Like Button

Monday, March 18, 2024

The Dichotomy of Justice and Mercy

According to Kant, morality is based on the objective reality of justice. That is, if ultimate justice does not exist, people are free to do whatever they can get away with. Thus, for any genuine morality to exist, there must be a Just God who will ultimately bring about ultimate justice. And there is. Paul told the Athenians that God "will judge the world in righteousness" (Acts 17:31). Abraham was equally certain. "Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?" (Gen 18:25). Absolutely. But ... we also know that God is merciful. Huh. Now we have a problem. You see, "mercy" is defined as not receiving the punishment you justly deserve. Mercy and justice are in opposition. Rationally, then, God can be either just or merciful, but not both. And, yet, we know He is. So how do we deal with this dichotomy?

This whole problem was managed by God when He sent His Son. "But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" (Rom 5:8). We are sinners, justly deserving God's wrath (Rom 1:18-32), and God sent His Son to die for us. He didn't ignore justice; He fulfilled it. His Son was "a propitiation in His blood" (Rom 3:25) -- the appeasement of God's wrath -- allowing God to "be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus" (Rom 3:26). In His death, Jesus "canceled out the certificate of debt ... having nailed it to the cross" (Col 2:14). Justice was met when the sinless Son of God paid the price for the sin of those who would come by faith. Justice ... and mercy.

Now, we are told we're supposed to forgive others (Matt 6:14-15; Luke 17:3-4). Isn't that an abrogation of justice? Aren't we suffering, then, from the same dichotomy God did? Paul wrote, "Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you" (Eph 4:32). Yes, we are to forgive, but how? "As God in Christ also has forgiven you." How did He do that? He met the demands of justice and passed the benefit of forgiveness on to us. In the same way, Scripture says, we can forgive not because we are eliminating justice, but because we understand that justice is not met by us, but by God. We are told, "'Vengeance is mine, I will repay,' says the Lord" (Rom 12:19). That is, we can set aside justice and forgive because we're leaving the justice in God's hands. We can forgive, not because the offense is too meager, but because we've been forgiven so much by God (Matt 18:21-35). We don't forgive to avoid justice. We forgive because we deserve punishment and Jesus took it, so we can pass on imposing penalties and allow God to handle it. God doesn't forgive by tossing out justice. Neither do we. We forgive by trusting God to do what's right.

Sunday, March 17, 2024

Theology Proper

There's a song from a Christian group, Petra, that tells us to "Lift Him up higher and higher" and assures us "It doesn't take much theology. Just lift Him up so the world can see." No offense to Petra, but there's a problem here. The word, "theology," essentially refers to the study of God. The dictionary alco includes "religious belief," but theology proper is best understood as the study of God. So, if we are to "lift Him up ... so the world can see" without having theology -- knowledge of God -- isn't that going to be difficult?

It has been (rightly) pointed out that the believer's aim is not to know about God, but to know God. We call it a "personal relationship." Knowing about your spouse is not the same thing as knowing your spouse. I know about George Washington, but I've never met the man and have no relationship with him. In that sense, then, it would seem that theology is knowing more about God than knowing God. But, like the old dichotomy, "Quality time is more important than quantity," it seems tacitly obvious that the more you know about God, the more you can know God. Quality time is important, but you never know when that will happen, so quantity is the best way to get quality. In the same way, knowing God is the aim, but you can't really know Him if you don't know about Him. So theology is important.

In truth, we are all theologians. Some are diligent and some are haphazard. Some make stuff up and some have good sources. Some are purely academic and some are passionate. But all of us form views of God, and that makes us all theologians. Therefore, if we are indeed to "lift Him up" for the world to see (and we are supposed to do that), I would think it would be of particular urgency to us to know Him, and part of that must include knowing about Him. No, we don't all need to go to seminary for formal theology classes, but we all should be digging into God's Word to learn what God says ... about God. Because the more we love Him, the more we will want to know Him, and the more we know Him, the more we will love Him. And, look around. There is nothing our world needs right now more than a clear image of the God we serve.

Saturday, March 16, 2024

News Weakly - 3/16/24

Next Generation
There is a report out that the Houthis in Yemen have acquired hypersonic missiles. These are "next generation" weapons -- top of the line. So, when the Houthis decide to use such weapons, are they ready to be ushered into the "next generation" warfare? You know ... really massive mass destruction, like nuclear weapons or other, non-nuclear weapons that yield devastation. Of course, given today's mindset, the obvious answer is, "No, those who currently possess such weapons are unlikely to use them because someone might get hurt." A world of paper tigers ruled by Islamic extremists, then.

Breaking ... Yawn ... News
I know, I know ... this isn't really "news" as in "Wow, I didn't see that coming!" Both Biden and Trump have already won their party's nomination. (It feels like the story out of Moscow of Putin running with no opposition.) Some states haven't even voted yet. But when I saw my primary ballot and it included some 10 names, only one of which was running anymore, I knew it was a foregone conclusion. And so with Biden. Once again America offers its best candidates ... somewhere else, because they aren't going to be on our ballots come November.

After All ...
Vice President Harris visited a Planned Parenthood clinic in Minnesota as part of the Biden administration efforts to urge the expansion of the murder of unborn babies ahead of the election. After all, if the government can't encourage killing the most defenseless humans, who can they kill?

Connecting
Social media is a good way for young people in particular to connect. Like in Massachusetts where six 8th-graders chatted online into the wee hours of the morning with "hateful and racist comments" and aims of violence, racial slurs, derogatory images, and a mock slave auction. So where am I to look in that story? Where were their parents? Why was that "okay" in the minds of these kids? How did children so young become so hateful? At what point does speech without action become criminal? Makes you really think highly of social media, doesn't it?

Got to Beelieve
Boeing has announced that it has managed to fix a malfunctioning whistleblower. (Actual story). In a related story, a group of terrorists decided not to hijack a plane when they discovered it was a Boeing. As luck would have it. And from the UK comes this heart-rending story of millions of British kids being forced to live normal happy lives as the government bans puberty blockers. Oh, the humanity!

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

Friday, March 15, 2024

Total Depravity

Maybe you've heard of it. "Calvinism" is often thought of in terms of "TULIP," an acronym designed to be a memory tool to explain the "Five Points of Calvinism" (which, actually, weren't in play when Calvin was alive). I have always disliked the acronym (not the doctrines -- the acronym) because they are so misleading.

