Devlin, Sundance and Kids.

The news for the past two weeks has been full of headlines involving children. We heard the miraculous news of the recovery of two kidnapped boys followed by the not-so-miraculous news of a child rape scene in a movie shown at the Sundance Film Festival.

In the first case, the exhilaration of finding the two kidnapped boys alive quickly gave way to speculation on the failure of Shawn Hornbeck to escape from his captor, Mike Devlin, despite apparently numerous opportunities. I can't imagine how the boys would feel if they saw themselves on TV being criticized for not running away if they had the chance. Can't we agree that it is highly likely that they were under some form of duress; threats of harm to themselves or their families? At the very least shouldn't we be compelled to give these children the benefit of the doubt that all is not what it seems to be from an adult perspective? Maybe something else is at work here. Perhaps the 24 hour news cycle is driving some decision-making in our country's newsrooms.

In the second case, there is a scene in a movie starring child actress Dakota Fanning alluding to the fact that she is being raped. The phrase 'alluding to' is intentional as the scene was partially described on the radio during a review show that I was listening to on my drive home. What really got me thinking was the editorial content of the show responding to the negative reation by so-called "conservative groups" on the movie's content. The Host said, "How can anyone criticize a movie that they haven't even seen?". The response from the critic, "Exactly. And this stuff REALLY happens.". As for the Host's remark, I don't think that it is necessary to actually see something to know that it is inherently evil. Can any of us actually see what lurks in the hearts of men? No, but evil it can surely be. And for the Critic's remark, we are all aware that this stuff really happens. And if the point of the remark was that by showing the scene, the revulsion would deter this behavor, I sincerely hope that this was the intention. In our world, I believe it is far, far more likely that the scene was either a publicity-seeking gambit or - may it not be so - catering to the segment of our society drawn to pedophilia. In either case, it again seems that an adult motive is at work, soundly quashing any regard for the child actress.

Can we stem the tide of pushing the adult world into our children's world? Using an analogy in our high tech lives, I believe we need to build a firewall to protect the innocence and wonder of childhood. Their minds are so fragile. They do not have the time and experience aquired in a lifetime by adults for reasoning or for developing any of our defensive and coping mechanisms. I do not think it was an accident that God chose to bring Christ into this world as an infant. It must have been a part of His plan to allow Christ to fully understand the journey that each one of us takes in determing our path between good and evil. May it always be so that each one of our children can develop free from the cares of the adult world.

The Florida Gators...

won the college football National Championship last night. As much I don't care for the Gator chomp, program or teams I thought Billy Donovan, Florida's basketball coach, said something very telling as part of a motivational speech he gave to the football team. Billy Donovan's credibility is at an all-time high after coaching the basketball gators to its own National Championship this past April. He said, " The ingredients to winning don't change. It stays the same" He continued, "What changes are the people. People change. The focus changes. People's commitments change. Their accountabilities change. But the ingredients to win are the same ingredients now as they were 50 years ago."

The stability of those ingredients for winning, I believe, are similar to the winning strategy in evangelism. Love never fails. 1 Cor. 13.8. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever. Hebrews 13.8 Why would I adopt any non-100% success rate strategy?

Selling, Marketing and Evangelism

As I embark on the New Year I have been looking at just how results oriented the message of Jesus is. Trees producing fruit, servants managing money, soil producing a crop are just a few examples of how concerned God is with the bottom line. "I knew you were a hard man," says the servant that hid his money in the ground, "You reap where you have not sown and you gather where you have not scattered."

I had an interesting conversation about this the other day when considering strategies for evangelism. Admittedly when talking about selling, marketing or any other kind of results oriented strategies, it sounds shallow or even crude when correlating it with sharing the gospel message. However, when it comes to results or "winning" as the case may be, God is all about it. In the description of love found in 1 Cor. 13, before we are told how love is patient, kind, and forgiving, God tells us through Paul that He doesn't care what we know, believe or do if it is not accompanied by an attitude of love which He then carefully defines for us. I think the pinnacle of what God is trying to tell us comes in verse 8 as it reads, "Love never fails."

Why does God want us to adopt a life of love, a strategy of love, to walk in love? I think it is for the most simple reason available. Love wins. Love succeeds. Love never loses. Love gets the results God wants. Vince Lombardi is quoted as saying, "Winning isn't everything. It's the only thing." I think God subscribes to that philosophy when it comes to relationships among people. If someone were to suggest a DIFFERENT strategy, shouldn't I want to know if that suggested strategy EVER fails. If it doesn't have a 100% success ratio, why would I even consider trying it when God has given me a failproof method. You could take medicine A which has been proven to cure you 100% of the time or you can take medicine B which has been proven to cure you 95% of the time and to kill you only 5% of the time. Who would even consider medicine B?

Now if we look at how Love is defined by society we might consider the song by the Rolling Stones, "Love Stinks." The song by Nazareth, "Love Hurts" A line in "Love Hurts" is "I know it isn't true, Love is just a LIE made to make you blue." Then the song by Don Henley and Patti Smyth warns that "there's a danger in loving somebody too much," because "sometimes love just ain't enough." When love is REDEFINED as a burning desire within ourselves that must be fulfilled, love will be devalued to represent selfish desire, lust and justification for sexual immorality. It is then that those songs become true about love as it has been redefined by society.

Do I want to redefine love as something it is not and then complain to God when my version of love FAILS? This kind of love is nothing close to the unfailing, invincible, winning love that God has defined for us in His word. In the end, if I am doing this, I must admit that there isn't a problem with love, there is a problem with... me. If I am really wanting to win, won't I use love as the Ace of Spades trump card that it is in my life. The problem with trying to use love selfishly is that love is not selfish. I can't use love ruthlessly because love is not ruthless. I wonder if God is serious about wanting me to love others as HE has specifically defined love? I believe He is eternally serious about it.