Like Button

Sunday, May 31, 2020

What in the World Are You Looking At?

Van Gordon Sauter was the president of CBS from 1982-1983 and again in 1986. He recently wrote a piece in the Wall Street Journal claiming "The ‘Liberal Leaning’ Media Has Passed Its Tipping Point." At some point, he claims, "objectivity, balance and fairness" was the gold standard for journalism. No longer. The underlying perception of the media giants today is that our country is severely flawed and they believe their job is to point out those flaws. That is, there is a growing gap between American media and American people -- the American media (who classify themselves as "elite") don't like the American people.

True or not, it got me to thinking. How did the American media come to hate America? (I'm talking in shorthand here.) They're part of America. They are Americans. How did they come to hate ... Americans? And I got to thinking that perhaps it's like other folks in similar circumstances. Consider, for instance, police. They generally engage the job with eagerness to help, to protect, to defend, all that good stuff. The longer they stay there, though, the more jaundiced they tend to become. Their primary job is to deal with offenders -- criminals. When your primary job directs you constantly to one classification of people, eventually you will tend to classify everyone as either in or out of that one classification of people. You'll start to see criminal elements everywhere. And you'll isolate yourself from the perceived element whether it's genuine or not. So police notoriously isolate themselves from non-police because they've been conditioned to look for problems and, eventually, see them wherever they look.

I wonder if it's not the same for the media. They're conditioned to report on the outrageous, the outliers, the unusual, the problem areas. They don't report on the normal; that's not news. Is it possible that, after some time at that task, they begin to see in anything or anyone outside of themselves the outrageous, the outlier, the unusual, the problem? I don't doubt that it's possible. I suspect it's almost unavoidable.

One might think that I'm on an anti-media rant here. I'm not. Nor am I offering a soothing view of their position. "Oh, yeah, I guess I can understand that." I'm actually wanting to point the finger at us. If it is true that you end up going the direction in which you are looking -- police, media, whatever -- then we should also be aware of that for ourselves. If we pursue conspiracy theories here and there, it is natural to begin to see them everywhere. If we see racism here and there, we begin to see it everywhere. And so on. At some point our observations in one direction become expectations in that direction and drive what we see -- what we expected. Anyone of us is susceptible.

That's why we are told not to dwell there. That's why we are told,
Whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things. The things you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, practice these things, and the God of peace will be with you. (Php 4:8-9)
We have a hymn that says, "Turn your eyes upon Jesus -- look full in His wonderful face -- and the things of Earth will grow strangely dim in the light of His glory and grace." Proverbs warned, "As a man thinks in his heart, so is he." (Prov 23:7) We become what we think. When we dwell on something we start to see it everywhere. If our primary attention is on evil, we begin to see it everywhere and become it ourselves. We need to dwell somewhere else. We need to heed what is true, honorable, right. We need to embrace excellence. We need to turn our eyes on Jesus. Or we risk becoming the jaundiced souls we castigate in our world.

Saturday, May 30, 2020

News Weakly - 5/30/20

That's wrong
On one hand, we have a news item about Twitter. "Shockingly" nearly half of the Twitter accounts calling for reopening America are bots, automated artificial users presenting numbers where there aren't enough to make a single point. This should make us all aware that Twitter and other social media like it can be manipulated to say what a very few want to say and we ought to be cautious about using these sources as valid. That's wrong.

On the other hand, when thousands of people actually rally at the California Capitol as they have in so many other places, they aren't bots. Listen to them or not, you can't simply dismiss the latter story because of the former. That's wrong.

Odd Consistency
We've all been hearing about the total inconsistency of the Democratic Party and the #MeToo movement in regards to Biden's accuser. "Believe women" is the call "except, of course, if it's our guy." So it's interesting that Rep. Ilhan Omar has come out in defense of Tara Reade, saying it's important that we "believe survivors." Oh, okay, good, so she's going to be consistent with that "believe women" thing. In the next breath, "she reiterated that she plans to support Mr. Biden." Huh. Ok. So "Yes, I have to conclude that he is a sexual predator ... and that's okay with me. It's not okay that Trump is a sexual predator ... because he's not our guy." Mixed messages.

