they simply nod and reply with some variation of "Whatever you think will be fine." I have learned over time that one of the best things I can do for these families is go into "professional mode." As they are handling family and friends coming into town, dealing with all the other goings-on attendant to the loss of a loved one, and just sorting through their own feelings, taking "think about the funeral service" off their plate can be a major relief. And I've noticed how the professionalism of good funeral home directors and morticians can be a calming service in this time as well. Most families just don't know what's supposed to happen, so knowing that the minister does and will take care of it is a blessing.

Proclamation Trumps Presumption

Here is the most sobering aspect of preaching a funeral for an (apparent) unbeliever. Funerals are rife with comforting assurance. "He's in a better place now." "She's up there dancing with Jesus." "He was a good kid, and now he's one of God's angels." When you open up the floor for sharing from those gathered, the result can be a mishmash of pseudo-religious sentimentality, sometimes gritty stories about what a saintly cuss the old curmudgeon was, and sometimes borderline heresy.

When irreligious families who respect religion lose a loved one, they don't wrestle with whether the departed now faces eternal judgment. They assume he's not. He or she was "a good person." My opinion on this custom---and better pastoral minds than mine may and will differ---is that it is the minister's job to relieve them of these assumptions in a circumstantially appropriate way.

No one has ever asked me, "Is my loved one in heaven?" because they all assume he or she is. In these moments I remind myself that I am an invited guest to this family's mourning. It is better to speak my piece about the true gospel and rely on the Spirit to work the logic internally against mourners' assumptions than to directly and personally contradict with a "Well, actually" to people who are sorting out their grief and trying to offer comfort. There is a time for personal correction on these matters, but I am not convinced that time should come in the middle of a funeral service.

At the same time, I cannot shake the reality that none truly knows the way God knows where anyone's eternal destiny lay. Salvation for the thief on the cross is enough precedence for us to remain humble on this point. I believe in deathbed conversions, not because grace is cheap but precisely because it's deep enough to cover a sinful person's long, long life of disobedience. Therefore I have come to the perspective that declining to declare that the departed is in hell is not the same thing as denying the reality of hell.

Proclamation Trusts Providence

Still, the minister's first loyalty is to Jesus Christ, not to any family. I customarily decline payment from unbelieving families for officiating their funerals because I never want to unwittingly bind my message to the dictates of those paying for it.

I have never at any funeral for someone who did not live a life of public faith said anything about him being in heaven, playing a round of golf with God, or the like. It is just as important to avoid false assurance as it is to avoid presumptuous condemnations. Instead, I typically outline briefly what the Bible says about grief, insist from the Scriptures that Jesus himself experienced grief, and then present the biblical storyline of where death comes from, what it means for us still alive, and what it means for us in death. I make sure to say that those who reject Jesus will die eternally while those who repent of their sins and trust Jesus will live eternally, going to heaven when they die and enjoying the new heavens and the new earth on the future day of their own bodily resurrection. (This latter part is quite a hit up here since most people have never heard of the Bible's promise of "life after life after death" in this way, and the notion of a restored earth is very compelling to Vermonters who love the created earth very much already.)

By declining to presume where the departed is but committing to proclaim the eternal realities of any departed person in relation to Jesus, I am throwing myself onto the sovereignty of God who will use his gospel to spiritually awaken his children to desire his Son.

There are other opportunities for ministers who stay in touch with grieving families to more directly and personally share the gospel of Jesus later on, but in the funeral service itself, a clear, concise, unequivocal proclamation of the good news disconnected from presumptuous condemnation of or false assurance about the departed is the wisest course. I will even make note to say that trust in Jesus alone is the only way to heaven, for in these parts a New Age-y kind of pluralism is both prevalent and latent.

These are rules of funeral thumb. They may change given the needs of your context or community, but I believe they present a way faithful to Jesus Christ and the ministry of his Word among unbelievers in the mission field of New England.

Enable Concurrent Remote Desktop Sessions in Windows with This Patch [Remote Desktop]

2012-01-06T17:00:00Z

Windows: The built-in Remote Desktop (RDP) feature in Windows is a convenient way to access your computer remotely, but it's limited to only one user accessing the PC at a time. TechSpot shares this patch to get around that limitation.

