Make Disciples

I've said this before. We've really missed the mark in our evangelism ideas as a whole. We think the Great Commission is to go spread the Gospel. It's not. Here is the Great Commission from the lips of Jesus:

All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age. (Matt 28:18-20)

Note that there are no words in there about "Preach the gospel." Now, in Mark's version, we get, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation." (Mark 16:15) That's certainly explicit. But not in the Matthew version.

Why is that? Well, it is unavoidable that "Go tell the gospel" is certainly implied, even required by the Matthew version. You can't go and make disciples without first having made converts. Making disciples from unsaved people is pointless. They must first become followers of Christ. So what's the difference? The difference is scope. "Preach the gospel" ends at the delivery of the gospel. "Make disciples" begins at the delivery of the gospel and becomes an ongoing, continuous, labor-intensive, personal effort. Am I overstating that? No, I don't think so. It includes "baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you." How long does it take to baptize them and teach them to observe "all that I commanded you"? To know it? Years, perhaps. To observe it? A lifetime.

But we've missed it for the most part. We've segmented it down to "evangelize" or, perhaps, "evangelize and get them into a church." Some use terms like "discipleship" or "mentoring," but usually that's a Bible study together or a program you enter, often on your own. Nothing at all like Jesus did when He made disciples.

Years ago when I was the father of a couple of young boys, I asked my employer if I could bring them in to work with me during the summer break. What I was thinking was apprenticeship. If I could let them work with me (or others in the company) right alongside, watching, observing, learning, doing, and so on, then these kids would have a step up on others who simply had book learning. Of course, our world doesn't much allow for such a thing; liability and such. You know. But this is precisely the image that Christ painted when He made disciples. Walk alongside. Watch Him work. Listen to Him teach -- personalized teaching where they could ask questions and get answers. Participatory processes, like when He sent them out on their own and brought them back for "debriefing." I am not aware of any group -- any church -- that is practicing that.

Which means that I am not aware of any church that is obeying the Great Commission. There are individuals that do it. That's good. But not bodies of believers as a group. And it seems painfully obvious to me why Christianity today is so shallow, so disjointed, and so diverse. We're not making disciples. We're making converts. "Swim, little fishies! Good luck!" Yes, we'd recommend church. Sure, we offer good programs. Obviously we have brilliant tools. But it's no substitute for making disciples. For the large part we're missing the mark.

Causation

Back in 1987 a voice in the wilderness, Joseph Arguelles, called for people around the world to unite for a special event, what he called a "Harmonic Convergence." He feared that cosmic forces were at work and if something wasn't done the world would end in 2012. So people responded, and in August, 1987, people gathered in various hotspots -- "energy centers," what he called "trines" -- to unite in meditation. They gathered in places like Sedona, AZ, Chaco Canyon, Mount Shasta, Stonehenge, Mount Fuji, and the Great Pyramid and drummed and chanted, "Om." (Even Johnny Carson had his studio audience chant.) And, well, I guess we all know the outcome. They did it. They saved the world. The date came and went and the world didn't end. And Transcendental Meditation was proven to be a viable and essential tool for good. Thank you very much.

There is a fundamental error here, of course. It is referred to as the "Correlation/Causation Fallacy." What the study of statistics will tell you is that correlation does not imply causation. An example. From 1924 to 1932 researchers tried to study worker productivity to find out what conditions made workers more productive. They tried a host of things and productivity would go up and they said, "Aha! We've got it!" They found, however, that when they stopped their study, productivity dropped again. Because what was increasing productivity wasn't the things they tried, but the presence of the researchers.

These days there are growing problems for individuals, families, mom and pop businesses, corporations, educational institutions, cities, states, countries -- the whole world and each of its parts -- due to the steps we've taken to stop the Wuhan virus. What we're seeing is, statistically, a decline in many places after a peak in many places. And the world groans for release. "Please, please, let us go back to normal." The experts (most, not all) sternly warn that we need to stop this virus and we need to do it this way and we need to anticipate, according to the latest experts' remarks, a few more months of an essentially total shutdown. But is this right? Is this another "Correlation/Causation Fallacy"? Is there a gradual decrease in the virus in places because we've cut off all contact or is it because that's what viruses do? Are we at the end of this virus cycle by design or by nature? Did we do the right thing and turn the tide or the wrong thing and events occurred that made it look like the right thing?

I can't say. What I can say is that it looks a lot like those late night pharmaceutical commercials. "Are you suffering from ____? Well, then, you should try our magic pill. It can save your day. (Side effects might include diarrhea, vomiting, and possible death.)" When is the cure worse than the illness? Is anyone asking the people losing their businesses, their jobs, their homes, their families, their lives, not to coronavirus, but to the treatment? Because, "Look, folks, it's working, because the numbers are peaking and dropping since we started this approach" is a "Correlation/Causation Fallacy" and we need more information to know there is any real connection between the two.

I'm Okay, You're Okay

It's the position we are told to prefer. Live and let live. Don't be judgmental. "Only God can judge me" (which is intended to say, "And He won't."). "Can't we all just get along?"

It's a nice thought. It really is warm and fuzzy. It's just ... wrong. Mistaken. Missing the facts.

In Romans Paul describes the human race as "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" (because all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God) and God's attitude toward those vessels of wrath as "desiring to show His wrath and to make known His power." (Rom 9:22) The deck is stacked against us. Well, probably a poor analogy, since we've stacked our own deck. We've earned wrath. We've made ourselves "vessels of wrath."

"Live and let live," they tell us, but the suggestion at this point is no one gets to live. If things go unchanged, God will judge us and it won't be pleasant. We might all get along together, being in the same boat, but not with God. We burned that bridge.

This is why it is so astounding that Paul goes on to say that He has "endured with much patience" these vessels of wrath by making some "vessels of mercy." He has done this to "make known the riches of His glory." (Rom 9:23) While we ask, "Why doesn't God save more?" Paul asks, "Why does God save one?" And in that question God is most glorified because He didn't have to.

Sometimes we become immunized against our own salvation. Yes, it's nice. Yada, yada, yada. Can we move on now? It's a mistake. We were not okay and the fact that we are now at peace with God (Rom 5:1) -- known by God (Gal 4:9) -- is staggering. He took vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, rinsed out their filth, and replaced it with the righteousness of Christ. All on His own. Hallelujah! What a Savior!

What's the Worst that can Happen?

I was a youth at the time when I heard the story. An older woman came to her pastor and said, "Pastor, I don't know what to do. My adult son lives at home. I've been supporting him with my nursing work since he lost his job. He hasn't looked for another since. But now I've been diagnosed with a problem that will prevent me from working. What will we do?" The pastor talked to her about prayer and trusting God and such, but then he asked her, "Think it through. What's the worst that can happen?" "Well, we won't have any income." "And then?" "We won't have any food." "And then?" "We'll starve to death." "And then?" The question took her aback. "Well, we'll be dead!" "Yes, and ...?" "Um, well, we'll be with Jesus." "Right ... and ...?" The light came on. "I'll be with my precious Lord." She went home, told her son she had to quit and the plan was to die, and, of course, he found a job and started supporting his mother.

I wonder about that now. In our Wuhan Virus world where hundreds of thousands are dying and panic seems to rule the day, have we thought it through? I know people hiding behind their doors afraid that Mr. Covid will sneak in -- unbelievers, of course, but lots of Christians, too, who know Jesus on a personal basis. They're making themselves sick with worry and inactivity long before the virus gets in. Especially older Christians. (Did you know that fear actually depresses the immune system, and that a diminished immune system is one of the at-risk factors for this virus? Are we causing some of our own problems just with this fear alone?) I have nothing to offer unbelievers except what I always want to offer unbelievers. Now, as any other time and perhaps more than ever, you need Jesus. Repent and believe.

Christians, think it through. What's the worst that can happen? You catch the disease, get sick, and die? You leave this world of sin and tears and join our blessed Savior in eternal rest and joy? Is it so bad that you are terrified of that outcome? Is dying not gain for you (Php 1:21)? We know better than that, don't we?

At my last physical I had to fill out the standard health questionnaire which included a section on mental health -- depression and the like. One question asked, "How often do you feel like you'd be better off dead?" I answered honestly. "All the time." It set off alarms for my doctor, of course, so she asked about it. "Doctor, let me ask you," I offered. "If I am convinced that there is a heaven and there is a Savior who I love there and I will certainly be going there when I die, would it be sane not to think I'd be better off dead?" I told her I was making no effort to speed my arrival, but I'd be a fool not to want to go when I could. She said, "I guess they didn't take religious beliefs into account when they made that question, did they?" If the worst that can happen for me is the best possible outcome, whom shall I fear? The Lord is my light and my salvation. "We are of good courage, I say, and prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord." (2 Cor 5:8) What I call a "biblical worldview."

I Need Prayer

"Oh, no!" I can hear some say with a title like that, "Stan might have COVID!" No. Relax. But I do need prayer. And I mean that in two different ways. I'm sure the first that came to your mind is, "Oh, Stan has something he needs people to pray for him about." Yes. That's one. I have lots of things and concerns about which I pray and I need people to come alongside and join me in that prayer. We all need that. But I mean it in the other sense as well. I need prayer. For me, for my life, for my well-being, I need prayer. That is, prayer itself is something I need. And so does every believer.

