Worry About Your Own Knee!

There is perhaps no more common response when someone learns that I am a runner than "Isn't running bad for your knees?"

The question, typically from non-runners, is particularly amusing because they wouldn't show such care for my knees if I played basketball, football, soccer, or lacrosse--all sports that require a lot of running as well as sudden stopping, turning, and torquing in every possible direction. And in those sports, there are also bone-on-bone collisions, the possibility of being clobbered with a metal stick, or being driven knee-first into the ground.

Amateur runner, Marc Parent, writes about this very issue in his "Newbie Chronicles" in this month's issue of Runner's World. (The specific article is currently only available in print.)

So, the short answer to that question about our knees? Yeah, sure. As Parent explains, "Running is probably bad for your knees if you're, like, 350 pounds and trucking as fast as you can every day in dress shoes over, I dunno, rock for six or seven miles at a time. It's also bad, I guess, if you purposely swing your knees into tree trunks and lampposts as you pass them."

Obviously, Parent is being snarcastic (snarky and sarcastic), but the point is well made. Taking the question more seriously, running on hard surfaces, with bad form, insufficient foot support, etc. could potentially harm your knees. But all of those issues are easily remediable.

The more serious threat to your knees: Not running. Whether running or walking, you are likely taking quite a few steps each day. If you are carrying extra weight from lack of exercise, that will take a toll on your knees. And it's a vicious cycle--the more weight you carry, the more your joints will hurt when you run (or walk), the less you'll run (or walk), and the more weight you will carry.

In a definitive study in 2013, published by the journal Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 90,000 runners and walkers were examined over a twelve year period for signs of leg-related injuries. It turns out that the link between running and knee injuries was totally bogus. Runners, according to the study, had 18 percent lower risk for osteoarthritis and 23 percent lower risk for hip replacement versus walkers.

"Furthermore, the runners who ran the most were at the lowest risk." (Same article by Parent)

The results actually showed the opposite effect--running is good for knee health. Said one expert, "When you use your joint, more of the body's resources get directed to building up and protecting the joint." (Same)

Like everything else, running requires moderation at various points. If you're overweight, don't overdo it. Wait until you get in shape before really ramping up. If you injure a body part, allow it to heal before running on it. If you have a bad ticker, be very cautious about pushing yourself too hard. Buy quality shoes (or gradually learn to run barefoot).

The bottom line: Running is not inherently bad for your knees. In fact, our bodies are uniquely suited, of all creatures, for distance running. If you don't want to run, don't run. But don't blame the supposed toll running takes on joints.

Caging Our Pet Peeves

Not long after I returned from my deployment, someone complained to a colleague about something I did, and that colleague in turn spoke with me about it.

I tried to humbly accept my colleague's gentle rebuke and learn from the experience (I have), but a part of me, deep down, began to grumble. That was my pet, Peeves.

Peeves gets very angry at certain things that others likely aren't aware of. For example, he is cuddly and affection if someone comes to me with their concerns about something, because he is thankful for their honesty and grace for letting me repent of my speech or deed. But if they remain anonymous and complain, or slander, or gossip, he is a bad, bad dog.

When I was an intern in seminary, someone complained to one of the pastors about my congregational prayers. I would often mention in my prayers that we often fail as fathers, being too harsh with our children, as children, by disrespecting our parents, etc. This anonymous congregant was upset because he didn't struggle with these things (liar). Instead of taking the matter to me and talking it out, he told on me, so that I had an uncomfortable conversation and am uncomfortable knowledge that someone out in the pews was gunning for me and I didn't know who.

But this isn't a story of my victimization by anonymous critics, but a story of my responsibility toward my pet, Peeves. Others don't make him angry; he gets angry at others. Our feelings may be valid, but they are still under our control and it is our responsibility to deal with them. My lingering anger about these incidents can never be addressed through confrontation and reconciliation, since they were anonymous--it must be addressed in my heart.

These incidents hurt me because I am defensive by (fallen) nature. I am not meek. In His first two beatitudes in Matthew 5, Jesus calls the poor in spirit and those who mourn blessed. With those first two, I (ironically) feel pretty good about myself. I know that I am a broken mess and grieve over that fact. But then He says "Blessed are the meek," and I am undone. I can tell you how much I suck, but if you tell me how much I suck, I introduce you to my dog.