Fact Check Twitter
Trump and Twitter made news this week when Twitter opted to come out against the president by giving a fact check warning on his posts and providing counterpoint info. (I'm not a Twitter guy; do they do this on anyone else?) Trump responded in an incredibly stupid way. "Republicans feel that Social Media Platforms totally silence conservative voices. We will strongly regulate, or close them down, before we can ever allow this to happen." Translation: "We will not be silenced and we will silence anyone who tries to silence us." Exactly like the "In the name of being inclusive, we will exclude those who aren't." And Trump's response is certainly idiotic. "Fact check me will you? You'll pay for that!" Now, I am wondering if Twitter fact-checks anyone else because Twitter is a massive source of lies-taken-as-truth. Fact checking Twitter would be a great idea, but if Trump is the only one they're fact checking, it looks a lot like politics rather than ethics. Just as Trump's new edict is personal over "the good of the country."

What's Wrong With This Headline?
CNN is reporting that "Jonathan Steingard, Christian singer, reveals he no longer believes in God." Sad. Very unpleasant, especially for him. But does it strike anyone as odd? In what sense can someone be a "Christian" and an atheist? Aren't the two mutually exclusive? Shouldn't it read something like a "formerly Christian singer" or, more biblically, a "false Christian singer" (1 John 2:19)? Always tragic when a person jettisons the only hope there is. Always sad when they encourage others to go down with them. Worse is the damage it does to the name of Christ.

No Justice, No Peace
We've all heard about the outrageous death of George Floyd in Minneapolis after one of the officers allegedly knelt on his neck for 8 minutes while subduing him. (I put "allegedly" there because I haven't seen it, not because I doubt it.) In typical outraged fashion, the public has responded with "No Justice, No Peace" protests across the country. In typical outraged fashion, "No Justice, No Peace" does not mean, "Either there will be justice or there will be unrest." It means two things. First, "If you don't do what we consider 'justice', there will be unrest." Second, in this case, it means "There will be neither justice nor peace" as demonstrated in the looting of stores in the area resulting in at least one reported shooting of a looter and the torching of a police precinct. The FBI and DOJ are investigating, but much of America is quite certain that there is no justice anyway. Because everyone knows that the only way to get justice is to cause widespread mayhem and harm swathes of people and property completely unrelated. So ... no justice and no peace. You doubt? When they convict the police officer, do you suppose all those rioters in all those cities will say, "Oh, thank you! And we apologize for all the destruction. We'll pay for the damages." Not likely.

Heartwarming
No jokes or snark. No politics or religion. It really is a warm story. A Dallas, Texas, high school principal accumulated 1,500 miles in 10 days while visiting each one of his 240 graduating seniors to congratulate them and hand them their diplomas. A truly kind gesture.

Secret Code
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is convinced of today's "intersecionality" and "critical race theory," it seems. Mark Zuckerberg responded to Twitter's targeted "fact checking" of the president with his own understanding of free speech in America. "I just believe strongly that Facebook shouldn't be the arbiter of truth of everything that people say online. I think in general, private companies probably shouldn't be — especially these platform companies — shouldn't be in the position of doing that." Apparently AOC believes that anyone who defends free speech -- at least free speech for white people -- is a White Supremacist. "Zuckerberg is not worried about being bullied by Trump," she wrote (which, I suspect, is actually true). "He is worried that Facebook’s PR operation is falling apart as it’s exposed that their platform relies on white supremacists & disinformation peddlers to be successful." Translation: "If you don't censor the free speech of those I oppose, you are a white supremacist. It's the only logical conclusion. People like our president should not be allowed to present his views in public. It's our our job to tell you what to believe."

Fun Stuff
The "Bee" had a flurry of fun things this last week. There was the headline, "Biden: 'If You Don't Let Me Sniff Your Hair, You Ain't A Woman'." Then there was the report on the "Nation That Revolted Over Three-Pence Tax On Tea Now 'Pretty Cool' With Government Locking Everyone In Their Homes." You'd almost think it wasn't satire when they wrote, "Judge Dismisses Sexual Assault Allegations Against Biden On Grounds That He Is Not A Republican." Of course, some of this stuff makes you laugh 'til you cry, and not just because you're laughing so hard ...

Friday, May 29, 2020

What Are We to Think?

Well, it has happened again. Another "Christian singer" has defected, has "deconverted," has declared his allegiance to "no God." He's done it in typical "deconversion" style by not only saying, "I don't believe anymore," but adding, "And neither should you." Or, to put it more clearly, "I no longer have any hope, and neither should you."