Perhaps you haven't run into this yourself, but, as it turns out, prayer is a bit of a conundrum. Thinking from God down, we know that God is Omniscient and Omnipotent and Sovereign. We get that. Jesus's disciples said, "We know that You know all things.' (John 16:30) John wrote, "God is greater than our heart and knows all things." (1 John 3:20) David wrote, "Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; and in Your book were all written the days that were ordained for me, when as yet there was not one of them." (Psa 139:16) He knows everything -- past, present, and future -- and He knows it perfectly. And we know He will do what He will do. The psalmist wrote, "Our God is in the heavens; He does whatever He pleases." So ... why pray? I mean, it's not like we can change His mind (1 Sam 15:29); He already knows everything perfectly. It's not like we can change His will; He does whatever He pleases. We can't present Him with new information -- "Oh, thanks, I never thought of that." Not going to happen. So ... why pray? And, yet, we also know that we are commanded to pray (e.g., 1 Thess 5:17; Luke 18:1; Heb 4:16; 1 Tim 2:1; James 1:5; Php 4:6-7; etc.) It is expected and required that we do this thing that appears to be an exercise in futility.

So why pray? Obviously most clearly because we're commanded to. "Because I said so," is a valid and compelling answer, especially coming from God. But are there other reasons? I think so, and that's why I say I need prayer.

I need to pray because it solidifies my relationship with Him. Talking with Him, spending time with Him, conversing, sharing, expressing my thoughts and feelings with Him, these things all make what is a somewhat ethereal relationship more real. I need to pray because it alters my perspective. Not His, mine. It directs me to Him -- points me to His will, His concerns, His aims. Sometimes when I pray I detect errors in my own thinking. I need that. I need to pray because it endears Him to me. That is, as I lean on Him and express myself to Him and talk with Him, I become more enamored with Him. I love Him more. I need to pray because it engenders trust in Him. I have my concerns and I give them to Him because He can do what is necessary and always will do what is right and I can trust Him to do that. The more points of contact I have in that process, the more "trust interactions" I have. I need to pray because it constantly points my heart to what is real. Without prayer, I tend to think I'm doing it. I'm supplying the needs, I'm handling the situations, I'm responsible for it all. I'm not. Prayer serves to constantly remind me that I'm a participant, not the ultimate power or provider. And along those lines, I need to pray because God has offered it as a means to join Him in His work -- to participate in what God is doing. When God answers a prayer of mine, there is a sense of "Yes! I got to be a part of what God was doing in this!" I need that as well. I need to pray because it reminds me of my limitations in contrast to His magnificence.

Praying changes me. It doesn't change God -- His mind, His plans, His will -- but it changes me. It changes me in ways I need to be changed and the more I do it the more these necessary changes occur. Prayer is not about bullying God or getting God to do what I want or making God my butler. Successful prayer is not just the prayers to which He answers, "Yes." Prayer is successful in its obedience to God's commands, in its correctives to my erroneous thinking, and in its reinforcement to right thinking about and relationship with God. It is successful if it adds to my relationship with God. In all of this, then, I need prayer. All the time. Constantly. Without ceasing. So, pray for me because I need prayer ... in both senses.

Prayer reminds us who we are, and who our Father is. Prayer expresses our dependence and it reinforces our dependence. —Alistair Begg

News Weakly - 4/25/20

That Helps a Lot
That wise, 17-year-old voice in the wilderness, Greta Thunberg, is speaking out again. Apparently we need to tackle both the coronavirus pandemic and the climate crisis together. Thanks, Greta. We hadn't thought of that.

I thought it was strange because on one hand this coronavirus has done all sorts of great things for the environment, from reduced CO₂ and better water to more animals and less use of fossil fuels. In fact, I would think that Greta would applaud the deaths of hundreds of thousands since the only real solution to the environment problem is eliminating the problem -- people. (No, she won't. But that's primarily because she's not thinking it through.) On the other hand, I thought it was strange because Sweden (where she's from) opted not to lockdown the nation but to aim for "herd immunity" where they let people get it in order to, as a nation, become immune. So they had a higher death rate than other nations but they also are on the verge of herd immunity, so ...? So let's all, you know, work together on this thing, however we can and whatever that means.

A Glitch in the Thinking
We're all about "environmentally friendly." Some states have mandated it; ours is just suggesting it. So one of the produce stores my wife frequents has a rule. Bring your own reusable bags or we'll charge you for plastic ones. You know, encourage the customers to think green. Until the coronavirus came along. Turns out those "environmentally safe" bags aren't exactly virus safe, and allowing them in the store posed a virus-exposure risk, so they banned them. Didn't think that one through, did we?

Confusion
A California man was convicted of murder after killing 3 in a "racist shooting spree." While I'm not questioning the verdict or the court or whatever, I am questioning the stories. I thought we had established that only white people could be racist. Now this black man is called "racist"? How can I keep up if we keep changing our stories?

That Just Seems Arbitrary
Go figure. I thought we had moved and seconded to protect sexual orientation. Now in the UK a woman was mocked by a newspaper article for her particular sexual orientation, and when she complained, the press regulator dismissed her complaint. Hers is not a protected orientation. Her sexual orientation? She loves chandeliers. "No, Stan, not that kind of love." Oh? One complaint was that the article portrayed her as married to her favorite chandelier. She said she was just in a relationship with it and not yet married to it. We just can't make up our minds, can we?

Education Our Way or Else
Harvard Magazine just released a piece entitled "The Risk of Homeschooling." Ironic, isn't it, since every family in the country just became homeschooled? Was the article favorable? Obviously not. They're sure that it's too dangerous. It isolates children. It is overwhelmingly (90%, they said) driven by conservative Christian beliefs by parents seeking to protect their children from mainstream culture. The article portrays homeschooling as "a threat to U.S. democracy" and "recommends a presumptive ban on the practice." Because democracy is always better served if you dictate what people can and cannot believe and outright ban them from life choices.

Another Thing Lost to COVID
The state of New York has issued a Do Not Resuscitate order for paramedics who encounter anyone without a heartbeat. It used to be that they were told to spend up to 20 minutes attempting to resuscitate people, but now it's just too much effort. Move along. Nothing to see here.

Submission to Authority

I often have interesting conversations with fellow believers. They often share their feelings on this or that where someone or something has done a bad thing. Like, "The pastor acted without the approval of the congregation. The pastor was wrong." And I'll ask, "Where do you get that?" You see, I'm hearing "Church should be run like the government -- a democracy." And I'm not seeing it in my Bible. And, while American democracy is cool, it isn't biblical. (I'm not saying it's unbiblical; I'm saying it's just not in there.) So I always want to be sure that the places that I stand most firmly are informed by Scripture rather than feeling or opinion.

A current push among many in the church these days is the need for what we term "civil disobedience." The government has told us that church is not essential and we can't meet. And we need to do something about that. When Peter was told to stop preaching the gospel, he countered, "Whether it is right in the sight of God to give heed to you rather than to God, you be the judge; for we cannot stop speaking about what we have seen and heard." (Acts 4:19-20) Perhaps it's time for that. Obey God and accept the consequences from the government.

Let's examine the thought for a moment. Paul wrote something on this, but I'll go with Peter for a change.

Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right. For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men. (1 Peter 2:13-15)

This seems really, really absolute. (So does Paul's version in Romans 13:1-5.) Submit to the authorities. Period. We can all stop and go home now, quite literally, because we need to absolutely submit to the authorities.

And, of course, it's not that clear, is it? I mean, Peter himself refused to submit to their authority when they ordered him to stop doing what Christ had commanded him to do. So, apparently, we are supposed to always submit to human authority unless there is that rare occasion where human authority opposes a specific command from God.

That seems pretty straightforward. So, what command from God is the current government contravening when they tell us we can't gather in large groups for worship and fellowship? What are we to think about these mandates to churches?

There is the question of the legality of the commands. We have, for instance, the constitutional guarantee of the right to free exercise of religion. Is it legal for the government to contravene that guarantee? Well, yes, it is. We all recognize, for instance, that the freedom of speech ends at yelling "Fire" in a crowded venue. Killing people with your free speech is forbidden. We would all hope that "My religion requires that I kill the infidel" would not be protected free exercise, right? So the government can and does routinely impose limits on our constitutional rights. The question still remains, however. Is this a situation that qualifies?

Scripture is clear that we need to obey the authorities over us. It is imperative that we keep in mind what that means. It is imperative because it's complicated. We all have a variety authorities, starting first and foremost with the King of kings and Lord of lords. Kids have parents. Students have teachers. Citizens have governments. Workers have bosses. If you go into a store, you are subject to the rules of that store. It is everywhere. So what we have to understand is that varying authorities have varying spheres of authority. We understand, for instance, that the government can tell us what to do outside of our homes, but not inside (generally speaking). We get that a teacher can tell a student what homework to do, but not who his or her friends can be at home. We all see that a business has authority when you're in that business but none outside of that business. And the hierarchy has God at the top. It is these spheres of authority that make it necessary to obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29) when human authorities command disobedience to God. They have exceeded their authority.