Take, for instance, the "T" of TULIP -- Total Depravity. What is that? Well, clearly, from the term, we understand that all human beings are as bad as they can possibly be. I mean, "total," right? Well, no. Every time I hear a proponent make the argument, they say the opposite: "That doesn't mean we're as bad as we can possibly be." So, if the term doesn't match the point, why use it? What is the point? According to Scripture, Natural Man is born in sin. So, how bad is it? "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one" (Rom 3:10-12). Genesis described people as "only evil continually" (Gen 6:5) before the Flood and says after, "The intention of man's heart is evil from his youth" (Gen 8:21). The Psalms say things like "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me" (Psa 51:5) and "The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth, speaking lies" (Psa 58:3). In the New Testament, it says, "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom 3:23) and "You were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience" (Eph 2:1-2) and "For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot" (Rom 8:7). We read, "The god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers" (2 Cor 4:4) and "The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Cor 2:14). Does all of this require that all human beings are as bad as they can possibly be? Not at all. Don't worry! We can all get much worse.

"Total Depravity" doesn't really express the notion. Biblically, human beings are natural-born sinners. We cannot fail to sin. We are naturally hostile to God, spiritually dead, sinners from our mothers' wombs. We all fail to do good in our natural state. One writer wrote, "There's a worm in everything." That's the idea. Sin touches every part of the natural human being, making him a sinner and, worse, actually hostile to God. So, perhaps "Total Depravity" doesn't get it across right. I need a better term, but I'd have to jettison Scripture if I wanted to argue that we're not all that bad.

Thursday, March 14, 2024

Pointing Fingers

Before I start this, I need to begin with a disclaimer. I'm not writing to make anyone feel shame or guilt. Writing to believers here, those have no real value if we're actually forgiven, right? Besides, there is not one of us who does not sin, who does not fall short. I'm pointing a finger, but I've got three pointing back at me, so this isn't a shame fest. I'm hoping to point out something that you may not have been considering as you seek to follow Christ. Oh, and one piece of good news. This is only for the married readers. You singles are off the hook today.

Scripture makes some blatant commands to married Christians. They are so blatant and so jarring that many try to modify them and obliterate them in the process. Husbands and wives have specific, clear commands in how they are to relate to one another. To wives (and not to husbands, even though many Christian husbands think it's their job to enforce) the command is "Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord" (Eph 5:22). Not difficult to understand, but very difficult to do. "Me? Submit to him? He doesn't know enough to come in out of the rain." Would a believing wife dare to say that about God? Yet, the command is clear. Submit to him as you are to submit to God. Husbands, the command isn't vague. "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her" (Eph 5:25). That's not "feel warmly toward her." It's not "be willing to die for her." That's "give self up for her." Again, the command is clear. Again, it is very difficult to do, since the natural human functions primarily on "getting what I need and want" and this command says to give self up.

So, what I'd like you wives to ask yourself is "Does that describe me? Do I submit to my husband as I submit to the Lord?" Perhaps "as I submit to the Lord" isn't the best question. "As I'm supposed to submit to God?" might be better. Because I've met very few genuine, Bible-believing, Christ-following wives who actually submit to their husbands in that way. Husbands, ask yourself your corresponding question. "Do I love my wife without regard for my wants and needs? Do I sacrifice my self for her? Am I first place, or is she?" Because I've met very few Christian husbands who are even aware that this is what is expected of them, let alone practicing it. Again, as a husband, I'm constantly having to ask myself those "husband" questions and find myself wanting, so I'm not trying to bring on a guilt trip. But if you are a Christian and seek to be obedient to the Lord, you -- husbands and wives -- might want to look at this very clear and sadly lacking area.

Wednesday, March 13, 2024

America in Romans

In Paul's epistle to the church at Rome, he presents the gospel. It is, he says, "the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes" (Rom 1:16). "In it," he goes on to say, "the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith" (Rom 1:17). So, how is the righteousness of God revealed in the gospel? Easy, "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth" (Rom 1:18). Wait ... what? The gospel reveals the righteousness of God because it shows God's wrath? Well, yes. Paul says that God's wrath is (righteously) revealed against "all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men." That is, in their relations with God ("ungodliness") and their relations with men ("unrighteousness"), humans make God angry. How? By their suppression of the truth in their sin. So Paul sets out to explain the problem.

According to the text, God made His attributes abundantly clear to humankind as seen in nature (Rom 1:19-20). They rejected Him. Hang on ... follow the logic here. The problem is not with God; the problem is with humans. The problem is that "although they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks to Him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened" (Rom 1:21). So we're here at the baseline problem. Refusing to acknowledge God, humans obtain futile thinking and darkened hearts. That's the beginning. From there it gets worse. Interestingly, from there it could be a description of America in the last 60 years or so. First, God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts (Rom 1:24). In America, the decade of the '60's was what is commonly called "the Sexual Revolution." "Follow your lusts. If it feels good, do it. We don't really care about God; we're cutting loose and indulging our desires." They substituted the creature for the Creator and served themselves (Rom 1:25). So God took the next logical step. "God gave them up to dishonorable passions" (Rom 1:26). What dishonorable passions, specifically? Women exchanged "natural relations" and men gave up "natural relations with women" and homosexual behavior became the norm (Rom 1:26-27). As in America. The LGB-alphabet-soup started and expanded. Marriage was torpedoed in favor of "same-sex mirage," an undefining of the recognized, longstanding, traditional definition of marriage. Sexual mores deteriorated until "anything goes." But the text didn't stop there. "And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done" (Rom 1:28). "A debased mind." The Greek is ἀδόκιμος -- adokimos. Literally, it is "not approved, not passing the test, rejected." How did that look in our recent history? This insanity is most clearly seen -- following the line from the Sexual Revolution to the Homosexual Revolution to this point -- in the "T" of LGBT. It is in the largely embraced notion that a girl can be a guy and a guy can be a girl. It is in the total rejection of biblical truth and even biology with "I feel" for truth. Paul offers a whole list of illustrations (Rom 1:29-32) that we live with today, but the idea that "gender affirming" means "rejecting your biological reality" is the clearest, latest example of a mind that has rejected truth.

Now, hold on. Before you get your knickers in a twist, think about what this means. This means that a campaign of Christians to make transgenders biologically sound or homosexuals into heterosexuals or the sexually immoral into good little boys and girls misses the point. The idea that the problem is these behaviors misses the biblical problem. It is not behavior at all. It is rooted first and foremost in the rejection of God. So if we want to be helpful to sinners (like us), we don't do it by beating them over the head or trying to stuff them into "conversion therapy" like they're smokers we want to fix. We need to give them Jesus. We need to show we're followers of Christ by our love and we need to make disciples. We don't do that by embracing their errors, but we also don't do it by passing laws that lock them up. We do it by the power of the Spirit giving them the good news (gospel) that there is salvation from God for all who believe. We live lives reflecting Christ and share the message that all have sinned (including us), but we can be justified by God's grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus (Rom 3:23-26). Ultimately, we do it by being what God calls us to be -- lights in the darkness -- and giving them the gospel. Not psychology. Not programs. Not righteous indignation. Jesus.

Tuesday, March 12, 2024

Why Do Bad Things Happen to Good People?