When someone triggers my pet, it is my responsibility to keep him caged and discipline him into being a better dog. Part of this responsibility includes identifying what makes him snap, and part of this responsibility lies in identifying that he snaps because he gets angry at others, others don't make him angry. I must own my sin and realize that I have a serious struggle with meekness.

And my final responsibility is to take Peeves to the cross. There, I remember that my Savior endured the worst of mankind's mockery, ridicule, and scorn. But He didn't get defensive, saying "How dare you? Who do you think you are? Don't you know I am? Don't you know what I have done and what I will do?" No, like a lamb before its shearers, He remained silent (Is. 53). He endured the lonely road to the cross, scorning the shame, but not the scoffers. When He did open His mouth, it was to bless, not to curse: "Father, forgive them." "Today, you will be with me in paradise." "It is finished." He bore my mockery and yours, and blessed us with His righteousness and life's blood.

Thus, as I wage war against my flesh (Rom. 7), I find comfort and hope in the knowledge that He didn't curse me for my mockery, as I deserved, but became a curse for me (Gal. 3). Now, I am nothing if not blessed. Blessed for Christ's sake and blessed in Christ, my hiding place (Col. 3). I wrestle to comprehend such a love, such undeserved favor, and know that, hid in the Father's love, I can say "Down, boy" to Peeves and get back to work. Jesus didn't just die for me, He died for my Peeves as well.

Reasons To Attend These Seminaries

There is a tendency of Christians of certain theological persuasions to eat their own. They may agree of virtually every issue that arises from God's Word, but what fun is that? So they dive in on what might be considered secondary or even tertiary issues and become petty.

Withstanding that temptation, which particularly affects younger ministers like myself, I would like to commend the following seminaries, with only positive comments about each:

Greenville Theological Seminary. This school is particularly strong when it comes to southern Presbyterianism, from which many of our nation's greatest Reformed theologians arose. You will not lack opportunities to read the likes of Dabney, Thornwell, and even the more obscured theologians of the South, like Benjamin Morgan Palmer.

Reformed Theological Seminary. Between its many campuses in places like Jackson, MS, Orlando, FL, Charlotte, NC, and Washington, DC, RTS boasts a strong line-up of top-notch professors, including particularly strong Old Testament and Church History departments. The DC campus features a bunch of up-and-comers and brings in great theologians from other seminaries for week-long courses to fill in the gaps. The Jackson campus does a lot of work on biblically-based racial reconciliation and the Charlotte campus does a lot of work with the military chaplaincy. On top of all of this, RTS boasts an extensive online curriculum that enables aspiring pastors throughout the world to access superb lectures and further their training for the ministry.

Covenant Theological Seminary. The former president of this institution (which is the "official" seminary of the PCA), Bryan Chappell, was a pioneer of modern, Christ-centered preaching. His legacy of identifying the Fallen Conditional Focus ("FCF") enabled a generation of preachers to home in on the particular struggles of God's people as they sought to faithfully preach Christ crucified from various passages.

Westminster Theological Seminary. This school is the direct descendant of "Old Princeton," the most mighty and faithful of seminaries through much of American history. In a sense, all other Reformed seminaries can trace their lineage to this one (based in Philadelphia). It's faculty is second-to-none, with a wide range of scholars in every field. Their biblical counseling department is particular impressive and influential, providing some of the best, theologically sound material for the sin, suffering, joy, and hope of everyday life.

Westminster Seminary California. I am particularly partial to my alma matter, where a great deal of ecumenicism is displayed by the faculty, which all subscribes to both the Dutch Reformed and Presbyterian confessions. I don't believe that there is a better systematic department out there right now, and there are few better lights on Christ-centered preaching and pastoral ministry than those found at WSC. Every professor is also required to have pastoral experience, lending a shepherding quality to the academic rigor. In addition, the White Horse Inn, a nationally-syndicated radio program founded by one of the WSC professors is one of the great driving forces for the revival of Reformed theology found throughout the Church in America today.