So, is this the case here? Is the government commanding believers to disobey God? I'm not so sure. (I said that carefully, because I think there are dissenting opinions that might be just as valid, so I'm just presenting my opinion here.) I see that Scripture commands that we not forsake assembling together (Heb 10:25). Absolutely! Is an electronic assembly not an assembly? Scripture is full of "one another" commands like "bear one another's burdens" and "love one another" and a host of others. Is there something in the government decrees that prevents us from doing those things even if we are physically removed? In places that there is genuine persecution of Christians the church gathers in small, concealable numbers. This, of course, is illegal where they are as it is, but it isn't where we are. Can we not meet in smaller numbers and still be gathering for fellowship, still be loving one another?

There is the specific concern about sharing Communion remotely. Many point to Paul's words on the topic in 1 Corinthians. "In the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you." (1 Cor 11:18) Paul speaks exclusively of coming together. Paul did not allow for coming together remotely. But does that negate it? (I would like to point out that this text is not a mandate. "Thou shalt physically gather together." Jesus's command is similar. "As often as you do this, do it in remembrance of Me" (1 Cor 11:25) He doesn't specify how often; He specifies what attitude to have when you do. "When you gather" is indicative, not imperative.) Scripture doesn't specify timing or, technically, location. If some are convinced that it must be a physical location -- an actual, physical gathering -- there is still no time requirement, so a delay in Communion for a month or three doesn't seem to be a problem, does it?

I can see possibilities that some might say, "No! God demands we do _____ and the government is blocking that from happening!" I can see that this would constitute a reason to obey God and not government. I just urge believers to have a biblical basis for it and not a feeling or a tradition of man that is the basis.

And if we decide, "Yes! These rules are opposed to God's direct commands," will we act biblically? The disciples in Acts 5 were beaten and charged, but they left "rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for the name" (Acts 5:41). Peter wrote, "To the degree that you share the sufferings of Christ, keep on rejoicing." (1 Peter 4:13) Will that be our response? Or will we be outraged and take it to court and complain because we're being treated unfairly? I suspect the latter will be the general perspective, and it's not biblical.

Asking Tough Questions

There is no doubt that this Wuhan Virus is a deadly problem. There is no doubt that lots of people have died from it. There is also no doubt that lots of people have died from other causes (including, in some cases, the steps we have taken to prevent people from dying from this Wuhan Virus). We have crippled our economy, unleashed a new $2 trillion debt, crushed lives, altered society, and, yes, killed people in response to this virus. At some point I think we ought to ask some tough questions.

A study from Stanford suggests that the number of people infected by the virus may be 50 to 80 times the numbers we've been given. Now, hang on a minute. What does that mean? Well, for one it means that far more people have it than we knew which means that the death rate for this disease is far less than we thought. Apparently it is horribly fatal to a particular group of "at risk" people, but not to the general populace.

Could that be true? It sure looks like it. In Boston the CDC did tests at a homeless shelter because of cluster of cases there. Out of the 397 people tested, 146 were positive. Out of the 146 who were positive, not one had symptoms. "See?!" we will cry. "It's nefarious! You can have it and not even know it!!" Yes, but what is the downside of an illness without symptoms? None of them were sick. And this wasn't a fluke. Remember that U.S. aircraft carrier that called for help -- the Theodore Roosevelt? They started testing the entire crew -- 4800 members. They determined that some 60% of the crew tested positive and without symptoms. That means that for the majority of people this thing ranges from a cough to no symptoms at all.

This isn't new thinking. The CDC says that 247,785 people tested positive for the flu this last winter and some 24,000 died from it. That's a 10% death rate. The reason they give us the 0.1% number is because they estimate that 39 million were actually infected, so that would be 0.1%. Same idea. For the vast majority, the flu is unpleasant, but certainly not fatal.

So, what do we know? We know that there is a group of what we call "at-risk people" who can absolutely, positively face a harsh death from this virus. That's bad. But there is a growing stack of evidence that the rest of us are not going to bat an eye over it. And that's good. Oh, but wait. That's not true, is it? Because the vast majority who are not going to suffer from the virus, either by not getting it or by getting such a mild version that it's barely a bad cold, are already suffering from it because of the measures being taken to stop it.

There is another factor in play here. Did you know that fear inhibits the immune system? One of the "at risk" factors for dying from this disease is an inhibited immune system. So in some ways we are actually putting ourselves at greater risk by spreading the fear about the risk we're at and aggravating it by locking everyone down.

Now, you know me. I'm one who prefers a biblical approach. Can I find anything in Scripture on the topic? Well, yes, I can. In the Old Testament God gave instructions regarding lepers. Leprosy was a virulent problem. It was so bad that God instructed the people to "put them out of the camp," so to speak. They were required to stay far away from the uninfected. So the concept of quarantining the sick is biblical. There you have it. But, nowhere do we find the concept of quarantining the healthy in order to prevent them from getting sick.

So what am I thinking? I'm thinking that "punishing the innocent for the guilty" is a bad plan. But let me be clear. I am not thinking, "We must save the economy even if it costs lives." Not on my radar. Here's what I'm thinking. Why don't we do the biblical thing? Why don't we isolate (and I mean actually isolate) the sick and leave the healthy to go about their business? Some may envision a Japanese internment camp scenario. I'm not. I'm thinking of safe places where these people can be isolated from the rest of the population while being cared for until they get better. We should also identify a particular set of "at-risk people" who we can take to another place for their protection, preferably voluntarily. But this concept of locking up everybody doesn't make sense. It obviously doesn't make sense economically, but, as I said, that's not my primary concern. It doesn't make sense based on what we now know about this virus and its mostly almost benign presentation. It doesn't make sense from a practical standpoint where we make it nearly impossible to find solutions because we've blocked resources and personnel in order to be safe from what they are researching. (That comes from someone who works at a lab that could actually have been working on solutions except for the fact that we've been stopped because of social distancing requirements.) Sweden took a different approach. They isolated the sick but intentionally left the healthy alone with a purpose. They call it "herd immunity." They are working on the historical concept that if a population gets a particular disease and survives, that entire population gains immunity to that disease. They believe it's working. I'm thinking that if the vast majority of America is actually safe from any serious results of this thing, then the vast majority of America should be able to go back to their lives. There is also the reality that if people are exposed to this virus and develop antibodies, it will produce an "immunized" society whereas isolating everyone and not developing this immunity will simply enable it to pop up again.

I'm in favor of saving lives. I'm in favor of saving lives at great cost. I'm just not sure we're doing that. I think there is growing scientific evidence that suggests we are not. I think there are more and more reasons to think we are cutting our own throats to avoid what we thought was a killer and turns out to be a "flu" the likes of which we've been dealing with forever. I think we need to ask some tough questions and think this through again.

Postscript
Now this is interesting. I just came across this. According to government -- the Department of Health & Human Services -- "isolation" is defined as separating sick people with a contagious disease from people who are not sick, and "quarantine" is defined as separating and restricting the movements of people who were exposed to a contagious disease to see if they become sick. In both cases, the ones separated are the infected or exposed. Why, then, have we isolated and quarantined those who are not sick or exposed? Is this even legal?

Freedom and Obligation

Freedom is really important to us. Of course, that all depends on how you define it, doesn't it? But here's the catch. Freedom doesn't actually exist. As an example, are we guaranteed the free exercise of religion? Well, no, not really, as demonstrated when a northern California county banned online singing and wind instruments. Okay, outlandish, sure, but we really know we are not actually free. We're not free to murder, to rape, to fly to the moon without technology. I mean, there are lots of things we're not free to do. There are limitations everywhere.

The Bible agrees. Humans are not free. Paul writes,

Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? (Rom 6:16)

Everyone is a slave. You can be a slave to sin or a slave to righteousness, but everyone is a slave.

In that same passage Paul says, "For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness." (Rom 6:20) That's interesting, isn't it? He talks there about being free, but the freedom he talks about is freedom from righteousness. What does that mean? This goes to the basic concept of obligation. Obligation is the opposite of freedom. If you have obligations, you aren't free. And all of us have obligations, so no one is actually free. In this case, however, Paul is talking about being free from the obligation to be righteous. Because, as he explained earlier, "No one does good, not even one." (Rom 3:12) Slaves to sin.

I came across this interesting verse in 1 Peter.

Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. (1 Peter 2:16)

Now there's a contradiction for you, right? "Live as people who are free," he says "as servants of God." People who are free are servants of God. Submitting yourself to righteousness (Rom 6:18) is freedom.

We can't escape obligation in this life. That means that our perception of freedom doesn't actually exist. If you define it as Scripture does, true freedom is found in being God's servant. So live as people who are free.

Just a Rant

Okay, this isn't spiritual or controversial. It isn't biblical or religious in the least. I'm not going to explain to you what "this" Scripture means so you can say, "Oh, look at that!" or "No, it doesn't" (without explaining further why it doesn't or why it means something different). I'm not going to explain (again) why there is no such thing as "marriage" for same-sex couples or why we're abusing the language. This is completely off topic for me ... in just about every way possible. Just to be clear up front.

Let me explain this from an example. I work in a highly technical environment (biolabs, cutting-edge electronic design, software development, advanced research, etc.). So my boss comes to me and says, "Hey, we might be able to use this device" (say, a $14,000 FLIR camera, for instance) "in a project we're working on. Can you look into it?" And being the good worker I try to be, I jump right in. I search the internet, contact the company, find out all the particulars, and report back to my boss. Job well done.