Typically, if you were logged in with RDP on a computer, if someone else tried to remote into that computer at the same time, you'd be bumped off. There are a couple of cases where you might want or need simultaneous RDP sessions. You and your partner could both access a home computer's programs and files while at work, for example. Or, as TechSpot suggests, you could have a dedicated Media Center PC in the living room and remotely access all the files on the computer without interrupting someone watching TV.

A Universal Termsrv.dll Patch, provided by a developer who goes by the handle DeepXW, enables this for you. Run the executable as an administrator to install. The patch will backup your original termsrv.dll file in the Windows system directory, but if you want to be cautious, back up the file yourself first.

Enable Concurrent Desktop Sessions in Windows | TechSpot

What You Reeeally Want in a Pastor

2011-12-20T01:39:24Z

There are a lot of things a church should look for in its next pastor. But as your church considers different pastoral candidates, I want to make sure this is toward the top of your list: a supernatural faith in the power of God’s Word.

AS IMPORTANT ANY OTHER QUALITY

I’m not talking about a man who simply checks the belief box on the “authority” or “sufficiency” or “power” of the Bible.

I’m talking about a man who whose conviction here runs so deep that it profoundly influences the way he works and lives. He plans his weekly schedule based on this conviction. He rests his daily mood upon this conviction. He even picks his clothes in the morning knowing that, it’s not how good he looks that will bring life to the dead, it’s the resurrection power of God’s Word and Spirit.

This is as important as any other quality a pastor could have. It’s as important as swimming is to a lifeguard, throwing is to a quarterback, or adding is to an accountant. It defines the very task of what a pastor does.

THE POWER OF THE WORD

Humans create with hands, shovels, and bulldozers. Not God. God creates with words. He says, “Be,” and it is. He says “Peace” to the riotous wind and waves, and they obey. He says “Come forth” to dead people and their eyes pop open.

Just as astonishing, God tells the light to shine in dark hearts, giving them the ability to see the glory of his Son (2 Cor. 4:6). His Word of power saves (Rom. 10:17). It fundamentally changes people (1 Thess. 1:5-7). It gives the new birth (1 Peter 1:23).

Now get this: God gives his faithful servants the ability to do the same things. “If anyone speaks, she should do it as one speaking the very words of God.” (1 Peter 4:11). This is why Don Carson calls preaching “re-revelation.” A preacher’s primary task is to say again what God has already said. Did you think life comes to the dead through the power of our intelligence or humor or charisma?

Picture Ezekiel standing in a valley of dry bones. He preaches God’s Word, God’s Spirit blows, and the bones come to life. Your church wants a pastor who believes—deep in his bones!—that the same supernatural power is available to him. POW! He doesn’t rely on “the weapons of the world” but on “divine power to demolish strongholds” (2 Cor. 10:4). KAZAMM!

WHY THIS IS CRITICAL

Why is this critical for who your church should look for in a pastor search?

It will keep him from manipulating. Paul said he “renounced secret and shameful ways” but instead “set forth the truth plainly” (2 Cor. 4:2). If a man believes that the Word alone is powerful to save, that’s what he’ll do—preach plainly and not try to emotionally manipulate.
It will keep him from building your church and your spiritual life on his personality. Paul wasn’t a “trained speaker” with an impressive resume, like the “super-apostles.” He just preached Jesus, the Spirit, and the gospel (2 Cor. 11:4-5). Likewise, you want a man who is a good steward of his gifts, doesn’t rely on or trust his gifts to give life. He plants and waters, but relies on God to give the growth (1 Cor. 3:6-7). Men who build on their personalities have churches filled with nominal Christians.
It will keep him happy. A man who trusts God to save by his Word and Spirit is a man who can sleep at night, because it doesn’t finally depend on him. This is a happy man who probably has a happy wife and children because he spends time with them. He doesn’t carry the weight of the world on his shoulders. This is a man who won’t burn out as easily and will serve your church for years.
It’s the primary means to your growth and your church’s growth. It’s through the words of the apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers that God’s people become prepared for works of service “so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ” (Eph. 4:11-13).
It’s your best hope of reaching non-Christian neighbors. “Faith comes from hearing the message,” says Paul (Rom. 10:17). Can the message be proclaimed through special programs and events? Of course. But you want a man who recognizes that it’s the regular, weekly “in season, out of season” work of “great patience and careful instruction” that saves the lost and builds up the saints—you want a man who “does the work of an evangelist” (2 Tim. 4:2-5).