I was looking over the story of Lazarus's resurrection and saw something interesting. I heard some people discussing why Jesus wept. "It was likely," one said, "that the humanity of Jesus was caught off guard by the death of His friend." Instead, I see something else. I see purpose ... in the death of His friend.

The story has Jesus hanging around in Jerusalem (John 10:22-23) when He got word from Mary and Martha, "Lord, behold, he whom You love is sick" (John 11:3). So, in His great concern for His dear friend ... He stayed on for two more days (John 11:6). Why? He says why. "This sickness is not to end in death, but for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified by it" (John 11:4). It was a plan. He knew what He was doing and it was a good thing. When He determined Lazarus had died (John 11:11), then He set out to Bethany. Why? "Lazarus is dead, and I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, so that you may believe; but let us go to him" (John 11:14-15). Lazarus's death wasn't an unfortunate event. It wasn't a mistake, an error, a tragedy. At least, not in Jesus's terms. It was ... a plan. A plan to glorify the Son of God and a plan to cause His disciples (and more) to believe. No one would have guessed it. Mary and Martha were miffed. "Lord, if You had been here, my brother would not have died" (John 11:21, 32). Jesus told them plainly that Lazarus would live, but they didn't believe. So Jesus went to the grave ... and wept (John 11:35). Why? To show that we can weep with those who weep (Rom 12:15). For the tragedy of unbelief. For the tragedy of sin and its consquence -- death. For those who were mourning when they needn't mourn. But not for the death of Lazarus. Jesus was the remedy, already in place (John 11:25-26).

When we encounter tragedies of this sort or others, how do we respond? Do we thank God that He is the resurrection? Do we rejoice that He is working out His plans, that He is bringing about His will on earth as He does in heaven? Do we wait and wonder, "What wonderous good is God doing here?" Because it makes no sense to complain about it. God never fails. He never causes pain without a good reason. He never does what's wrong. Why do bad things happen to good people? To increase our faith. To glorify God. For all sorts of good things God is doing at that very moment. It's just hard to remember when we are one of those with little faith.

Monday, March 11, 2024

Free Radicals

You've certainly heard of free radicals, even if you don't know what they are. In medical science, they are a byproduct of the metabolic processes of the body that form unstable molecules that can damage cells and tissues. So they tell us to eat differently so we will be safe. All well and good, but I'd like to suggest a different version of the "free radical." I call it "a Christian."

Christianity is a truly radical faith. It calls on humans who are, by nature, self-centered, to surrender self. It calls on sinners (by nature) to be born again. Even "born again" is a radical concept. Nicodemus heard it and asked (quite understandably), "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he?" (John 3:2). A radical concept. Christianity calls for repentance from stubborn people and faith in opposition to popular ideas. It calls for rejoicing in tribulation and for sacrificial giving, even to enemies, because we're supposed to trust God to supply our needs. It is the only actual religion of peace (Rom 5:1) and love (John 13:35; 1 John 4:7-8). It is not premised on the believer's works or abilities, but on the Son of God who gave His life for us. It is fundamentally built on Christ, who lived a perfect life (the only one ever), willingly died for sins He never committed, and rose again (1 Cor 15:3-4). And that's just a brief sampling. In every way, Christianity is radical and calls for its adherents to live radical lives.

While most other people are pursuing comfort and pleasure and getting along with everyone else, Christians pursue ... Christ. Christ who promised that we would be hated as He was hated and that that was a good thing (John 15:19). We are to be "not of the world." The only truly free people -- free in Christ -- these radicals are not detrimental, but beneficial to all those around. That is, if we're living the Christ-like life we're supposed to. Are you a free radical?

Sunday, March 10, 2024

Not of Works

We know, beyond doubt, that we are not saved by good works. Unlike every other religion on the planet, we don't get into heaven by being good ... or "good enough." Paul is explicit.
For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. (Eph 2:8-9)
We are not saved on the basis of our works. God "has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity" (2 Tim 1:9). There are those who would argue, then, that works have nothing to do with it. All the moral behavior that Christians are typically heard to call for is meaningless. If we're not saved by works, then what we do doesn't matter ... right?

If that makes sense to you, perhaps you should look at the verse that follows Ephesians 2:8-9. "For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them" (Eph 2:10). Interesting, isn't it? After explicitly eliminating works as a basis for salvation, Paul reinserts works as a necessary outcome. We are saved apart from our works "according to His own purpose." What purpose? We are "created in Christ Jesus for good works." What's the difference? Well, first, natural man lacks the ability to perform the good that God intends (Rom 3:12). Second, believers, born of God, aren't doing the good works on their own. They are works "which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them." We do them because "it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure" (Php 2:13). We are purposed and powered by God. As such, our good works glorify God (Matt 5:16). According to James, faith without works is dead faith (James 2:17). We are not saved by works, but the good works that God produces in us once are saved are proof of life, so to speak.

It's interesting, then, to see this juxtaposition in Paul's letter to Titus. He explained that we were all sinners, but "He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit" (Titus 3:5). Okay, we got it. Not saved by our works. But he went on to say that Titus should lead believers to "be careful to engage in good deeds" (Titus 3:8). He even says, "These things are good and profitable for men" (Titus 3:8). It's good for us to do good. And there is a last piece tossed in here in Paul's letter to Titus. "Our people must also learn to engage in good deeds to meet pressing needs, so that they will not be unfruitful" (Titus 3:14). Good deeds should aim at meeting pressing needs. Not felt needs. Not desires. Pressing needs. Doing this, he says, makes your life fruitful. As Jesus told His listeners, "Go and do the same" (Luke 10:37).

Saturday, March 09, 2024

News Weakly - 3/9/24

Values Clarification
Google stepped into the AI arena and tripped over their "woke" feet. The AI produced images of black vikings, an Asian woman in German WWII military uniform, and a female pope. The AI was unable to produce an image of a white person. This only goes to illustrate my concern over AI. What worldview will AI use in its interactions and activities? I can guarantee it won't be a Christian worldview. It will, naturally, be the worldview of the programmer(s). We've wrestled with the problem of "Whose values will we use in our society?" and AI takes that out of our hands.

That's Gotta Hurt
The Supreme Court ruled that Colorado (etc.) cannot remove Trump from the ballot because of the January 6 riot. It was a close vote -- no dissents. They said states don't get to make that ruling. That had to hurt all those Trump-haters out there.

No Surprise
No real surprise here. Nikki Haley dropped out of the race for Republican nominee for president. The writing was on the wall all along. More surprising that she stayed in so long. But, look, she said she was no longer bound to her promise to endorse Trump if he won (and she hasn't). If she can't be trusted to keep her promises, why would we expect better of her in the White House?

A Threat to Democracy
Katie Porter is a Democrat who was running in California's Senate primary. She lost. She's quite sure the race was "rigged" -- a looney conspiracy nut and a genuine threat to democracy ... if we believe the popular accusations these days. (Unless, of course, you're a Democrat and believe that their concerns about "rigged elections" are valid and it's just the GOP that is a problem.)