Then I go back to my regular work and go to look up something else ... and there are ads popping up everywhere telling me about this FLIR camera and others. "Maybe you'd want to go look. Maybe you'd like to buy some. How about it, man?" Over and over and over. On sidebars and in the middle of scientific articles I'm reading and ... everywhere. "Let's see ... click on 'stop showing this ad.' That should stop it." Of course it doesn't. By "We'll try to stop showing you this ad" they mean "We'll double down and show it more." "Oh," they say (not actually say, just do), "by the way, we're linking your work account to your home accounts, so you'll be seeing these ads there, too. Good luck with that."

What's up with this? Why do we need or want this invasion -- invasion of privacy, invasion of access, invasion of work? I'll be in the middle of reading an assigned webpage and a full-screen ad for the thing I never wanted will pop up with a highly obscure way to close it, preventing me from doing what I'm supposed to do thanks to this invasive technology we classify as a "work saver." It's not like junk mail. "Oh, look at that, I can tell it's nothing I'll need. I'll throw it away without even opening it." It's not like billboards. "Just keep your eyes on the road." It's in your face, relentless, inevitable, unstoppable.

I want a way to stop this invasion, but I'm pretty sure the internet won't allow it. I already have a hard time with the "miracle of the internet" where it used to be supposed that you can find out about just about anything you want with a click of a button. Now I can find out just about anywhere I can buy something vaguely related to the thing I'm trying to find out about, but finding information? Not always so easy. But you can hardly do business anymore without this intrusive system built almost entirely on trying to take money out of my wallet ... for things I don't want. So, no, I don't expect a way to stop this.

Thus, the rant.

It's Complicated

The word "Christian" is intended to mean "follower of Christ." Not complicated. Paul said that the "good" which God causes all things to work together for (Rom 8:28) is the conforming of the elect into the image of God's Son (Rom 8:29). That is, as followers of Christ, we are to conform to His image. Seems fairly straightforward.

It's not.

Many times we're told by the world and by others who claim to be Christian, "You need to be more like Jesus. You know, more loving, more accepting, more gentle." And, of course, Jesus is known for spending time with sinners and for telling the woman "caught in adultery" that He didn't condemn her (John 8:11). But for reasons that elude me no one ever says, "You need to be more like Jesus. You know, making whips and throwing moneychangers out of the Temple" or "Confronting the spiritual leaders of the day and warning them that they are hypocrites and cursed." Or the like. Because Jesus was not simple; He was complicated.

When I'm told, "You need to be more gentle like Jesus" I tend to respond with the examples I offered above. Jesus was not always gentle and warm and fuzzy. But that doesn't change the fact that He was gentler and more humble than we ever are. So it appears we don't have a problem of being judgmental; we have a problem of missing the mark ... in both directions.

Being a follower of Christ is serious business. It takes diligence and perseverance and hard work (Php 2:12-13). If we truly want to follow Christ, we need to search the Scriptures and follow all of Him -- the pleasant and the unpleasant. And if Christ is God (and He is), it stands to reason that conforming to His image will be difficult and even hard to grasp at times. What it will not be is simple. Because, to the finite, the infinite is complicated.

Who Moved?

I don't know their theology and I'm this is not an advertisement, but I've the local radio station has been playing a lot of this 2018 Casting Crowns song, Love Moved First, and I like it. Specifically, the lyrics.

The song talks about a loser.

This is the story of a runaway
With no way home and no way out

We're often not aware of it, but it describes us all in our natural condition. No way home; no way out (Rom 3:9-20; Eph 2:12). If we are to grasp the reality, we have to see this starting point.

The chorus says,

You didn't wait for me to find my way to You
I couldn't cross that distance even if I wanted to
You came running after me
When anybody else would've turned
And left me at my worst
Love moved first

The direction we're looking here is "You" -- Christ. And the view we retain of "me" is inability. The realization of the gap. "I couldn't cross that distance," it says. A lack of ability. But worse: "... even if I wanted to." A lack of interest.

"That's harsh," some might think. It is, but it's biblical, too. Scripture says, "No one seeks for God." (Psa 14:2; Rom 3:11) Paul wrote, "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) That verse speaks of both "cannot" and "don't want to." We stand, as natural human beings, unable and unwilling to move toward God.

So it is much bigger than we often realize to see that "love moved first." And look how far.

From the throne to the manger
From a manger to the grave
Your cross is the proof
Love made the first move
From a grave meant to keep You
To a stone rolled away
Your cross is the proof
Love made the first move
I remember where You found me
I'm amazed by where I stand
Your cross is the proof
That love made the first move

It's Sunday -- the Lord's Day. Every Sunday is a celebration of the distance Christ moved to save us -- from heaven to manger to cross to grave to resurrection. To save rebels with their fists in the air hating Him and declaring their undying allegiance to "I will be like the Most High."

I want to celebrate that over and over. I want to see the distance. I want to see the distance I had at the start between me and my Creator and weep. I want to see the distance my Savior moved to cross that distance between us and to save me and rejoice. I want to be reminded over and over of the amazing love and grace shown to me who deserved nothing less than eternal death. I want that vision of things to inform my living, to love more since I was forgiven so much at such cost.

News Weakly - 4/18/20

Another Virus Victim
Last week the governor of Kentucky ordered state police to record license plates of residents who attend church on Easter and report them for quarantine. "Local health departments are going to come to your door with an order for you to be quarantined for 14 days," he said. The Babylon Bee had its own take: Kentucky Orders All Churchgoers To Wear Yellow Cross

Contrast that with Texas Governor Gregg Abbot who declared religious services as essential.

Worldwide millions of people have suffered from contracting this Wuhan Virus. Beyond that, there have been hundreds of thousands of deaths. Additionally, people have lost jobs and businesses and suffered loss that losing an income brings. Now there's another victim, especially in America. It appears that the First Amendment has been infected. At least, that's how it looks in several places around the country. Churches have attempted to keep social distancing rules while gathering for important things like Resurrection celebrations only to find themselves targeted by the government. It happened in Kentucky and Mississippi and New York and elsewhere. (New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio threatened to shut down churches permanently if they violated the restrictions.) Those who tried to go to drive-in churches were targeted and fined even though they never came in contact with anyone else.

The government has the right and responsibility to keep its people safe. Taking reasonable steps to prevent further spread of this virus is not unreasonable. What is unreasonable is the targeting of churches. They still allow drive-in cannabis and alcohol purchases. Essential? Protection of its people is one thing; targeting religious practice is another. And if it goes unchallenged now as both "nonessential" and "acceptable practice," it will emerge on the other side as normal and acceptable. This story of Google deplatforming a church because they don't like their sermons is an example of how it's already happening.

Battling On
In an incredible upset, Joe Biden won the presidential primary in Alaska running against ... no one at all. "He now has 1,228 delegates and needs 1,991 to become the official Democratic nominee for president," the news item said. It was also noted that Biden beat Sanders (who is not even running) 55.3% to 44.7%. It's a real nail-biter, folks.

Believe Some Women
One of Joe Biden's former accusers has come forward again. According to The Week, Tara Reade's accusation (she's one of eight) of sexual assault against Biden was investigated by the New York Times. They "found no corroboration outside of two friends Reade told in 1993 and 2008." (Interestingly, a New York Times editor admitted that they changed the story after the Biden campaign complained.) Clearly, when conservatives are accused, the standard that needs to be met is "Believe all women," but when it's a liberal, not so much.

The Name of God is Blasphemed ...
The headline reads, "Prominent evangelical leader, Bishop Gerald O. Glenn, dies from coronavirus in Virginia." Glenn made the news in late March when he told his congregation, "I firmly believe that God is larger than this dreaded virus." So, what do we know? We know a pastor died of complications from the virus. We know that he was the pastor of the New Deliverance Evangelistic Church in Richmond, Virginia. We know that he claimed that God was greater than the virus and that he died. What don't we know? We don't know if he was "evangelical" in his beliefs, even though the headline apparently mixes up "Evangelistic" in the name of his church with "evangelical" in reference to his theology. And nothing about this says that God is not larger than this dreaded virus. What else do we know? We know that The name of God will be blasphemed because of the mainstream media ... without just cause.

To Mask or Not to Mask?
As it turns out, a recent study showed that face masks do make a difference, although it is counterintuitive. You see, the holes on surgical masks are small enough (as low as 16.9µm) to block bacteria, but the largest known virus is only 0.5µm in diameter, so face masks shouldn't help. As it happens, however, the virus expelled from an infected person is contained in respiratory droplets and those are larger than the virus. So face masks (preferably homemade to keep the real ones available for those on the frontlines) do help. Now, if we could only get people to stop touching their faces ...

The Least of These

When Barack Obama was in office, he famously quoted Scripture for a cause at the moment. He referred to Jesus's words, "As you did it to one of the least of these My brothers, you did it to Me." (Matt 25:40) It is part of the Social Justice mantra. "The least of these." "Look," they say, "it refers to the needy." Because, in context, Jesus speaks about the hungry and the thirsty, the stranger and the naked, the sick and the imprisoned (Matt 25:35-36). "So we're all supposed to care for 'the least of these,'" they tell us. But ... just who are "the least of these"?