HOW CAN YOU TELL?

How do you know if a pastoral candidate has these convictions?

Consider what he’s excited about. Does he make good but secondary things primary?
Ask him about his philosophy of preaching.
Ask him what his last ten sermons were.
Ask what he could imagine preaching in the first year at your church.
Ask about his personal evangelism and personal discipleship of Christians. What role does the Word play?
Look for evidences of patience. A man who believes in the power of God’s Word will be a patient man, not someone who insists on quick, visible results.

This article was originally posted at www.pastorsearchresources.com, and has been reprinted here courtesy of Chris Brauns.

Complementari–what?

2011-12-20T09:00:00Z

Since the fall of humankind, women have been oppressed, marginalized, and abused. Likewise, children have been abandoned, left to die, and treated like a commodity. Men have also suffered but have often been the cause of much of the suffering that women and children endure.

Because life is often tragic for women and children, a biblical understanding of how men are called to relate to them is very important. But often, our ideas of gender roles are confused. There are three main positions in regards to these gender roles: chauvinism, egalitarianism, and complementarianism.

Mars Hill is committed to complementarianism in the home and church. We also believe that men and women are partners in every area of life and ministry together. Though equal, men and women have biblically defined complementary and distinct roles, so that husbands are to lovingly lead their homes like Jesus and only men should serve as pastors in the church. Because of the sinful propensity of humans to distort the biblical concept of complementarianism, it’s important to cultivate a compassionate and kind complementarianism that starts with celebrating Christ’s love for the church. Likewise we encourage men to love their wives and children, and for pastors to lead and serve people sacrificially.

Complementarianism Is Not Chauvinism

Chauvinism is an extreme position and says that men and women have been created in a hierarchy with the male as the higher, superior sex—much like a king born into a family with a natural right to exercise authority over the rest of his nation. Women, in this view, are the weaker or lesser of the sexes, inheriting a natural role of submission to the man—like the citizens of a country who have no natural claim to authority.

The practical implication of chauvinism is that in the family, the church, and society, women are not to exercise authority over men because it is believed they are incapable of doing so by virtue of how God has made them.

This is the assumption of “male privilege,” which is a term that refers generally to the special rights or status granted to men but denied to women in a society on the basis of their gender. This position is wrong because it’s oppressive and abusive, and because it is a misunderstanding of God’s creative intentions for men and women as his image-bearers.

We also believe that men and women are partners in every area of life and ministry together.

Complementarianism Is Not Egalitarianism

A second position is often referred to as egalitarianism. While affirming that God creates men and women equal, some proponents of egalitarianism say that there is no God-ordained structuring of how men and women ought to serve in the church and the home.

The egalitarian position correctly sees God as creating men and women as completely equal persons, both gloriously expressing the image of God. However, some egalitarians argue that there is no difference in how husbands and wives ought to relate to and serve each other. Scripture makes it clear, as we’ll see below, that God ordained a framework in which men and women are to use their gifts and talents in the home and church.

Biblical Complementarianism

What Mars Hill believes about the roles of men and women is called complementarianism. Unlike chauvinism, this view affirms (with the egalitarian position) that God created men and women as equal image-bearers of the Trinity.

Though equal, men and women have biblically defined complementary and distinct roles

While men and women are different, there is nothing inherent in men or women that grants them either authority or submission. However, the Scriptures make clear that God designated that the marriage relationship—patterned after Christ’s own relationship with the church—be one in which the man and the woman each play distinct roles (Eph. 5:22–33; Col. 3:18–20).