How should we view this? Jonathan Steingard, frontman for the "Christian rock band" Hawk Nelson, was a pastor's kid playing in a "Christian band" and "having the word 'Christian' in front of most of the things in my life." And now ... he isn't.

He's not the first and he's not exceptional and he's not alone. He's just the headline These "deconversions" are fairly common especially among the young church kids headed to college and coming out unbelievers. Why? What's going on? What are we to think? Are we doing something wrong? Is there something we need to do better?

Well, first, what do we know? There is a significant portion of Christendom that believes that "deconversion" is a real thing, that you can be a genuine, saved-by-faith Christian and then ... not. You can lose it all. This group takes seriously the warnings of the Bible that urge us to test ourselves, to examine ourselves, to see if we're in the faith, to persevere to the end. Oh, most believe you can get it back again (despite the clear contradiction of Hebrews 6:4-6), but lose it you can. Another significant portion thinks that "deconversion" is a mistaken construct and can't, actually, happen. They take seriously the statements in Scripture that "No one can take them out of My hand" (John 10:25-29), that God always wins (e.g., Rom 8:28-30; Eph 1:13-14; Php 1:6; Jude 1:24). Considering these two (both based on Scripture), we can conclude that God is reliable and salvation cannot be lost or that God is not reliable and salvation can be lost. Or, of course, we can conclude that Scripture is not reliable.

Assuming Scripture is reliable and God is reliable, what then? How do we account for these so-called Christians being so-called deconverted? John wrote, "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out that it might become plain that they all are not of us." (1 John 2:19) If we take this at face value, "deconverts" are "not of us" and never were and their departure is simply a revelation that "Christian" was a mistaken identity. But, of course, lots of people don't like that conclusion because, well, these people actually thought they were believers and actually are not and if they were mistaken, which of us are equally self-deluded?

The other question is "What are we doing wrong?" If you hear what many (most? all?) of these "deconverts" say, it is apparent that they never really grasped the truth. God never lived up to their expectations. Their objections and confusions are not without clear, coherent, cohesive answers. So are we just not doing our job? Are we not providing answers or even being aware of the problem? To that question I'd suggest the answer is "Yes" and "No." Yes, we really aren't paying attention and we really aren't providing answers. Modern Christians in America are largely not being renewed in their minds (Rom 12:2) and don't think too clearly or too deeply about this -- they aren't loving God with all their minds. And, no, that's not the problem. God is not limited to our ability to correctly and sufficiently and completely express the truth. God is not mopping His brow and wringing His hands up there. "Oh, no, not another one. Why didn't you guys see this and help him and fix him? Now I've lost another one." We don't get the credit for conversions because of our precision and explanation of the Gospel. And God isn't tied down to our faithfulness or abilities.

How, then, are we to think about all this? Here's what I would recommend. First, let's try starting with Scripture. Not the news. Not our perceptions of our experiences. So when we are commanded to "love the Lord your God with all your ... mind ..." (Mark 12:30) we should seek to do that. When we are told to "be transformed by the renewing of your minds" (Rom 12:2), we should seek to do that. When we are commanded to "make disciples" and teach them "to observe all that I have commanded you" (Matt 28:19-20), we should seek to do that. When Scripture warns not to put young converts in positions of spiritual leadership (1 Tim 3:6), we should seek to do that. And when we fail -- any or all of that -- we should confess and repent (1 John 1:9). Secondly, as we think through this, we need to come to a more robust understanding of "Christian." Most of us do this by discarding the warnings for believers and hanging onto the promises of God or discarding God's promises and heeding the warnings. And most of us don't even take all that (either the promises or the warnings) too seriously. Brothers and sisters, these things ought not be. We should be able to put together the warnings and the promises to arrive at a coherent and cohesive understanding rather than a conflicting one. But for too many of us, that's too much work. (Go back to Mark 12:30 and Rom 12:2 and start over.) By all means, however, do not discard the warnings. Each of us should "Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves." (2 Cor 13:5) We should all pray, we should seek the Lord, we should obey, we should minister to each other, and, at the core, we should trust God. Because if we don't have a reliable God, we have nothing. And then we're right where the "deconverts" are, and that's not a good place.

Thursday, May 28, 2020

Authentic

We know that "authentic" means, basically, "real." So modern psychology might be excused for latching onto the term in their perceptions of therapy. "What," they might ask, "does it take to be truly happy? You need to be authentic."