State of the Union
The president gave the annual State of the Union address. He opposed those who question his record, opposed Republicans who opposed his administration in favor of protecting babies, the border, etc. He pushed for more baby killing and defended his positions on Israel and Ukraine. And then said, "I see a country for all Americans" except, apparently, those who oppose him. I saw nothing new, but it does make me wonder how long we can continue to call this a "Union" given the ever-increasing divide between "sides."

Killing with Kindness
Some nations have been airdropping aid in Gaza to try to ease the humanitarian crisis. Friday, 5 people died of this kindness. A parachute failed to open and it fell on people in a refugee camp. Now, that's sad ... and embarrassing. They're already asking for a ceasefire ... from friends.

A Real Bee-ting
After Super Tuesday, Biden congratulated his opponent on a hard-fought primary race. You know that Nikki Haley got wealthy off Raytheon, so it is clear why Raytheon lowered their flag to half-staff after she dropped out. The State of the Union address was a "target-rich environment" for the Bee. There was a story of how dementia meds met their match, how Biden opened with a "hello" to Dianne Feinstein, and a story about how DC-area pharmacies were all out of stimulants, to name a few.

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

Friday, March 08, 2024

Exclusivity

For some time now our culture has pushed hard for "inclusivity." They've done it largely with a double standard, of course. They push for inclusivity by excluding others who were once included. But we're all pretty sure that inclusivity, in general, is a good idea. That, I suspect, is part of the reason that we are so offended by explicit exclusivity. What exclusivity is that? Jesus said, "No one comes to the Father but through Me" (John 14:6). "Wait!" we complain. "No one? You're saying You are the exclusive way to God? Isn't that exclusive?" Yes ... yes it is.

It has long been this exclusivity of Christ and, therefore, His followers that has rubbed so many people the wrong way. "You're saying that Jesus is the only way?" No, we're not. He did. We're just agreeing with Him. From the beginning, God has been exclusive. Only His way. Only His people. "YHWH is God; there is no other besides Him" (Deut 4:35; Isa 45:5-6). Clear into the New testament, where Peter (filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 4:8)) preached, "There is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12). While the rest of the world wants us to believe "All roads lead to Rome," God says, "One way and one way only." In our religiously pluralistic society where all religions are "protected," we have to stand here and say, "Only one." Indeed, so clear it is that, if it is true that all religions are equally true, one religion would absolutely be false -- Christianity.

This is why it is critical that we tell people about Jesus. It is essential that we tell them about the need for faith in Christ. It is absolutely necessary that we don't compromise. Souls are at stake. They need Jesus because there is no other way. A very exclusive religion founded on the words of the One who made the claim to exclusivity. It's not a popular message, but to ignore it is to ignore the One we claim to be following.

Thursday, March 07, 2024

Common Ground

In Paul's letter to Titus in Crete, he tells Titus about the job Titus was assigned -- to "set in order what remains" (Titus 1:5) -- and gives him instructions on what that entails. That included appointing elders (Titus 1:5-9) and silencing false teachers (Titus 1:10-11), teaching believers how to behave among themselves (Titus 2:1-10) and toward unbelievers (Titus 3:1-2). Of particular interest is that section on how believers should behave toward unbelievers.

Paul instructed him to remind them (thus, to remind us) to be subject to authorities and to be ready for every good deed (Titus 3:1). We should malign no one and not go looking for fights (a very difficult thing in today's Internet and social media world), but be gentle and show consideration for all people (Titus 3:2). What's interesting here is why. Why should we avoid disputing and show consideration for all? "For we also once were foolish ourselves, disobedient, deceived, enslaved to various lusts and pleasures, spending our life in malice and envy, hateful, hating one another" (Titus 3:3). Paul says we were all what they are. Righteous indignation is not called for here; compassion is. They don't need correction; they need Jesus. The difference between us and them is not that we got better, but that, "when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior" (Tit 3:4-6). We aren't better. We aren't simply on the higher moral ground. We were graciously saved from what we were by the kindness and love of God. As such, we ought to show them the same.

Paul goes on to say that Titus should "speak confidently, so that those who have believed God will be careful to engage in good deeds. These things are good and profitable for men" (Titus 3:8). We don't need to correct the world. We aren't called to correct the world. We are called to engage in good deeds, to let our lights shine in such a way that they may see our good works and glorify our Father (Matt 5:16). We are told to love -- sacrificially -- and not beat them about the head and shoulders until they surrender. Our job is not to fix their misguided morality, but to live exempliary lives of compassion to show them what God is offering. Why? Because we've been there. Because we have common ground. Because we, too, are sinners, but we are saved by God's grace and love. And they can have that, too.

Wednesday, March 06, 2024

Husbandry

The English language has this word in its arsenal: husbandry. You can go to college and get a degree in it. It is defined as "the cultivation or production of plants or animals." It also includes the notion of "the control or judicious use of resources." There is no discernable connection between "husbandry" and "husband" in our current English usage. But ... there should be.

The biblical role of the husband (which is definitely distinct from society's version) is clear. Marriage is defined as the lifelong union of a man and a woman (Gen 2:24) for purposes of procreation (Gen 1:22) and mutual support (Gen 2:18). In that relationship, God ordained that the man is the head of a woman (1 Cor 11:3). Thus, in the function of mutual submission (Eph 5:21), wives are subject to their husbands as to the Lord (Eph 5:22-24) and husbands are subject to their wives in their job of self-sacrificially supplying her with what she needs -- physically, emotionally, spiritually ... in every way (Eph 5:25-32). Husbands are required to give their wives the understanding and honor she deserves and requires (1 Peter 3:7). Husbands, then, are tasked with the job of cultivating and producing life with their wives. They are the managers with the responsibility for their wives as well as their children (Eph 6:4; Col 3:21; Heb 12:9-10). They are, then, in the business of control and judicious use of resources. This isn't a "macho" job; it is the ultimate self-less-ness for the good of wife and family.

It is no accident that our English language has two words so closely connected. "Husbandry" in modern English refers to plants and livestock, and "husband" has devolved to merely mean "the guy in the marriage," but if the task of husband is properly understood, it much more closely resembles "husbandry" than just "the guy." And I would suggest that a huge portion of our problems in society today can be directly linked to the failure of "the guy in the marriage" in doing the husbandry tasks God has assigned. When will we Christian men learn that our job from God is to love all the way to giving up self (Eph 3:25)? What a different world it would be if we did.

Tuesday, March 05, 2024

Separation of Church and State

It is an established belief in America that the Constitution affirms the separation of church and state -- the idea is that the State cannot legislate religion and religion cannot participate in legislation. And that's partly true. Which part? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Clear as day. The government does not get to legislate religions. Now, the other part about religions keeping out of the government ... you'll find that ... hang on ... hey, I'm sure there's something for that. As it turns out, no, there isn't. Taken largely from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1802 to the Danbury Baptist Association, it is clear that Jefferson was talking about keeping government out of religion. It is not clear that he intended anything like the reverse. Look, it's a simple matter of spheres of authority. The authority over religion is God; the authority over the State is man (under God). Thus, the State has no authority over religion. But there's more.