Not What My Hands Have Done

On our last night at this past weekend's Army event, I sent a text to my soldier who has lost a lot of loved ones in the past couple of years. I let him know that I was around if he wanted to talk. A part of me figured that he was probably out at a bar, so it seemed a safe (and selfish) offer to make.

It turns out that he was at a nearby building, drinking with several other soldiers. He invited me over. A part of me didn't want to go--I was enjoying time with my wife and was already dressed down for bed. I also knew that it wouldn't be quality time with that soldier, due to the presence of other, similarly rowdy friends. But in God's providence, I felt the impulse to suck it up, and went.

As expected, it wasn't particularly quality time with that soldier. But for most of the night, I could appreciate the vulnerable ruminations of a room full of slightly inebriated soldiers. They each told me why they knew I cared about them, and why that made me their favorite chaplain. If it was all generalities, I would've just take it all as flattery.

One soldier told me that when I went from soldier to soldier at Ft. Hood and asked a long list of "get to know you" questions, which included religious preference, he knew I cared when he told me "Atheist" and I simply kept working my way through the list. He knew then that my desire to know him wasn't conditional on his faith, but was unconditional.

After this soldier told me this, I reminded him and the others that I do believe what the Bible teaches and that Christ is our only hope for salvation. But I told them that in order to show them how much I care about the cross, I needed them to know how much I cared about them. For example, I cared that this soldier was an atheist, and that he met his wife at Wendy's. I cared that another of these soldiers wanted to be a youth pastor and now disavows anything having to do with the faith. I cared that another one of these guys had hemorrhoids (I was being humorous while showing them that I have listened to them over the past year).

But that general discussion was not the most important of the night. One soldier had mentioned to e that he really needed to talk to me, and he was with us that night. Before I knew it, I was back in deployment-mode, having a heart-to-heart with a broken soldier.

He is tormented by guilt. Ever since he got divorced years ago, he has had his share of girlfriends, often at the same time. I remember telling him a couple of years ago that he was trying to heal his heart through shallow relationships and physical pleasures that would only continue to rot the wound. He needed to get past his Roman Catholic cliches about belief, and truly embrace Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior.

This time he came to me twice the wreck as ever. His best friend over the years (and occasional girlfriend) just died. She had fought off cancer a number of times, but it was something asthma-related that finally took her life. The worst part was how this soldier feel he betrayed this woman. She was constantly supporting him while he was deployed and telling him that she loved him. He reciprocated these words while deployed, but when he returned, knowing he had a regular girlfriend, he broke off contact. This woman continually sent him kind notes, but he brushed them all off. Then she died.

The soldier had barely started telling me these things when tears started flowing. The guilt of his treachery was boring away at his heart. He missed this woman desperately, and also felt incredible guilt for betraying her love in her final months. He kept asking me to tell him what to do. "Please, father. I have to do something for penance. Make me say the "Hail Mary!" I refused.

I told him that there was nothing that he could do that was sufficient to atone for his guilt. That is not to say that I didn't try to offer him a sense of superficial comfort. There was just no act he could do that would atone him in his own eyes or before God. After years of thinking he was only "imperfect," he was coming to the realization that with rest of the broken mass of humanity, he was a traitor against love.

And the religion of his childhood only left him with a God of wrath he couldn't appease. Due to his sin-do penance-absolve guilt method of handling his depravity growing up, he had no room in his heart or mind for grace.

I pressed him over and over to embrace Jesus Christ, who bore the guilt of and penalty due to sinners through the working of the eternal love of God. This man could do nothing. Christ had to do everything. And He did.

He did it for those exposed as traitors against love--who shouted "Crucify Him!" when He had healed many of them of their infirmities. My friends, this is what a works-based theology does--It offers people false comfort that will one day dissipate and leave no hope whatsoever in its wake.

A rich man once came to Jesus and asked Him what He needed to do to have eternal life. He could confidently assert to Jesus that he had fully kept the law (at least externally). But Jesus exposed the idol in his heart: "Give away all you have." The man left downcast.