Authenticity in this sense means to be yourself. And that can be difficult. If the "self" that you truly are is something that others may not like as much as you do (or even, perhaps, don't), you might not want to be that. So the task in being authentic is to get you to have sufficient self-esteem in who you really are ("authentic") in order to allow you to express who you really are and be proud of it. That is, you need to learn not to be concerned about what others think of you and just be yourself. Authentic.

Notice the premise here. The underlying premise is "Whatever you are, it's good." There is no room for a less-than-wonderful value judgment here. This stands starkly against the biblical perspective. What is the "authentic" natural human being like? Natural humans suffer from universal heart problems. They are deceitful and wicked (Jer 17:9). Natural humans have a massive religious problem. They are all hostile to God (Rom 8:7). Natural humans have impaired mental abilities. It's not that they will not understand the things of God; it's that they cannot (1 Cor 2:14). Natural humans have the horrible condition of being dead while alive. They are physically alive but spiritually dead (Eph 2:1-3). The biblical list of the basic condition of Natural Man is a description of a diseased, dead, and dying person. If the Scriptures are true, in what possible sense would we urge natural humans to be "authentic"? Authentic would be lying, wicked, hostile to God, unable to understand, spiritually dead ... and loving it.

There is something better than "authentic." If the natural condition of the human being is one of sin (Rom 3:23), then it doesn't seem like a good idea to be authentic in that sense. But if humans are made, as the Bible says they are, in the image of God (Gen 1:27; Gen 9:6), and if God's aim is to conform His own to the image of Christ (Rom 8:28-29), then perhaps that is the "authentic" we should seek to achieve. It's only available, of course, to those who die to self, who surrender to Christ, who are "buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life." (Rom 6:4). That "authentic" would be a better choice than being true to self. The "true to self" kind of authentic is eternally fatal. Perhaps we should aim for something higher.

Wednesday, May 27, 2020

God and Government

Our Sunday group looked at Romans 13 recently. You have to admit it's a difficult text because on one hand it is so clear and on the other it runs so much against the grain.
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. (Rom 13:1-5)
On the periphery are things like the death penalty. If you are opposed in principle, you need to find a "work around" for "he does not bear the sword in vain" because that sounds like support for the death penalty. But the main problem is much larger. In a society taught "Question authority" as a fundamental tenet, we are being told, "Be subject to the governing authorities." Then it piles it on. The existing governments "have been instituted by God." Wait, really? Have you looked at Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, killers of millions and millions? "Instituted by God"? Worse, "Whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed." Really??!

The biggest objection here is not the vagueness of the text; it is the assault on our experience. You don't have to look far to find bad governments everywhere. Winston Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others." Even the best are bad. So how are we to deal with this?

It turns out that history in general and the Bible in particular is full of this concept. In Exodus an evil Pharaoh opposed God to the death -- his own. Why? God said to Pharaoh, "For this purpose I have raised you up, to show you My power, so that My name may be proclaimed in all the earth." (Exo 9:16) Evil government instituted by God for His good purposes. The prophet Habakkuk complained about Israel's sin and God told Him, "I am raising up the Chaldeans, that bitter and hasty nation, who march through the breadth of the earth, to seize dwellings not their own." (Hab 1:6) An evil government instituted by God to accomplish God's plan. The Bible claims that the execution of the Son of God was performed by evil authorities orchestrated by God (Acts 2:23; Acts 4:27-28). Evil government instituted by God to accomplish God's plans. In fact, when Paul wrote the passage in question in Romans, he wrote it to a church at the heart of the Roman empire ruled by one of the worst Caesars, Nero. Paul wasn't making a rose-colored claim. This idea, then, doesn't require that we consider all governments good governments; it simply says that God uses both good and bad governments as His tools.

Now, we certainly need to fill in one gap in the command. When the disciples were ordered to violate a direct command from God, they deferred to God (Acts 4:19-20; Acts 5:29). True. And we must factor that in. Of course, there's no command from God that would require us to cheat on our taxes or violate speed laws, is there? But if Scripture is replete with examples of evil governments instituted by God for His good purposes and we have a genuinely good God who works all things together for good, it seems to me that we should take this kind of difficult text more seriously if we're going to be true to a trust in a good God. Doesn't it?