Any fundamental understanding of "religion" of any sort requires that the adherent ... adheres to it. A religion that has no bearing on life is not a religion. And the Christian religion is based on a deep-seated relationship with God. It is not possible to be a follower of Christ and not involve God in all things in which a follower of Christ is involved. It isn't merely a belief -- it's an entire worldview and affects every corner of a believer's life. In that sense, then, the State cannot legislate religion because the State has no authority there. As Peter said, "We must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29) -- the same Peter who wrote, "Honor the emperor" (1 Peter 2:17). (Peter lived in Nero's time.) Yes, we are to submit to government ... second. God first. So while we cannot leave God out of our everyday lives, we must not allow our everyday lives to try to remove Him.

We can be so gullible sometimes. It is a standing joke: "It must be true; I read it on the Internet." And we smile, knowing that being on the Internet is in no way proof of truth. Yet, someone comes to us and says, "Our nation is predicated on the separation of church and state," a patently impossible statement, and we buy it. We submit to it. Don't do it. The Master of All is not limited to your private life. If He is, He's not the Master of All, is He?

Monday, March 04, 2024

The Judge of All the Earth

You remember the story (Gen 18:1-33). God and a couple of His angels visited Abraham on the way to Sodom and Gomorrah. God decided to tell Abraham what He had planned ... to destroy the two cities. Now, Abraham had a nephew there, so he decided to do a little dickering with God. "Suppose you find 50 righteous there. Will you still destroy it?" And here was Abraham's real question: "Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?" (Gen 18:25). We see it as a rhetorical question since we all know the answer is, "Duh! Of course He will!" I'm not so sure anymore. There are some who tell me that God cannot justly judge people for sin. All that "eternal torment" stuff (even from Jesus's lips) does not fit the crime. Sin, they tell me, is just not that big.

This question of the justice of God has actually been a big issue ... for many. How can a just God send people to hell for sins? So they devise answers. "He doesn't. Everyone is saved." "He doesn't. There is no hell. Just annihilation." "He doesn't. He's a forgiving God." These and more are much easier to stomach than the concept of eternal torment for sin. But, are we to only believe that which we find palatable? And that's where this question begins, isn't it? In the Garden of Eden, God told Adam, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die" (Gen 2:16-17). Wait ... die? For eating a piece of fruit?? Our human conception of justice should be boggled by that. "Oh, no," my lefty acquaintances will say, "that's just a myth." So what about the story above? According to Scripture (Old and New Testaments), God rained fire and brimstone on the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. For what? "Homosexuality," some might say, but the left side urges us to be cautious. "No, no, it was inhospitality." Really?? It is justice for God to annihilate two cities because they didn't welcome strangers right??? Some tell us that we've just misunderstood the whole "hell" thing and it's not at all like that, but I say that it's just like that because it has been so from the beginning. Death for violating a command not to eat a piece of fruit. Annihilation for being inhospitable (and more (Jude 1:7)). Struck dead for steadying the ark (2 Sam 6:6-7). Burned alive for offering "strange fire" (Lev 10:1-2). (I don't even know what that is). A man and wife died in place because they weren't honest about how much money they sold a piece of land for (Acts 5:1-11). Over and over God demonstrates that justice looks different to Him than it does to us. Or, rather, His standards are different than ours. An infraction to us is punishable by death to Him. Missing the mark and falling short of His glory (Rom 3:23) deserves eternal torment.

If we start from human standards, we have this (massive) problem of figuring out in what sense God is just. Well, of course, at the outset we need to eliminate eternal damnation. We'll have to dance around all those temporal judgments as well. Because God cannot judge based on a standard different than our own. Or ... We really have a limited grasp on just what God sees as right and how far off we are on that valuation. Either the Judge of all the earth will not deal justly and we're in real trouble, or He will ... and it's worse than we thought. He judges justly, people go to hell, and He's right in doing so. It all boils down to where you're willing to bend. Are you right and God doesn't judge sin, or is God right and He does? Choose carefully.

Sunday, March 03, 2024

Benediction

What a nice word! It comes from the Latin words, bene and dictio. The first means "well" and the second means "speaking." (You find that one in the English, "diction.") You'll find benedictions typically at the end of a public worship service where a short blessing is given -- a good word. Not enough of those these days, is there?

A most popular benediction is the Aaronic blessing. God told Moses to tell Aaron and his sons after him to bless Israel this way:
The LORD bless you, and keep you; The LORD make His face shine on you, And be gracious to you; The LORD lift up His countenance on you, And give you peace. (Num 6:24-26)
We've largely lost the meaning of that term, "blessing." God's instructions for this blessing can help us regain some sense of it. We know it's a good thing, but I don't think we know how good. God told His people about "blessings" and "curses." They weren't vague ideas. He listed a variety of very real consequences if they failed to obey Him (and they got to experience them all), and in this text here we learn about the contrast. We think "blessed" means "happy," but it's so very much more. The text is Hebrew parallelism, where the blessing says the same thing over and over, just in different ways to give us a real sense of it. The benediction began with "The LORD bless you" and everything after that explains "bless you." It includes God keeping you. It includes God's face upon you. It includes God's grace. It includes God's peace. "Blessed" here means largely God's face shining on you. That seems odd to us, but it's huge. It refers to His glory, our highest aim and privilege. It refers to His attention, providing joy (Psa 4:6-7). It refers to Christ as "the light of the world" (John 8:12). And, in contrast, it speaks of the absolute terror of God's face being turned away. It was the only moment in which Jesus cried out on the cross (Matt 27:46). It bears the opposite connotations of blessing -- no longer kept, no more grace, no peace, no joy.

As you go about your day today, may the Lord bless you. By that I mean, may the Lord keep you. May the Lord show you His glory and favor. May He give you peace and joy. Is that "happiness"? Well, sure, but it is so very much more, too.

Saturday, March 02, 2024

News Weakly - 3/2/24

Did Not See That Coming
The Family Research Council says that anti-Christian sentiment is accelerating in the U.S. According to their report, attacks against churches doubled in 2023. Wow! Did not see that coming. Oh ... wait ... yes, we did (John 15:18; 2 Tim 3:12). Or should have.

I Feel Safer Already
Biden is going to issue an executive order safeguarding American personal data from US adversaries. Your genomic, biometric, health, geolocation, financial, and other data are supposed to be secured so Russia (et.al.) can't use it. They can't use it; that's the government's job.