In Ephesians 5, the Apostle Paul draws a parallel between marriage and the relationship between Christ and the church. The husband is the head of the wife similar to how Christ is the head of the church, and husbands are to love their wives in the same way that Christ sacrificially gave himself for the church. Paul writes: “[Husbands] let each of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband” (Eph. 5:33).

Leading

Some people have difficulty with the idea of complementarianism because they have either experienced or wrongly assumed that a husband’s leadership is macho domination. But the perfect example of leadership is shown in Christ’s love for his bride, the church. Christ’s relationship to the church is the kind of leadership that sacrificially gives for the good of another. It’s this type of leadership that husbands are intended to model to their wives so their marriages are reflections of Christ’s love for his church. This leadership is in the context of mutual submission to each other in which both husband and wife are “submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ” (Eph. 5:21).

For more on the roles of men and women, check out Pastor Mark Driscoll's recent sermon on the subject.

How to Get Repentance

2011-12-17T20:03:30Z

Charles Spurgeon, Repentance Unto Life:

I have never known a man who has thought upon, and taken a view of the cross, who has not found that it begat "repentance," and begat faith. We look at Jesus Christ if we would be saved, and we then say. "Amazing sacrifice! that Jesus thus died to save sinners."

If you want faith, remember he gives it, if you want repentance, he gives it! if you want everlasting life, he gives it liberally. He can force you to feel your great sin, and cause you to repent by the sight of Calvary's cross, and the sound of the greatest, deepest death shriek, "Eloi! Eloi! lama sabachthani?" "My God! my God! why hast thou forsaken me?"

That will beget "repentance;" it will make you weep and say, "Alas! and did my Saviour bleed; and did my Sovereign die for me?" Then beloved, if you would have "repentance," this is my best advice to you—look to Jesus.

Do Not Give to the Cooperative Program! (Micah Fries)

2011-12-16T17:45:10Z

Do not, under any circumstances, give your money to the Cooperative Program (CP). Seriously. I mean it. To many, I guess, this might seem odd since, Frederick Boulevard, the church I pastor gives 8% of our undesignated receipts through the Cooperative Program. Ahhh, but there is the difference. Giving TO the CP, I think, is something entirely different thing than giving THROUGH the CP.

The CP is undeniably an impressive vehicle to take our church’s money and help disperse it to missions causes all over the US and the world. It really is genius, if you think about it. It allows our church to partner with 40,000 other Southern Baptist churches across the country to support a massive mission enterprise together, without ever being required to give a dime. Lately we have heard much about the need to generate more and more commitment and giving to the CP. The percentage that the average SBC church gives to the CP continues to go down, and today it appears to sit somewhere around 6%, down from 11% in 1927 (see here & here). In response to this declining percentage we hear an increasing volume level from those who would exhort Southern Baptists to give a greater percentage. There are multiple state convention efforts across the SBC to increase CP giving and currently, on the national level, there is a push to ask each church to give an additional 1% towards the CP. While I applaud the desire to see increased CP giving, and I think each of these attempts are well intended, I think our process of encouraging increased giving may ultimately be flawed, and it relates to the distinction I attempted to make at the beginning of the article.

The CP is not our goal. It is not our aim, nor our purpose, as Southern Baptists. We partner together, not to promote and expand the CP. Instead, we partner together for the purpose of advancing the gospel of Jesus Christ among the nations. As such, when I get publications in the mail filled with advertisements asking our church to give at a greater level to the CP I often find the argument to be less than compelling, and I am probably more committed to the CP than the majority of pastors my age. Growing the CP by simply appealing to increased CP giving often sounds like little more than a plea to further facilitate an organizational structure. To be fair, I doubt that anyone thinks they are simply “selling the CP”. I think most assume they are pushing our cooperative mission. However, the message coming across over and over sounds much more like “give to the CP” and much less like “let us do mission together through the CP”.