First, the quote comes from Jesus telling a parable (Matt 25:31-46). It's the story of the King gathering sheep and goats. The sheep are on His right and the goats on His left. The sheep cared for "the least of these" and the goats did not. The sheep are welcomed into the kingdom and the goats are sent to eternal punishment. That is, this is serious business.

So who are "the least of these"? We don't have to figure it out. Jesus states it in the text.

"Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me." (Matt 25:40)

He explains that "the least of these" are "these brothers of Mine." Well, now, that limits it, doesn't it?

You see, despite the warm and fuzzy notion that we're all God's children and all brothers, Scripture is abundantly clear that this just isn't so. John wrote, "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name." (John 1:12) Paul wrote that those whom God foreknew are being "conformed to the image of His Son so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren." (Rom 8:29) It is only those who are in Christ who are classified as "these brothers of Mine" and not the general public.

This is consistent with Jesus's teaching. "By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another." (John 13:35) Speaking to His disciples, He referenced love for one another, not "everybody." We are to love everybody -- our "neighbors" -- but this love for the brethren is a specific and special component of that which identifies us as His disciples.

The difference in Jesus's story in Matthew 25 between the sheep and the goats was not what they did. The difference was in what they were -- sheep or goats. They might resemble one another, but they're not the same. What they were -- sheep or goats -- reflected in what they did. In the same way, if we are His disciples (sheep), it should reflect in what we do. What we should be doing (almost unknowingly, according to the story) is naturally caring for God's people in need. And if we are not, we should really check our status. "Do I just resemble a sheep? Am I actually a goat??" Because the mark of a believer is love for the brethren. And "the least of these" refers to God's people -- brethren -- for whom we ought to be caring. Especially these days.

Stereotypical

I go to a church. Now you know something about me, right? I must be religious. Fair enough. I go to a baptist church. Ah! Now you know something more. Likely conservative Christian. I go to a Southern Baptist church. Okay, now we're getting somewhere. You are pretty sure you could lay out most of my doctrinal and even political beliefs at this point. Fairly easy.

You'd think.

I have a friend who often will say things like, "I don't mean to insult your baptist beliefs, but ..." What he says after that might insult some baptists' beliefs, but almost never mine. You see, I'm not a committed Southern Baptist; I'm a Christian. He also knows that I generally fall in the Reformed category, and he'll say it there, too. "I know this goes against your Calvinism, but ..." And it doesn't because he's responding to beliefs in "Calvinism" that I don't have. Because I'm not a committed Calvinist; I'm a Christian. I have people telling me that I'm a Trump supporter because I'm a Christian despite the fact that I didn't vote for him and warned others not to vote for him (and wrote later about the nonsense of "81% of white evangelicals voted for Trump").

What's my point? My point is we're all individuals. My point is it is too easy to stereotype. My point is we all tend to pigeonhole people based on generalizations. And I am pretty sure that it is rare that any individual falls within all of these stereotypes.

So what?

We are commanded to love our neighbors. Jesus said to do to others what you would have them do to you. I would think that we would all like to have people treat us with respect and dignity, to recognize our individuality and the fact that we are not like everyone else. I believe, then, that it is not love that causes us to stereotype people and it is a failure on our part when we assign to individuals a belief structure from the whole.

You see, I think being a Christ-follower is work -- hard work. I think it takes time and effort and care. It takes connection with individuals, the "one anothers" of the Scriptures. I think there is some value in generalizations, of course, but that's in terms of groups -- groups of thinking, groups of beliefs, groups of practices, etc. It is not particularly helpful in terms of individuals.

If we are to love one another, we will find it to be work. Hard work. But since love is part of the definition of what it means to follow Christ and we are to "work out your salvation with fear and trembling," perhaps we ought to be willing and diligent to do that work. I know I need to do it. I know I would appreciate it if others showed me that same love.

Shaking Hands

I don't know. It feels more and more like the nation's leading expert on infectious diseases, Dr. Anthony Fauci, has let this window of opportunity to be in the public eye go to his head. He's starting to sound like other celebrities making bizarre statements. Recently he said, "I don't think we should ever shake hands ever again, to be honest with you."

I can think of people, even church members, I know who would be aghast at the suggestion. "Never shake hands again? How would we greet one another??" There is a deeper sense of connection that occurs when we connect physically, and this connection is now in question. What then?

Well, the first thing we'd need to do is start cutting text out of the pages of our bibles because more than once Paul tells people to greet one another with a "holy kiss" (Rom 16:16; 1 Cor 16:20; 2 Cor 13:12; 1 Thess 5:26). Obviously when God breathed those texts He was unaware of disease transmission. If He had been, He would have suggested something like "Greet one another with an elbow bump" perhaps.

But why? Why should we change what appears to be an ancient tradition? Well, it transmits diseases, you see. And we need to do whatever it takes to stop transmitting diseases. That's important, right?

Maybe. But I'm not sure I follow the logic. If we need to dump practices that endanger our health, I would suggest that shaking hands is just the tip of the iceberg. Stop drinking alcohol. Stop smoking. Stop driving. Stop eating junk food. Stop being pessimistic. Stop taking so many antibiotics. One article includes things like crossing our legs, feeding birds, microwaving popcorn, and drinking skim milk. One health risk that should be patently obvious is human contact. I mean, isn't that what this whole "social distancing" is all about? We should really avoid any human contact at all in order to be safe.

At this point I hope you get the idea. A life driven by avoiding health risk is not a life at all.

So perhaps it's a good idea to reevaluate handshaking. Perhaps not. It is a good idea to be conscious of what we do and why, but it's not a good idea to make risk avoidance our sole motivation. In fact, as followers of Christ, we have one primary motivation -- the glory of God. There is no risk worth avoiding in the pursuit of that task. Even if it includes shaking hands. Or a holy kiss.

What Does THAT Mean?

In John's Gospel we get a lot of difficult sayings from the lips of our Savior. Things like "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." (John 3:3) Wait, what? What do you mean "cannot see"? None of us can physically see it. Do you mean that, in order to have any connection to the kingdom of God you must first be born again? So we puzzle through it. Or "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (John 3:5) Okay. So what exactly is this "born of water and the Spirit" thing? Born physically and born spiritually? No, that won't work. Everyone is already born physically. (Hint: Ezek 36:25-27) Some are surprising, like when the woman at the well asked where we should worship and He answered, "God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth." (John 4:24) Okay, that was unexpected.

But some are really tough.

"No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day." (John 6:44)

Okay, fairly straightforward, right? So the Father is wooing people, drawing them, trying to lure them in a sense. You know, like those shops in the mall that blow out good smells or something. "You want to come in here, don't you?" Seems okay. Except it doesn't make sense.

The idea is that this "draw" is universal. The Father draws everyone. It's just up to each individual whether or not he or she will respond. But there's a problem. If the only way to get to Christ is the drawing of the Father and everyone is drawn, what's the point of the statement. "The only way to go swimming is in water." Ummm, yeah ... why are you telling us this? If this "draw" is universal, then everyone can come to Christ and the statement is useless.

The language of the verse adds additional glitches. When it says, "No man can come ..." it includes the Greek word, dunamis -- power. No one has the power to come. No one. Not one. It's not a lack of interest; it's a lack of ability. But the real glitch is in the word, "draw." According to Strong's, the word is helkō and is literally, "to drag (literally or figuratively)." John uses the word in John 21:8 when they dragged the net full of fish ashore or in John 18:10 when Peter drew his sword. "Wooing" doesn't seem to fit with the word.

It only falls apart further if you look at context. This statement from Christ is in the middle of a dialog with people who were fed (John 6:1-15) and wanted more miraculous food (John 6:25-27). So Jesus explains that He is the bread of life (John 6:35). In this, He makes this claim.

"All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out." (John 6:37)

Most of us see that as a marvelous promise of eternal life that can't be lost, so the statement itself isn't difficult. It is, however, the context of verse 44. There is a natural connection between, "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me" and "No man can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him." They're like bookends of a single thought, two ways to say the same thing. "The Father draws him" and "the Father gives Me" look like the same group of people. And it's a limited group, not universal.

There is more context. As the conversation goes on, Jesus gets more bizarre -- "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day." (John 6:54) This is so disturbing that "many of His disciples" were grumbling about it (John 6:60). Jesus replies, "There are some of you who do not believe. For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father." (John 6:64-65) Some did not believe. Jesus knew that. And He explained why ("For this reason I have said ..."). The reason they didn't believe was "No one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father." You can certainly see the same language here as in the verse 44. "No one can come to Me unless ..." It appears, then, that Jesus is saying the same thing all over again. "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me. No one can come to Me unless the Father draws him. No man can come to Me unless the Father grants it." It seems abundantly clear that Jesus is putting a limit on who can come to Him, who the Father is giving to Him, who can believe in Him. All the same thing. It is limited to God's work. God is the first cause here, the One who gives and draws and grants. Those who are given are drawn and those who are drawn are granted and those who are not are not.