Science Prevails
For a long time, society put off legalizing drugs, including marijuana -- deemed a "gateway drug." But, no, the lobby won out and state after state legalized it first for medicinal use and, ultimately, for recreational use. Now they tell us that it is associated with higher heart attack and stroke risk. Sure, try to put that toothpaste back in the tube. They won't even try. "Good" is "whatever we deem it to be" regardless of the consequences.

Strange Times
We all know how good Bidenomics has been to us, so how is this possible? First, there was the report that consumer confidence was in decline. Then the story we all (should) know, that big companies are laying off employees. And there's the increase in jobless claims. Finally a key measure of inflation is still going up. How is this even possible in a glowing economic environment like Mr. Biden gives us?

Showing Their Colors
Without a conviction, based solely on "I think it's true" even though multiple sources have said it isn't, Illinois joined the far-left "We don't care about jurisprudence" side and convicted Trump of insurrection without a conviction -- he's off the ballot there, now, too. Because if there's anything we know, it's that Democrats love democracy ... as long as it is to their advantage. Trump winning primaries is not to their advantage. Ignoring "innocent until proven guilty," they're demonstrating how much they hate America except for when it suits their interests.

Fine Recipe for a Mockery
Satanic Temple is pushing into Florida schools on the basis of the First Amendment. Mind you, Satanic Temple is a "non-theistic religious organization," an oxymoron right up front. Religion is belief in and worship of God or gods, and Satanic Temple is explicitly atheist. They don't even believe in Satan. Their fundamental tenets mention no deity or supernatural power. Being a non-religious religion is, however, right in line with the insanity that has gripped modern society where opposites can be and are regarded as true at random.

Bee Ready for Anything
After the U.S. Air Force member set himself on fire outside the Israeli embassy in protest of Israel's self-defense (actual story), progressive suicide hot lines are suggesting callers go ahead and do it so long as it's for Palestine. In other news, at the start of this presidential race year, a new poll shows that voters are in a dead heat between "uncommitted" and "none of these." I feel your pain. Finally, after the disconcerting news of an illegal immigrant murdering a nursing student in Georgia (actual story), police are warning women not to jog within 2,000 miles of any border. Wait ... is that satire?

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

Friday, March 01, 2024

God and Government

We're in an election year, and it's likely to be a bumpy ride. So ... what's government for anyway? According to the Declaration of Independence, our rights are "unalienable" precisely because they are given by the Creator. According to our founding fathers, the function of government was "to secure these rights." Wow! We're a long way from that, aren't we? Take them, sure, but secure them? Even the "American Civil Liberties Union," an organization founded on fighting for our civil liberties, ignores our civil liberties when they collide with their agenda. (For instance, the ACLU is never defending the rights of Christians for their freedom for the free exercise of religion, but are often fighting to defend the rights of the LGBTQ folks ... whose special rights aren't mentioned there.) Those guys back there in 1776 had a good idea, but, as it said in the old cigarette commercials, "You've come a long way, baby." Now government exists to secure the preferences of the ruling party. Really not the same thing.

Of course, it can be argued that the Declaration of Independence may not be entirely true. I mean, how many today agree that rights are given by the Creator? Not so many. So what better source can we examine for the purpose of government? Oh, I know (and I would guess you know where I'm going), how about the Bible? According to Scripture, government is established by God (Rom 13:1). Yeah, yeah, you thought it was us. You should have known better. Scripture says that we are to "be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution" (1 Peter 2:13). Did you see the "why"? For the Lord's sake. Scripture says that government is God's servant for our good (Rom 13:4) in order that we might lead "a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way" (1 Tim 2:1-2). Government "is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer" (Rom 13:4).

Now, human government is, obviously, lacking. The best of human government fails in the plan. That's why, in the end, we don't trust in human government. We trust in God. In the fire, we can be sure that God is there with His plans intact and His work ongoing. In the meantime, our job is to vote the right way ... oh, wait ... that's not in there, is it? We are supposed to pray with supplications, intercessions, and thanksgiving for those who are in high positions (1 Tim 2:1-2). We are to honor everyone, including, specifically, bad government (1 Peter 2:17). And, unless we are commanded to violate God's commands, we are to be subject to government (Rom 13:5-6). I bet there is not a small number of Christians who find these commands from God's Word just as offensive as they find the government today.

Thursday, February 29, 2024

Peace in the Valley

There's a popular old hymn I suspect you've heard called, "Peace in the Valley." The song looks forward to the day when "There will be peace in the valley some day." It looks for the time when "There'll be no sadness, no sorrow, no trouble I see. There will be peace in the valley for me." All good thoughts, but ... is it true?

The song looks to the end, when we are with Jesus. We know there will be a new heaven and a new earth, where God "will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away" (Rev 21:4). Clearly this is what author Thomas Dorsey was addressing when he wrote the song for Mahalia Jackson. So, sure, in that sense there will be peace in the valley some day. But I want to tell you a secret. We don't have to wait for "some day." Jesus told His disciples, "Peace I leave with you; My peace I give to you. Not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your hearts be troubled, neither let them be afraid" (John 14:27). Paul told the Philippians, "Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus" (Php 4:6-7). Present tense. Right now. Peace is a fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22-23). We can have peace now. This peace does not require "no sadness, no sorrow, no trouble." It's available in the midst of all that.

Yes, indeed, there will be a time when all genuine believers will experience no sadness, no trouble, no more tears. And it's good to keep that in mind. After all, it was God who told us it was coming. But, while you keep an eye on that future perfection, don't miss the present promise. Jesus gave us His peace. It is a peace that surpasses common understanding. And it guards your heart and minds in Christ. Present tense.

Wednesday, February 28, 2024

Always Marry for Love

We Americans (and, I'm sure, much of the rest of the world) are a romantic lot, it seems. We have Harlequin and we have Hallmark and we have Valentine's Day and all that. Everyone knows that the only correct and viable reason for any two people to marry is love. That's quite obvious. But ... is it?

In Paul's letter to Titus, he urges Titus to have older women teach younger women (that's quite a chain) to "love their husbands and children" (Titus 2:4) (among other things). In his letter to Ephesus, he commanded husbands to "love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her" Eph 5:25). Clearly, in Scripture, love and marriage go together. The only question I have is ... are we talking about the same thing? You see, when we say, "Always marry for love," what we're actually talking about is that romantic feeling, that heart-thumping emotion that steals our breath away and leaves our heads spinning. Marry for that love. It seems, however, quite outrageous to command wives to "love their husbands and children" when this emotional explosion is purely chemical and surely relatively short-lived. Telling husbands to love their wives is equally irrational since they never seem to feel it nearly as deeply as women do. And, ultimately, you can't command an emotion, can you? It's chemistry. It's a mystery. How can you command that?