This soldier kept wanting to know what He could do. You may want to know the same, wherever you are in life. The answer for the rich man, the soldier and for you, is "Nothing." Until you can confess that fact that you can offer nothing and that Christ had to offer everything, you will inevitably leave the discussion downcast. Friends, embrace Christ. What a tremendous thought to know that as we cry out under the weight of our sin, we can hear the words "It is finished" reverberated over and over again, by the hero of heroes, Jesus Christ.

Not what my hands have done
Can save my guilty soul;
Not what my toiling flesh has borne
Can make my spirit whole.
Not what I feel or do
Can give me peace with God;
Not all my prayers and sighs and tears
Can bear my awful load.

Thy work alone, O Christ,
Can ease this weight of sin;
Thy blood alone, O Lamb of God,
Can give me peace within.
Thy love to me, O God,
Not mine, O Lord to thee,
Can rid me of this dark unrest
And set my spirit free.

Thy grace alone, O God,
To me can pardon speak;
Thy pow'r alone, O Son of God,
Can this sore bondage break.
No other work, save thine,
No other blood will do;
No strength, save that which is divine,
Can bear me safely through.

I bless the Christ of God;
I rest on love divine;
And with unfalt'ring lip and heart
I call this Saviour mine.
This cross dispels each doubt;
I bury in his tomb
Each thought of unbelief and fear,
Each ling'ring shade of gloom.

I praise the God of grace;
I trust his truth and might;
He calls me his, I call him mine,
My God, my joy, my light.
'Tis he who saveth me,
And freely pardon gives;
I love because he loveth me,
I live because he lives.

Should Christians Watch Noah? Who cares?

I am often surprised (though I shouldn't be) about how worked up Christians get at certain cultural issues, and often minor ones at that. So, for example, when a movie like Noah comes out in theaters, some believers are prone to identify it as a lost Gospel and swear by it, while others see it as an affront to everything we hold near and dear.

Darrell Bock, New Testament scholar at Dallas Theological Seminary, wrote a wonderful article about this exact issue.

With Bock, I readily affirm the freedom of the conscience with regard to this matter. If watching a movie about something in the Bible offends you, then guard your conscience and don't go. If you are willing to watch such a movie, but only if it accurately sticks to the biblical story line, you might as well save your money. None of them will. God is the editor of the Bible and communicates what is truly important, as is His divine prerogative. In order to create a movie, a human director will inevitably expand the account. That is their prerogative.

I will let you know why I will probably go watch the movie: I am very interested in other peoples' perspectives on Christianity in general and the Bible in particular. I am also very interested in whether people I interact with subscribe to the worldview behind the movie, are intrigued by it, or are opposed to it.

The reason most evangelism really misses the mark is because we are culturally dumb. We often do not understand other worldviews, nor do we care to truly engage them. Nor do we often show much interest in the experiences that either gave rise to a particular worldview or are derived from it. Instead, we ask a clever question to get the ball rolling with a stranger (looking at you, Evangelism Explosion), or we have a pre-packaged set of four spiritual laws that, while beneficial in terms of clarity, can tend to reduce a discussion to carefully constructed talking points. These methods may prove helpful at times, but could also prove to be a hindrance as well.

The Bible instructs us to be "quick to listen and slow to speak" (James 1). Before I will speak about the merits of Noah, I desire to gain greater understanding of the director's worldview and that of those who have watched the movie. The experiences and beliefs of a culture are reflected it its art. Noah will give me valuable information concerning where the culture is on various matters.

Again, I respect and appreciate that Christians strongly disagree with one another on this matter, and again, this is a wonderful example of an area where Christians can exercise their liberty with wisdom to the glory of God.

But before we get fired up about this movie, let us make sure it doesn't evoke more passion than we display about other cultural matters of greater import (i.e., the plight of the unborn). And before we get fired up about cultural matters in general, let us make sure that we still care most about guarding the doctrine of the Church. It is one thing for a Hollywood direct to err about God's Word; It is quite another for doctrinal error to be propounded from the pulpit. Guarding God's Word and its primacy within the Church must always be the most pressing concern of the believer as it pertains to truth in this world.