There is an objection to all this. "Doesn't Jesus say, 'Now judgment is upon this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out. And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself'? (John 12:31-32) Doesn't that say that He draws all men to Himself?" Perhaps. Of course, that, once again, makes John 6:44 pointless. But it also makes for a good case for universalism. All are drawn so all are saved. That's problematic. But if you look at the verse, it turns out that the translation puts a word in there that is not in the text. The text does not include "men." Odd, isn't it? He said, "If I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw all to Myself." So, Jesus, all what? There are possibilities. Maybe it's all people, although that presents its own problems. The context is "judgment is upon this world," so the "all" in view is not people but judgment ... which He took on the cross ... which was what He was talking about being lifted up on. Or it could just refer to all whom the Father gives, all who are drawn, all who come by faith. If either of those options are true, then we don't have a contradiction and we do have a tough verse to crack there in John 6:44 because that means that not everyone has the ability to come and the work is a work of the Father, not our own.

Is that really that bad?

Too Soon?

You've heard that question before, right? It is almost inevitable. Something bad will happen and eventually we'll turn it into a joke. It's a coping mechanism. But, of course, there is an appropriate time first. You don't want to turn pain into a laughing matter. Wait until it heals a bit. Then you can use laughter as a medicine.

On Saturdays I write a weekly news entry. I point out stuff in the news that I consider worth commenting on. Because it is weekly it is fairly fresh. And because most of my comments carry a bit of irony or satire or humor in them, I run the risk of "Too soon?"

There is one news item out there that is unavoidable -- this Wuhan Virus issue. There are times it feels like there is no other news. And sometimes I might appear as flippant on the subject. (Flippant: not showing the proper serious or respectful attitude.) I'm not. I'll tell you where I do fail to show a serious or respectful attitude on. The fear.

I get it. People are afraid. And, seriously, I get it why "the many" would be afraid. Death is terrifying. But not to "the few." To those who are in Christ, Death has lost its sting. So when I see believers terrified of something like this, I wonder. Is being with Christ not gain? Does God not work all things together for good to those who love Him? Is He not in charge, not the one who makes light and makes calamity? Did something change?

So I play with it. I point out that God has actually decreased the pollution in this world with this killer virus. Because God works all things together for good. I point out that the idea of cutting out exercise in order to be more healthy is foolish. I point out that our lousy values (like See's Candy or getting waffles at Waffle House) might need some realignment. For instance.

This is a serious time and we need serious prayer and serious action. That's true. So I am trying to keep others safe by avoiding getting sick and giving it to them. But that's not terror and this isn't the end of the world. We need to be renewed in our minds -- we who know Jesus. If I can nudge you in that direction and I can do it with a bit of humor, I think that's a helpful thing to do. Because it's never too soon to act more like a believer.

Beginning at the End

Last Thursday was "Maundy Thursday," the traditional somber celebration of Christ's arrest and trial. Friday was "Good Friday," the day we recognize the Crucifixion, the slaying of the Son of God on our behalf. (It's almost ironic that we call that "good.")

The last thing that Jesus said as He hung on that cross was recorded in John's Gospel.

When Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, “It is finished,” and He bowed His head and gave up His spirit. (John 19:30)

"It is finished." In Greek, a single word: "Tetelestai" They tell me it was used as an economic term for "paid in full." "It is finished." What was finished?

At that moment Christ became our "propitiation" (Rom 3:25; 1 John 2:2; 1 John 4:10). The term means, in general, "atonement," but the sense of it is the appeasement of wrath. Based on His sacrifice on our behalf and our subsequent justification by faith, , Paul concludes, "Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." (Rom 5:1) The wrath that God has for sin (Rom 1:18) has been finished in Christ.

In Acts the believers pray for boldness in persecution "for truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and Your plan had predestined to take place." (Acts 4:27-28) In the garden He prayed, "Thy will be done." When Jesus paid that price on the cross, He completed the will of the Father there.

On that cross He fulfilled prophecies and gave substances to Old Testament ceremonies, a reality that sacrifices could not finish. He did. He paid the price for us in full (Rom 3:24; Col 1:13-14).

At the cross He made a substantive change to believers. Before we believed, we were sinners, incapable of anything but sin. Because "It is finished," we, by faith, are justified and born again to new life. At this point we have the possibility of choosing not to sin. We are baptized with Him into death and raised to new life (Rom 6:4). Sin is ended for the believer. We merely await the completion of that reality.

There's more, but you can begin to see the breadth of "It is finished." So today we celebrate His Resurrection, God's receipt for Christ's payment. His resurrected life is our eternal life. His resurrection is our certainty of salvation. His newness of life is our hope. But we begin this story, this journey, this faith at the end: "It is finished." And we rejoice in that "already, not yet" completion.

News Weakly - 4/11/20

Getting Serious
I guess Paris is getting serious about this whole "social isolation" thing. They've banned outdoor exercise. Tell me there won't be some unintended consequences from that edict. I suppose it might get more serious. Already See's Candies has suspended candy-making for only the 2nd time in their 99 year history, and Waffle House has broken its record for the most stores closed. It's the end of the world as we know it.

Democracy at Work
Once again the DNC has successfully maneuvered presidential contestant Bernie Sanders out of the race in order to assure their choice of candidates would get the nod. Like the rest of the pack of more than 20 contenders, including all the front runners above Joe Biden, he has determined that there is no path forward for successful Democratic nomination, leaving the Democrats with just crazy Joe as their candidate. Hey, maybe that's why a conservative Republican group endorsed Biden for president? (Interestingly, Obama is still holding off endorsing Biden just to see if anyone else will run. Must be true; I read it on the internet.)

Under the same heading, Georgia has postponed their primaries ... again. More than 15 other states have, too. Because, after all, these things are really necessary when the Republicans have one candidate and the Dems have one candidate and your vote, unless you vote for one of those in the primaries, doesn't count.

More COVID-19 Good News
For the first time in 30 years the Himalayas are visible in India as far as 125 miles away thanks to the drop in pollution levels brought to you by the coronavirus. It appears that the Wuhan Virus is a real boon for Greta's cause.

Can She Do That?
Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds proclaimed a "Day of Prayer" for the state of Iowa saying, "The power of prayer and faith in God is something that has guided so many of us in good times and bad." Can she do that? Is that even legal? Is it legal these days to say the word "God" in public, especially in office, without intending it to be a swear word? And why would anyone appeal to the only One who can really make a difference in this whole thing? We live in strange times.

Peace, Peace
We are told to "Pray for the peace of Jerusalem" (Psa 122:6). These times, in particular, it requires prayer because humans aren't going to do it. Did you know that it is illegal for Palestinians to attempt "normalization activity with the Israeli occupation"? Peace activists in the Gaza Strip were arrested for talking to Israelis. According to Hamas, "Holding any activity or contact with the Israeli occupation under any cover is a crime punishable by law and a betrayal for the people and their sacrifices." But our media is pretty clear that it is Israel that is the warmongering haters there.

Headlines
A little comic relief from the Babylon Bee:

Bernie Tests Negative for President. Almost not satire at all.

Episcopal Church Reports No Change in Attendance in Recent Weeks. Ouch!

New Zoom Filter Makes it Look Like You're Wearing Clothes. Very helpful to those working from home, right?

Lessons in Crisis

In Romans Paul writes about three key benefits we receive because of the Gospel.

Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Through Him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God. Not only that, but we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not put us to shame, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us. (Rom 5:1-5)

Three key benefits: 1) We have peace with God when we were facing His wrath, 2) we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God when we had fallen short of His glory, and 3) we rejoice in sufferings. That last is a longer explanation. We rejoice in suffering not because we become masochists, but because we know that suffering leads to endurance which produces character which produces hope in God's love. These are huge benefits.

So, what about the suffering of the current crisis? What can we learn from COVID-19 that offers endurance, character, and/or hope? I think there is a lot. Here are just a few

1. All humans suffer from sin. All humans suffer consequences of sin. Some of that suffering is "real time" -- happening as we speak. This virus is a result of human sin. This reminds us of our mortality, which is a good thing, and of the real damage that sin does in this life and beyond if we don't repent. We think of sin as "goofs," a "faux pas" perhaps, but this crisis gives us a taste of the very real cost of sin, and it's not a slap on the hand.

2. If our sense of security is in our circumstances -- our world, our jobs, our friends and family, ourselves -- this virus exposes how weak that security is. All of this life is transient. Health, jobs, the comfortable norm, friends and family, temporal safety ... all of it can be stripped away in a moment. This is why we are told repeatedly to hope in God (Psa 42:5; Psa 43:5; Psa 62:5; Psa 78:7; Psa 146:5; Psa 147:11; Lam 3:24; Col 1:27; Rom 15:13; 1 Peter 1:21; etc.).

3. When we are out of control, we are reminded that He is in control. It certainly feels like this virus is outrunning anything we can do to stop it. We don't know how to manage it. We don't know what to do. We don't know what's next or when it will end. So it is with great joy that we can read, "In all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Rom 8:37-39) The biblical certainty that "faith, hope, and love abide" (1 Cor 13:13) are a supreme comfort to us in crisis. In all cases, the battle belongs to the Lord.