What is most frustrating to me about this is that it could be entirely different. The CP is enormously important because it is a mechanism which finances one of the greatest Evangelical missionary enterprises the world has ever known. If we understand it rightly, not as the goal of our giving, but as the means through which we finance Kingdom advancing enterprise, the CP is a beautiful thing of genius and I am convinced that many would find themselves more and more committed to it.

So, I am advocating that we talk less about the CP, and more about what the CP is helping to accomplish. State conventions, national entities, SBC Executive Committee, if I could offer a piece of advice, stop appealing to us to give more to the process and start spending more time telling the stories of those whose lives have been radically changed by the power of Gospel – lives which might never have been transformed if it were not for missionary activity financed through the CP.

Giving follows vision. Every time. Without fail. What is more, as Bill Hybels is prone to say; vision leaks. Like a bucket with holes in the bottom, vision is something that we must constantly pour into those we serve. What we need in SBC life is not a refreshed vision for the CP. That will, in my opinion, lead to the continued demise of the CP. Instead we need a refreshed vision for our cooperative efforts to transform the world with the power of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The CP, while a brilliant concept, is not a biblical one. Partnership for gospel advance, however, is a thoroughly biblical concept. The Great Commission Resurgence, which we recently approved as a convention, will not be effective because it helps to generate more emphasis on our structural mechanisms, or our giving streams. It will only be successful if it helps turn our focus more squarely on the task at hand, which in turn will lead to greater commitment to whatever it takes to fulfill that vision (i.e. the CP).

This is why I say that you should not give TO the CP but as a Southern Baptist, you absolutely should give THROUGH the CP. Make no mistake; I am a big fan of the CP. This article is not intended to be derogatory to the CP, but rather to plead for a biblically faithful, and compelling vision that will lead to CP growth. There are precious few things in life worth dying for; even sacrificing for. Funding mechanisms are not among those things that are worth dying for. However, gospel advancing, Kingdom promoting, God exalting mission, financed through a funding mechanism, is always worth sacrificing for.

May we as Southern Baptists not care if we are ever known for having the greatest funding mechanism the world has ever seen. May we instead be known for a radical abandonment to the fulfillment of the Great Commission. A commitment that, in SBC life, is funded through the Cooperative Program. This may seem to be a simplistic alternative, but I am convinced this is the only way to see a revival of commitment to the CP. Stop making the CP our goal. Quit judging faithfulness by one’s commitment to CP giving. The CP cannot be our goal. An ever growing commitment to the advancement of God’s kingdom must be. Drive that point home, and paint the picture of our cooperative efforts to advance Christ’s gospel, and watch as Southern Baptist’s giving follows that vision.

Managing Your Significant Other When Working from Home [Productivity]

2011-12-16T21:00:00Z

Home office veteran David Tate knows a thing or two about working from home without going insane, but there's one management challenge that can be particularly tricky: No matter how sound your relationship, a work-from-home lifestyle can be tough on your significant other. Here's how he handles it.

When you start working from home you have to prepare those around you for the inevitable consequences of this new lifestyle. I'd recommend telling your neighbors, kids, pets, imaginary friend(s), team of personal therapists, and parole officer. Of course, the absolute most important person to prepare is your Significant Other (SO). A lot of people who try working from home give up after about a month and when you ask them why they say "I was driving my SO crazy so she threw a burrito at my face". If you do not properly handle the work from home transition (aka "The Great Move Away From Pants") you will eventually have a burrito thrown at you.

When you start working from home your SO's life is going to change in unexpected ways and they need to be prepared for this shift. The way you communicate, interact, and smell are all going to change in ways that they don't expect.

Why? Because of mismatched expectations about the benefits to their lives. The sad reality is that working from home does not offer many benefits to the significant other. Well maybe you will look at them more and be able to do cool things like eat lunch with them sometimes or do them small favors. But the reality is that telecommuting (i.e. riding your phone to work) has certain realities that lead to other not so pleasant realities for your SO:

Change for you	Consequence for your spouse
You can achieve higher productivity because you don't have to deal with others slowing you down	You are less patient
Less physical interaction with others	Your SO now lives with a slightly crazy person who thinks that eating cereal with eggnog instead of milk is totally normal
Cooler coffee breaks, low key lifestyle	They slowly begin to become jealous of the fact that you get to listen to music/watch Oprah while working
No longer have to shave or get all dressed up	They now live with a person who thinks track suits are a good look
Full-time access to Internet and kitchen	Live with 120% more juvenile and fatter version of you
You are always around	You are 140% more annoying

You can see these realities and mismatched expectations when you announce your transition:

Honey, I'm going to start working from home.