I would urge people not to marry for love. Not that love. Not the love that comes and goes, that rides the ebbs and tides of emotion. It is irrational, untenable, and impossible. If "marry for love" refers to that kind of love, there is no marriage on earth that can survive that fickle rollercoaster ride. Marry, instead, for love. The kind of love that Paul described when he urged husbands to love their wives "as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her." The kind of love that 1 Corinthians 13 talks about (1 Cor 13:4-8) (including, especially, "love never ends"). Marry for the love that the Spirit provides (Gal 5:22), an outward-facing love that sacrifices self in order to obtain the best for those that are loved. Marry for the love that reflects God to the world (Eph 5:31-32). Always marry for that love. I'm sure it will include a lot of the romantic type we seem to want so badly, but it will include a lot more than that.

Tuesday, February 27, 2024

Storm Watchers

One of the local news stations enlists the aid of viewers to be "storm watchers." They will inform the media (literally) when weather events occur. Mind you, "sunny day" doesn't qualify. No, it's those harsh events, those snow storms and hurricanes and such. Good work if you can get it, I guess.

In a sense, we're all storm watchers. Remember the story of Jesus walking on the water (Matt 14:22-33)? Jesus's disciples were struggling through a storm, and Jesus walked out to them. They thought it was a ghost, but Jesus identified Himself. So Peter said, "Lord, if it is You, command me to come to You on the water" (Matt 14:28). And He did. And the text says, "So Peter got out of the boat and walked on the water and came to Jesus" (Matt 14:29). Peter ... walked on water. Of course, Peter doesn't get the same press that Jesus did because, in the very next verse, it says, "But when he saw the wind, he was afraid, and beginning to sink he cried out, 'Lord, save me.'" (Matt 14:30). Peter walked on water -- a spectacular miracle -- and then ... didn't. Why? Because Peter became a storm watcher. Peter (wisely, some would say) saw the dangers and (reasonably, some would say) became afraid. Never mind that he was walking on water. Never mind that Jesus was right there with him. The dangers were real and immediate and he began to sink.

Ask anyone, "Who in history ever walked on water?" and they're obviously going to answer, "Jesus" and not "Peter." Why? Peter sank. And we do the same thing -- we storm watchers. We walk in the Spirit -- walk with the Lord. We know His abilities and intentions. We know that all things work together for good and we know He is always with us. There is nothing He cannot handle. And, yet, we look into the very real storm and panic instead of ... obeying (Php 4:6-8). Instead of trusting. Instead of marveling at His work as we watch. Nope! We watch the storm. We fear the circumstances rather than trust the Creator. Maybe we need to reevaluate that practice.

Monday, February 26, 2024

Christian Universalism

As we all know, the Bible teaches that everyone is saved. Oh ... you didn't? Well, look. First, we know that God "desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim 2:4). The Bible says Jesus is "the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world" (1 John 2:2). Well, if God desires it and Jesus accomplished it, it's a done deal, right? Oh, you're worrying about those "hell" texts. Did you know that "hell" in the Greek is simply a reference to the place of the dead. None of that "hellfire and brimstone" stuff. It's a false teaching from the church. I only listed a couple of the references, but you'll find that argument in various circles and in various Scriptures. So, what's wrong with it? Why don't we embrace that line of thinking? It's called "Christian Universalism" that holds that everyone is saved through the blood of Christ. That's so close to the truth that some miss it. That is, everyone who is saved is saved through the blood of Christ. So what's wrong with Universalism?

What if Universalism is true? What does that change? Well, you might be able to slide by Jesus's claim that "unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God" (John 3:5). Maybe they're just born again ... without their knowledge or decision. But it's hard to dance around the language Jesus used describing what we know as "Hell." It was Jesus who warned that "these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life" (Matt 25:46). Are you going to tell Him He was wrong? It was Jesus who spoke of Hell as eternal fire (Matt 18:8-9). Are you going to tell Him He misunderstood? It was Jesus who said, "Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few" (Matt 7:13-14). Are you going to offer Him a correction? Paul assured us, "By grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God" (Eph 2:8). No, Paul ... no faith required. When the Philippian jailer asked, "What must I do to be saved?" Paul told him, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household" (Acts 16:31). Nope! No faith required. And so it goes.

The Bible is full of warnings of eternal destruction for those who reject Christ. Jesus said, "Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God" (John 3:18). That's not trivial, and it's not unclear. Scripture is abundantly clear that there are two groups of people; those who repent in faith and those who don't. The former are saved and the latter are not. If this is not so, we could have used a much shorter Bible. "Everyone gets saved. The end." But, isn't there something we need to do, something we need to believe? "Refer to the last statement. The end." So, it doesn't matter what we believe, what we do? There is no point in trying to follow Christ? "Refer to the first statement. The end." Jesus is out. Paul is out. The rest of the warnings are pointless. Quick and easy. And fatal. Eternally.

Sunday, February 25, 2024

How Do They Do It?

How do they do it? Those people that don't believe in God. Every day they wake up knowing that life has no purpose, that morality is on a whim, that there is no ultimate penalty and no ultimate reward. Circumstances occur randomly and without any point. Good things come and there is no one to thank. Bad things come and there is no place to glean hope. The world spins down crazier and crazier. "Sure, marriage can be between a man and a man. Sure, it never has been before. Sure, it violates the longstanding, traditional definition, but we don't need that anchor and we can do what we please." And marriage has no more meaning. "Sure, we understand biology. A male is a male and a female is a female ... unless, of course, they don't feel like it. Biology is unsure and science is unreliable and we absolutely must -- at the point of law, even -- subscribe to this new 'non-woman man' or 'non-man woman' as if it is real." And so on. Reality slides. Purpose is lost. Direction is pointless. Hope is a lie. How do they do it?

How do they do it? So many Christians I know. They recognize a "Sovereign God" but conclude, for some reason, that if His creation doesn't cooperate, He can't accomplish His will. They refer to Jesus as Lord, but believe that His hands are tied if His people don't have faith. They're quite sure that God never intends unpleasant circumstances and are, in fact, quite miffed if they occur. "Where was God?" They quote "My God shall supply all your needs" and worry about money, worry about having what they need. They are anxious about the next election, the next job, the next paycheck, the next friendship. They go to church looking for what they can get out of it and, if it doesn't measure up, they move on. They worry and suffer and find no hope. "If only God's people would do the right thing, then maybe God could act ..."

I know I have a different God than the first category. They have no God. That's easy. I don't know how they get through the chaos that is life without anything but the immediate. I know the second category claim the same God as I do, but why is theirs so pitifully weak and unreliable? Or is it me who is misguided in thinking that a Sovereign God is actually sovereign, that "My God shall supply all your needs" means I can rely on Him to supply all my needs? Am I the deluded one, and God is nothing like the one I read about in the pages of Scripture? I don't even know how they do that. I just don't get it.