4. In a world hotly pursued by the specter of imminent death, we alone have good reason for imminent hope. After His visit to the desert, Jesus returned and began preaching the gospel: "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." (Matt 4:17; Mark 1:14-15) This COVID-19 scare is literally pushing people closer to the brink of a face-to-face experience with the kingdom of God. For believers, however, "to live is Christ, and to die is gain." (Php 1:21) That's a win-win. If we live, we live for Christ. If we die, we enter His presence. No one else offers that kind of hope. Yes, we stand on real ground. This crisis has real effects on believers as well as unbelievers. Like everyone, we face loss including potential sickness and even death. But in Christ alone we have certain hope that in life we are with Christ and in death we are with Christ and for those who believe there is nothing better.

There are many more things we can learn, I'm sure. God is always good and we don't always remember. In life people and things are often meant for evil, but God always intends them for good. So, in this, as in all tribulation, we can rejoice knowing that God will use it to produce character which produces hope in God's love. Remind one another of these things.

A Biblical Sexual Ethic

We don't have to beat around the bush on biblical sexual ethics. It's not vague. Everyone who is aware of biblical ethics -- believers or skeptics -- knows that, biblically, sex is good within marriage and bad outside of marriage. End of story. This isn't debatable, isn't in question. This is one of the reasons that the "gay Christian" agenda pushed so hard for "gay marriage." Step 1: Undefine "marriage." Step 2: Argue that everyone has the right to marry. Step 3: Take that to court. (Step 4: Deny that everyone has the right to marry -- polygamists, incestuous relationships, etc.) Bingo! Now a "gay Christian' can have "God-approved" sex! Because even they know that the biblical ethic of sex is "only within the bonds of matrimony."

It is also clear from Scripture that this is a big problem. Over and over we are warned of the dangers of "sexual immorality" (e.g., Matt 5:32; Matt 15:19; Acts 15:20; Rom 13:13; 1 Cor 5:11; 1 Cor 6:13, 18; 1 Cor 7:1-2; 2 Cor 12:21; Gal 5:19; Col 3:5; 1 Thess 4:3; Jude 1:7; Rev 2:14; Rev 2:20-21; etc.). Paul begins a thought with this: "For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality ..." (1 Thess 4:3ff). That is, God's will is our sanctification and one of the very first starting points of that sanctification is abstaining from sexual immorality. That is, it's really a big problem. We get that.

Why is it, then, that we so often ignore it? Well, I guess I've answered that question already. It's a big problem. But this problem is both big and, conversely, hidden ... because we've become so inured to it that we don't recognize it. Some of us, for instance, can't see how a "gay Christian" who is "married" shouldn't be having sex. That's because we've completely bought the undefined "marriage" offered by and to "gay Christians." It's not biblical. Biblical marriage is the union of a man and a woman (Gen 2:24; Matt 19:5; Eph 5:31). (Note: I included those three references because they demonstrate 1) a constant definition from beginning to end and 2) because it comes even from the lips of Jesus.) Therefore, any sex between two people of the same gender is biblically outside of marriage. Or we've become so used to it ourselves that we don't see it. Take what is likely the most common sexual immorality we practice as humans in the 21st century -- masturbation. For so very many Christians today they might respond immediately when they read this, "What? You're suggesting that's unbiblical??" Well, yes, certainly. Because we know that sex outside of marriage is sexual immorality and masturbation is sex alone and, therefore, sex outside of marriage. (Read "sin.")

Within the bonds of marriage God has created sex for procreation (obviously) and for the mutual physical and spiritual oneness of the two who become one. This can be abused (e.g., 1 Cor 6:15-16). It can be misused in marriage (e.g., 1 Cor 7:3-5). But it is God's gift to us -- a beautiful thing. Let's not continue to mess it up by discarding what we already know to be God's sexual ethic -- the union of a man and a woman in marriage to include shared intimacy including physical intimacy. All that other stuff -- sex outside of marriage, homosexual sex, porn, masturbation, etc. -- is classified as "sexual immorality." As Paul says, "Flee sexual immorality." (1 Cor 6:18)

But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. (Eph 5:3)

I Know Whom I Have Believed

Years ago I was conversing with friends about the times we were in. Christianity was no longer in vogue. Hostility toward Christians was rising. People were leaving the church. "Deconversions" were seemingly constant and "evangelical" -- they felt it was their duty to tell every believer why we were wrong to believe. And my friends were bemoaning the trends. "If this keeps up, the church will disappear."

Jesus would beg to differ. The church, as it turns out, is not ours; it's His. Paul wrote, "Christ is the head of the church, His body." (Eph 5:23) Jesus said, "I will build My church" (Matt 16:18). In that same verse He said, "The gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Scripture assures us, "In all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us." (Rom 8:37) This is not a question. The existence of Christ's Body is not dependent on the good will of the world or even believers.

Remember the story of Elijah (1 Kings 17-18)? He told Ahab it wouldn't rain and it didn't. He hid and God fed him. When the stream dried up he went to a widow's house who was preparing her last meal before she and her boy died and God fed them. When the boy got sick and died, God used Elijah to raise him from the dead. Then he had that famous battle of the believers -- Baal worshipers against Elijah. Who will produce fire? The fire god or Jehovah? It's a fun story, really, and in the end God produced spectacular results and the prophets of Baal were hunted down and killed. The end. Except it wasn't the end (1 Kings 19). Queen Jezebel threatened to kill Elijah, so he ran into the desert and asked to die. In a remarkable story on its own (1 Kings 19:4-18), God told him that He had kept 7,000 of Israel for Himself. Wait ... Who kept 7,000? You see, from beginning to end it has always been God sustaining His people. Always.

People are wondering today in our COVID-19 world. What will happen to the church if this keeps up? Will there be deaths? (Probably.) Will there be fundamental changes to church? (Changes, maybe, although "fundamental" is not likely.) Will the church cease to be the church? Absolutely not. Some will point out that in times of crisis the church grows, and this is a crisis. On the other hand, rarely do those numbers remain when the crisis passes. Some will tell you that the church needs to change, but that's not up to us, is it? Some are concerned that this could end the church. Can't happen. It cannot happen. That's because the church is not dependent on the world or even believers. She is built by and sustained by Christ, her Savior.

I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Rom 8:38-39)

Rest easy, my friends. Times are tough, but our God is tougher.

A Mistake in Scripture

Now, just to be clear, so that my readers don't become either excited or miffed. I am not about to point out a mistake in Scripture. I'm about to point out a mistake someone in Scripture made. So, cool your jets you skeptics and breathe easy you believers.

Remember the well-known story of Abraham and Isaac where God told Abraham to sacrifice his son? Such a gripping story (Gen 22:1-19)! God told him, "Take now your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I will tell you." Yikes! Acknowledging that this was a singular son and a son who was loved, God tells him to sacrifice the boy. Now, we don't know how old Isaac was at the time, but Abraham "rose early in the morning" and set out to do what he was told. At the place where God told him, he took Isaac (He made Isaac carry the wood!) up the mountain. On the way Isaac asked, "Where is the lamb for the burnt offering?" And his father answered, "God will provide for Himself the lamb." At the designated place Abraham set up the sacrifice, bound his son, and laid him on the wood. He raised his knife ... and God stopped him. Whew! Just in the nick of time! A ram was stuck in a nearby thicket, so Abraham offered him instead. And he called the place Jehovah-Jireh -- the Lord will provide.

Did you catch the error? It's really a small one, but, I think, a significant one. Abraham told Isaac that God would provide a lamb ... and He didn't. In this instance He provided a ram. "Well," we'd say generously, "close enough." Maybe.

I think, however, that Abraham was actually right, just at the wrong time. Abraham said that God would provide "for Himself" the lamb. I think that God did provide that lamb ... later. Because we know of another Father who led His Son to the top of the hill to be a sacrifice. Only this time God didn't call out and stop it. This time God finished it. That one and only beloved Son died -- the Lamb of God.

The Abraham and Isaac sacrifice story is really moving. It tells of a father's love and a father's devotion to his Father over those he loved. Hebrews tells us that Abraham did it because he knew his son was a son of promise and God could raise him from the dead (Heb 11:17-19). That passage tells us also that Isaac was "a type" -- a forerunner of the Lamb to come. It tells of God's seeming harshness but actual mercy. It tells us of God's overwhelming sacrifice of His Son on our behalf, a Lamb that God provided for Himself that He might be just and justifier (Rom 3:26). It is a marvelous image of a majestic reality. And all we have to do is believe to participate in the majesty.

(Postscript: The place of that sacrifice in Genesis was Moriah. Moriah means "to see Jehovah" or "to be taught by Jehovah." The other reference to this place is in 2 Chron 3:1. It is the place on which Solomon built the Temple. Now tell me that was a coincidence.)

Thoughts on COVID-19

In the midst of this panic, I find myself pausing for reflection. One of my shortcomings, I suppose. Like when you're watching a stupid horror movie and you're yelling at the on-screen character, "Don't just stand there! Run!!" But, I just stand there.

I've already talked about some of this. I think we have a problem with "essential." The government has decided to suspend the First Amendment because church is not "essential." If you believe that's true, you may not know church. And if the government can determine that your religious beliefs are a threat to public health, so you can't have your religious beliefs, we are looking at a very bad outcome. I've also talked about the fact that we have hope in a coronavirus world. But there is more.