The Senate Battleground

Liberal number-cruncher, Nate Silver of the New York Times, recently caused an uproar with fellow liberals because he projected that the Republicans would take over the Senate in 2014. More political handicappers are falling in line with the assessment by the day. If the political trends continue unabated, the question will not be if Republicans take the Senate, but by how much.

This latter question is not unimportant, as some of the Senate Republicans who won in the 2010 wave will likely be picked off in 2016 (looking at you, Mark Kirk--IL). Making this assumption, then, means that the Republicans will have to 3-4 extra seats on top of the 6 they need to retake the Senate. Can they do this?

Right now, the Rothenberg Political Report has Republicans gaining 4-8 seats. They stand to pick up three open seats in South Dakota, West Virginia, and Montana, as well as pick off an incumbent (Mark Pryor) in Arkansas. Rothenberg lists Louisiana, where Democratic incumbent, Mary Landrieu, is trying to defend here seat, as a toss-up. He lists two more Democratic incumbents--Mark Begich of Alaska and Kay Hagan of North Carolina--as at risk in the "Lean Democratic" category. Note that these states were all won by Mitt Romney. If Republicans win all of them, they will take 7 seats and win the Senate.

To get visuals of the current breakdown, check out the map at either RealClearPolitics or at Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball. (The Crystal Ball currently predicts Republicans to win 4-8 seats, and their thought-provoking assessment of the current state of the House, Senate, and races for governor can be found here.)

Perhaps the best indicator of election results, as indicated by Silver's article above, is job approval ratings for the President. There tends to be a very strong correlation between these approval ratings and electoral prospects--so much so that forecasting models can be based on this linkage. My favorite political scientist details a model he put together and give approximate number of seats that will be taken over in accordance with the President's approval rating. For a state-by-state assessment of takeover possibilities based on the President's job approval rating, go here.

The bottom line is that if the President's approval rating is at about 43% come Election Day, the Republicans will likely not only retain all of their own seats, but pick up 7-12 seats. (Most polls current have the rating at 42-44%, with a few outliers, putting the average at 43%.)

At this point, then, Democrats would lose approximately 10 seats in the Senate, giving Republicans a 55-45 advantage and a bit of a buffer in 2016. If we divided the pick-up opportunities into tiers (with "Tier 1" being most vulnerable), here's the seats that would flip:

Tier 1: South Dakota (open), West Virginia (open), Montana (open), Arkansas (Pryor)
Tier 2: Louisiana (Landrieu), Alaska (Begich), North Carolina (Hagan)
Tier 3: Michigan (open), Colorado (open)
Tier 4: Iowa (open), New Hampshire (Sheheen)
Tier 5: Virginia (Warner), Minnesota (Franken), Oregon (Merkley)

Republicans would take all Tier 1-3 seats, and one of the Tier 4 seats.

Remember, all of this could change.

For Democrats, the silver-lining comes in the Republicans history of self-sabotage, individually and as a party. Voters could also become less tired of the President and of his signature heath care law. In this case, perhaps the approval numbers inch up to about 46% (where Rasmussen typically has them) and have Democrats have a chance of holding the Senate.

Neither of these possibilities are particularly likely, however. Republicans have done their best recruiting job in years, with few "wild cards" who could really blow an opportunity. At the national level, any more Ted Cruz led filibusters or a possibility of a government shutdown is unlikely. In addition, Presidential approval ratings rarely go up at this juncture. Most voters have made up their mind with regard to whoever is in office, and fatigue begins to set in (hence the general rule that the President's party loses seats in mid-term elections).

If the approval ratings change, it will likely be for the worst. A number of polls already have the rating at 40-42%. If the economy continues to stagnate, the health care continues to show more dysfunction than success, or we appear to look weaker and less safe on the global stage, the tide could swell. In that case, both Tier 4 seats will likely go, as well as 1-2 Tier 5 seats, giving the Republicans a very strong firewall come 2016.

At this stage, I think both the rosy scenario for Democrats and a possible utter collapse are both unlikely. In line with the current numbers, I would currently guess that Republicans would take between 8-10 seats and have a decent change of holding the majority in 2016.