Saturday, February 24, 2024

News Weakly - 2/24/24

Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics
A survey was conducted at the end of 2023. The "2024 Presidential Greatness Project Expert Survey" has demonstrated once again that modern Americans are nuts. They asked people (in the midst of today's media blitz) who was best and worst. Lincoln took best, and -- no surprise -- Trump took worst. How many could even tell you how good Monroe or Jackson or Truman were? How many had the information at hand to answer without media-fueled bias? Mind you, this so called "expert survey" placed Barack Obama (7) above Kennedy (10) and Joe Biden (14) above Ronald Reagan (16). We should all be clear that these are the opinions of people who don't know what they're talking about, so there's that.

War by the Numbers
Gaza death toll passes 24,000. Hang on, no, 25,000. Wait a minute, what I meant to say was 29,000. Sorry, it's hard to find accurate news. In a related note, Germany and Japan are suing the Allies from World War II for killing up to 8.8 million in Germany and up to 3.3 million in Japan when they didn't kill nearly as many Americans or Brits or Canadians or Australians. Remember, the rules are you can't kill significantly more than your opponent, no matter how treacherous they may be. (And, hey, those so-called "Holocaust" victims don't count, since we still have people saying it didn't happen.) Seriously, what do you suppose the purpose is in telling us this information?

Another Conspiracy Theory Proven
While a portion of Americans resisted taking a new mRNA-based vaccine for a Chinese virus sent over here, Dr. Fauci and the CDC assured us it was safe and effective. As it turns out, ain't necessarily so. A new study shows potential side effects including a increased risk of myocarditis, Guillain-Barre syndrome, spinal cord inflamation, blood clots in the brain, encephalomyelitis, and more. "Don't worry," they tell us, "they're rare." That's after prior studies that suggest that the vaccine was altering DNA ... which they told us couldn't happen, and the very well-known story of how the vaccine would prevent ... okay, not prevent, but decrease the effects ... well, maybe not, but certainly block transmission ... alright, so you could get it, you could still die from it, and you could still transmit it, but other than that, it was a very effective vaccine.

Coming Home to Roost
Mary and Jeremy Cox had their teen removed from their home for not using the right pronouns because their religion wouldn't allow it. An investigation found no abuse, but still took the juvenile. They are appealing to the Supreme Court. Like they said, if it can happen in Indiana, it can happen anywhere.

Upside-Down World
In our current upside-down world, "marriage" does not require "for life" or even "man and woman," which, I suppose, makes sense since "man" no longer requires man and "woman" no longer requires woman, so it stands to reason that a story would come out about how the teamsters would make a large donation to the Republican National Committee. Wait ... what?? Yep. $45,000. The teamsters, traditionally Dems to the core, donated to the GOP. Go figure. What next? Biden endorses Trump?

Apparently Bee is for Biden
With Biden paying off student loans with tax dollars, the Bee story of Gender Studies grad who wrote "Thank you" to the plumber who paid off her student loans makes sense. Then they had the story about Biden warning about Trump being the "greatest threat to America" while presiding over an invasion of America at the border. You know ... "Don't bother me with facts; I know I'm right." And merging racism with AI-generated women, the Bee had a piece on a black woman who finally felt included when Google's AI generated a black female Nazi soldier. Okay, that was over the top ... but I'm not sure how far from possibly true it might be in this day and age.

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

Friday, February 23, 2024

Help You Can Count On

In a recent post I said that Scripture is interpreted for us by the Holy Spirit, so a helpful line of consideration is to see if the Holy Spirit has taught the same thing through church history. Understanding that there has always been false teaching throughout church history, we aren't simply considering tradition or even preponderance of content. We're looking for a thread, as it were, of constant agreement from the beginning until today. If you interpret Scripture in a brand new way, it suggests the Holy Spirit has failed up until you came on the scene. I thought it would be interesting to do a sample run on this concept to see what we can see.

Consider, for instance, the topic of the Atonement. What exactly is that? Well, in all cases, in order to interpret Scripture, you have to use ... you know ... Scripture. Starting with "Well, in my opinion" doesn't work. What does Scripture say? Go from there. You can't interpret Scripture from "my opinion." You have to interpret it from Scripture. So what does Scripture say? Well, the Old Testament is full of atonement, a sacrificial system devised by God that included perfect lambs and scapegoats and all for the atonement of the sins of Israel. The concept carries over into the New Testament seemlessly. The author of Hebrews wrote, "Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins" (Heb 9:22). John the Baptist said about Jesus, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!" (John 1:29). Same concept, new covenant. Jesus said, "The Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many" (Mark 10:45). Isaiah prophesied that YHWH would lay on Him the iniquity of us all (Isa 53:6). Paul wrote "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us" (Gal 3:13). Paul wrote of Jesus as "Whom God put forward as a propitiation by His blood, to be received by faith" (Rom 3:25). He told the Colossians that God canceled our "record of debt" by "nailing it to the cross" (Col 2:13-15). Leviticus says, "For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life" (Lev 17:11) and Ephesians says, "In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses" (Eph 1:7). Atonement, then, must include biblically a ransom, the shedding of blood, appeasement of God's wrath (the meaning of "propitiation"), redemption, payment. These factors aren't simply opinions; they're biblical.

So what does history say on the subject? The first theory of the Atonement was known as the Ransom Theory. Now, where do you suppose they came up with that cockamamie idea? Oh ... yeah ... Jesus. He said it. Not so radical, then, I guess. Actually, literal. Now ransom is a payment paid for the release of a prisoner. Okay, good, we have payment. Got it. In time, others came up with other theories. Mind you, other theories are not, in and of themselves, a problem. They just have to correspond to what we know. Anselm offered the Satisfaction Theory, holding that God's honor was offended by sin. Someone else offered the Moral-Example Theory that held that Jesus died to teach humans to be moral. (How the logic works on that I'm not clear, but ...) And so on. My point is that the Ransom Theory came straight from Scripture. When other theories surfaced, they were fine as long as they came straight from Scripture and didn't contradict the one that, you know, Jesus offered. To say, "Well, this also occurred in the Atonement" is fine, but "No, that Ransom Theory is wrong and my new theory is right" is simply contradicting Jesus, which won't work at all. When Jesus claimed He came to pay for sin and your pet Atonement theory says, "No, He did not," you know it can't be from the Spirit.

There are not a few who object to the Penal Substitutionary Atonement idea. They don't do so because it violates Scripture. They do so because it violates their opinions, their preferences, their own prior values. "A God of wrath who needs appeasement? Never!" Except it's in Scripture (e.g., Rom 1:18). "Jesus appeased God's wrath on our behalf? Don't be silly!" Fine, but that's what the texts say. "What kind of God requires blood for sin?" The God of the Bible ... repeatedly. And -- here's my real point -- that's what was believed in the first theory of atonement. If your version doesn't agree with that version (which is rooted directly in the words of Jesus), it would seem that you might be suffering from deception. My point here is not the Atonement. My point is that Scripture is interpreted for us by the Spirit. He doesn't change; He doesn't make mistakes. We have, biblically, deceitful hearts, so we have to count on a reliable aid to understand God's Word. He's that reliable aid.