I think there is so much strange here. It's strange that the "essential" jobs largely turn out not to be those jobs that people have gone into great debt to get degrees for. College professors and political scientists and software developers and rocket scientists are all pretty high up there, but not so essential when an invisible virus starts playing tag with everyone. (I won't even comment on the Women's Studies, Philosophy, or Underwater Basket-weaving kind of degrees out there.) No, what we need are the garbage truck drivers, the grocery store workers, the UPS drivers, gas station attendants, that kind of thing. Funny how our priorities shift in crisis, isn't it?

I'm thinking about the disparity between the doom and gloom declarations that give us a worldwide run on toilet paper juxtaposed with the statistical facts. On one hand, the White House is projecting 100K to 240K deaths from this thing. On the other hand, the death rate in the U.S. is around 2%. That means that there will be a 600% increase in the exposure cases or a massive increase in death rate ... while we're already in lockdown and hard at work on this ... in one of the most technologically advanced nations on the planet. The numbers aren't adding up, but we're still in a serious panic.

I'm thinking about the problem of "social distancing" -- of the idea that "isolation" = healthy. Really? Maybe we're looking at minimizing a virus. What other effects are we looking at? Loneliness, isolation, panic, fear, dismantled churches, dismantled businesses, dismantled lives, economic crisis -- fill in your own blank. We might slow this virus some, and I'm not saying we shouldn't, but I think there are far more "unintended consequences" that we aren't considering, and they often do not equate to "healthy" and certainly not "no harm."

But the big question is "Why?" More to the point, "Where is God in all of this?" Renowned Professor of New Testament, N.T. Wright, wrote a piece for Time telling us that Christianity doesn't have the answers. (The title was worse than the article.) That's simply not true. Scripture does have the answers; we just don't like them. Scripture tells us that God made everything good (Gen 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25) -- very good (Gen 1:31). He didn't mess it up. We did (Gen 3:13-19; Rom 8:18-22). So, without claiming this virus is a judgment from God, we can clearly grasp that it is a product of human sin. But we also know that nothing happens here without God's okay. Everything that happens is, ultimately God's will (Psa 115:3; Matt 10:29; Eph 1:11). Including disasters (Amos 3:6; Isa 45:7). See? I told you we don't like the answers.

The truth is all creation points to God (Psa 19:1; Rom 1:20). Including the bad stuff. Including mass-murdering viruses. Some of creation points to His goodness. Some points to God's holiness via our contrasting evil. Everything points to God. We may be vague on how that works -- we end up staring at the finger doing the pointing rather than what it's pointing at -- but what we do know is that God is good (James 1:17; Luke 18:19; Psa 34:8; Psa 107:1; 1 John 1:5; etc.). We do know that God is Sovereign (Psa 135:6; Job 42:2; Eph 3:20; Job 9:12; 1 Tim 1:17, Rev 19:6; 1 Tim 6:15; etc.)

One other consideration. I'm not saying that this is a judgment of God. He hasn't said so; I won't make the claim. But we do know that, if it was, it would be just and correct and even merciful, given the just response from God that we have earned (Rom 6:23).

We know that human sin -- of which all of us are fully culpable -- brought about this virus. We know that God allowed it out of His Sovereignty for good. And we also know that there is salvation available (Acts 16:30-31). We look at this pandemic and think, "How bad can it get?" Jesus answers, "Unless you repent you will all likewise perish." (Luke 13:1-5) May God grant that many heed the call.

A Gentle Reminder

Some time ago I was leaving my family at home while I drove to the airport for a business trip overseas. I prayed as I went. "Dear Lord, please watch over my family while I'm gone." It was one of the few times I felt like I actually heard a response from God. "Did you think it has been you watching over them when you were there?" And I was reminded of my own arrogance. It has always been God.

We live in difficult circumstances. We're rightfully concerned (to varying degrees) over this whole "How many are going to die from this virus?" problem. Our government is responding strongly with "Don't even breathe on one another" to help ease our fears. A lot of us are out of work, isolated from friends, family, church, all the lifelines we've been accustomed to in times of crisis. And at the back of everyone's mind is the constant, "Am I the next to get this thing?" and more. "Am I going to lose my job?" "Is one of my loved ones going to get sick?" "Will someone I love die?" Lots of frightening questions brought on by this virus.

So we pray. We pray for guidance. Guidance for ourselves, for our leaders, for the doctors, for our loved ones. We pray for protection -- protection for all we pray for guidance for. We ask God if it is His will can we keep our jobs, our health, our friends and family, our lives.

And God says, "Did you think it was you before this? Did you think I wasn't providing guidance before this? Did you think I wasn't providing protection before this? Did you think you were keeping your own job, your own health, your own friends and family, your own life?" Because the fact is we tend to be arrogant and it was always God.

And it will always be God. God is still on the throne (Psa 93:1-2). In Him all things consist (Col 1:17). He works all things according to His will (Eph 1:11). All things are from Him and through Him and to Him (Rom 11:36). Not a sparrow falls without Him (Matt 10:29). He is still working all things together for good to those who love Him (Rom 8:28-29).

So go ahead and pray. We're told to do that (1 Thess 5:17). That's good. He offers peace that passes understanding when we pray (Php 4:6-7). Do that. But keep in your mind and your heart the comforting fact that He was watching over us before this started, He is watching over us during it, and He'll be watching over us afterward. We feel out of control right now (because we are), but, as it turns out, we're not more out of control than we were before because He has always been that control. And there's no safer place to be than in the hands of the Father.

News Weakly - 4/4/2020

Spin Class
On the newsfeed I frequent, the headline was "Fed loans suspended" and the picture was of much-hated Secretary of Education, Nancy DeVos. "This won't be good," I thought as I clicked over to the story. As it turned out, federal student loans were not suspended. Loan payments were. No payments and no interest for 6 months. That's a good thing. So why is it the media hopes to make the reader think it's the evil Trump administration in general and Nancy DeVos in particular at work again?

The New Scapegoat
The New York Times has decided who the main culprit is in this current coronavirus crisis. It's the "religious right." Yep! If you evangelicals didn't have religious beliefs that made you hostile to science, they could have responded much better. There have been hate crimes against people who look Asian because the public has perceived that this virus is a product of China and anyone that looks Asian is likely from Wuhan, apparently. It wouldn't be outrageous to expect similar responses toward evangelicals thanks to the New York Times. (Note to the New York Times. Just because I question your science at times -- "XX ... XY? What's that?" or "Have you seen the complex design of a bird? There can't be a Designer!" or "A baby in the womb is not a baby." or the like -- doesn't mean I'm hostile to science. It means I question some of your oddball conclusions.)

Latest Numbers
The White House has new models for this virus and are now worried about 100K to 240K people dying from it. Keep in mind that we're currently under 7,000. Keep in mind that we're currently less than a 3% death rate of those who get diagnosed. Keep in mind that we're currently in lockdown and drastic measures are in place. But we're not going to let the facts spoil our minds, right? (Like "XX and XY mean something" or "Complexity and data don't mean a Designer" or "O.J. didn't do it." Right?)

Right Answer
Bill Gates is concerned. "Really? How many will die?" So he has a suggestion. The most effective way to combat the virus is to completely shutdown the nation for 10 weeks. "The country’s leaders need to be clear: Shutdown anywhere means shutdown everywhere," he said. I beg to differ, Mr. Gates. The most effective means of combating this virus is to put everyone in a cell for 10 weeks. Feed them, house them, give them entertainment, internet, digital communication, whatever, but isolate them all. Every one. Because "isolate" means "isolate" everywhere. That ought to do it. Oh, wait. Not in favor of the most effective means? Huh. I wonder why.

It Could Be Worse
Things are bad in a lot of places, but it could be worse. It could be like in the Philippines where the president is telling police to shoot on sight anyone who violates the coronavirus lockdown. Nice. And you thought we had it bad. (Note: He's actually ordering them to shoot anyone who causes trouble ... like protesters.)

Just When You Thought It Couldn't Get Any Worse
I knew things were bad, but I didn't realize how bad. The loudest American voice these days appears to be Dr. Anthony Fauci. He's outraged that China would continue their "wet markets." Now, for those of you who don't know, that would be a live animal market. And there might very well be a link between the origin of this COVID-19 thing and wet markets. So Fauci said, "It boggles my mind how, when we have so many diseases that emanate out of that unusual human-animal interface, that we just don't shut it down." Wait ... I missed something. When did we suspend international law and the concept of sovereign states and just decide that the U.S. should have the right and responsibility to go into another country and shut down a market? I'm not entirely sure, but that sounds a lot like grounds for war. And I'm not 100% positive, but I'm pretty convinced that a war with China would kill far more people on the planet than COVID-19 will. So ... what am I missing? Suggest China shut them down? Sure. Urge them internationally? Why not? But "shut it down"? I don't think that's a possibility, is it? It feels like Fauci's loud voice has gone to his head. 'Cause I'm thinking "Go to war with China" is a bad approach to fighting this virus.

The Up Side
All that bad news, but there is an up side. We may have found the solution to global warming. The Global Carbon Project is saying that, due to the near collapse of all industry and business in this crisis, we may see the largest fall in carbon emissions since World War II. Climate scientists were saying that our emissions have to drop by 2020. Are you happy now?