Your SO hears other things:

Sweetheart, I am now available to wait for packages and repairmen for you full-time.

Organic maple syrup, we can now talk on the phone for four hours a day divided up into separate conversations spaced 17 minutes apart even when I'm in the bathroom.

French Toast sticks you can eat on the go, We are going to save $400 a month that we used to spend on gas and soap so feel free to spend that guilt-free by yourself on something that upgrades our lifestyle permanently without chatting with me first.

Peanut Butter M+M Gift Basket, I have achieved more freedom in my life and you should let your jealousy boil slowly like in a rice cooker until it burns our intimacy like if you picked up a rice cooker and it was crazy hot so you dropped it on your head and wow that hurt.

Never-ending pancakes from IHOP, you know how when you call me at work you say I'm sort of a jerk and are different and sound stressed - you now live with that version of me!

The SO Management Plan

You need to make sure that your SO knows what working from home actually is and establish the below ground rules.

You wouldn't like me when I'm working from home but will like what it makes me.

Tell your SO what working from home is: a risky challenge with a high payoff. Working from home is stressful - you have to work much harder at staying in the loop, reading between the lines, networking, and focusing to get things done. Managing the tension of working out of your home - where you used to just relax - is not easy. Let them know that focused/work version of you isn't chill/at home version of you.

You working from home may offer no direct benefit to your SO but does offer massive benefits to both of you.

Working from home successfully is not easy and might not be all roses and free burritos for your spouse, but it does offer them some good overall relational benefits:

When you work from home you are more in control of your environment and schedule thus leading to an overall happier version of you
They no longer have to listen to you complain about co-workers (because cats are not co-workers)
You can, if managed properly, save an amazing amount of money
You can, if managed properly, have free time in the middle of the day to do other things (if you have a typical commute you can gain 10 hours a week to spend with your family, level up in your favorite video game, work on your novel, tweak your karaoke robot - whatever. For those of you doing the math at home with an abacus: 10 hours is more than a typical workday that you gain.)

Separating work from home is a critical component of telecommuting success and is the only one they can help you with

Your SO can't help you communicate effectively, stay organized, stay professional, and get more things done, but they can help you separate working from non-working. There are two common complaints that affect worker and SO: the SO complains that the worker continues working past normal work hours (since the office is right there) and the worker complains of being constantly interrupted by their SO during the day. Both of these common failures are just cases of work and home not being separated aggressively.

How to separate work from home is a separate topic, but the attitude should be that during established work hours you simply aren't there. Any interruption should be run through the filter of "Would you have called me during work for this?". I for one had my SO text me just like she would have if I had been at work - don't knock on the door.

I'd also suggest a month trial run in which you have very hard and fast rules about work hours, communication, and availability so that you set expectations firmly - i.e. as the worker don't be helpful in the beginning. The space this creates allows them to realize that after they leave you alone for a while you are able to establish yourself as a reliable telecommuter that you will be a more relaxed version of yourself.

Being left alone and in charge leads to super-productivity if you are intentional about it, and having more control means more freedom, means more happiness, and will allow the sort of things that they desire. When the Cheetos-dust clears most SOs, when given the choice, prefer a happy slightly crazy/stinky spouse to a clean miserable one.

Photo by Karlova Irina/Shutterstock.

I'm writing a book about successfully working from home; click here if you want to know when it is complete.

Managing Your Significant Other When Working from Home | Certain Extent

David Tate does eat cereal with eggnog and is writing a book about successfully working from home. You can follow him on Twitter, Google+, or signup to hear when the book is complete.

Manna One: Baptist Disaster Relief will AMAZE You

2011-12-17T15:38:07Z