Tuesday, May 26, 2020

Wood, Hay, and Straw

In his first letter to the church at Corinth Paul talks about how each of us is working on a metaphorical building.
According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and someone else is building upon it. Let each one take care how he builds upon it. (1 Cor 3:10)
So he expands on this metaphor. We are "God's fellow workers" (1 Cor 3:9) and the foundation is Christ (1 Cor 3:11), and we are building on that foundation "with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw." (1 Cor 3:12) He tells us that there will come a day when our work will be tested.
Each one's work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If anyone's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire. (1 Cor 3:13-15)
I don't think most of us are unaware of this passage or the concept in it. I do wonder how often we think about it.

There are some "givens" in this text. For all believers, you are working on this foundation. That is not optional. No one is not working. Doing nothing is building. The question is with what material. That's one. The other is that regardless of the work you do, in the end you will be saved. Some will be rewarded and some saved "as through fire," but this work is not salvation-related. So all believers are working on this building and all believers will be saved in the end. The point of consideration here is what do you wish to contribute: the precious or the useless?

If you (and I) look back at your life as a believer, what do you see as your contribution? If we examine ourselves -- our past efforts, our current work, our future plans -- do we find a trend of quality or not? I'm just wondering about our intentions here. Are we aiming to do quality work for God or are we unconcerned or even unconscious? Maybe distracted by the urgent over the important? Maybe just going with the flow without consideration of the product -- gold, silver, gems vs wood, hay, stubble? Are we simply reacting to what is put in front of us without considering what God thinks of it? When you look at your actions, would you call them "precious to God" or "flammable"?

Now, mind you, I've already said we'll all be saved in the end. I'm not threatening you with loss of salvation or anything. I don't mean this as any kind of threat at all. I'm just wondering -- first for myself and then passing it on to you -- whether we're taking any thought to the quality of work we're doing for God. He thinks that, although all believers do work, there are distinctions in the quality. Are we taking that into consideration? Are we taking care of how we build on the foundation Jesus laid?

Monday, May 25, 2020

Abdication

When we think of abdication, our first thought is of someone who renounces their throne. Recently Prince Henry and his wife "withdrew" from the royal connections. Forbes called it a "mini-abdication." That's because Harry wasn't actually in office. But back in 1936, King Edward VIII quit as King of England so that he could marry an American divorcee. That was an abdication. However, there is a second meaning. It also refers to the failure to fulfill or undertake a responsibility or duty. So ... let's talk about abdication.

The Bible has some serious instructions for parents. They're not too hard to find. Israel was firmly instructed, "These words that I command you today shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise." (Deut 6:6-7) Solomon wrote, "Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it." (Prov 22:6) He also wrote, "The rod and reproof give wisdom, but a child left to himself brings shame to his mother." (Prov 29:15) According to Scripture (as opposed to modern psychology), "Whoever spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him." (Prov 13:24) Interestingly, Hebrews says something similar about God Himself. "For the Lord disciplines the one He loves, and chastises every son whom He receives." (Heb 12:6) As a balance, Paul tells fathers, "Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord." (Eph 6:4) There is a lot more. So, there is discipline (which is training or education) and there is chastisement (which is punishment). They are two components of loving parents' task of raising their children in the instruction of the Lord. It is a long-term, ongoing, constant, unending task. And it sure looks like today's parents have abdicated their God-given responsibility. For example, most churches today cannot have children sit through church because they are too disruptive and, "Well, kids will be kids, right?" That's right only if parents have decided to be more of the world's version of friends and less of Scripture's version of parents.

The Bible describes the type of marriage prescribed by God (starting in the Garden -- Gen 2:24) as a picture of the relationship of Christ and the church (Eph 5:31-32). So wives are commanded to "be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord" (Eph 5:22) and husbands are told to "love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her." (Eph 5:25) So, think of it like this. Over here we have Mr. and Mrs. Christian. Will you two be willing to put on a play for us? Oh, good. So, Mrs. Christian, I want you to play the part of the church. How you live, how you act toward your husband, how you respond, how you view him will depict the proper lives, actions, responses, and view of the church toward Christ. And Mr. Christian, you will play the part of Christ. Your treatment of your wife will display Christ's treatment of His bride, the church. You should act toward your wife with the same self-sacrifice, same sacrificial love, same selflessness, same aim of bringing her toward a Christlike life as Christ does the church. As examples of the church's relationship with Christ and Christ's relationship with the church, I would argue that we Christians have largely abdicated our God-given responsibilities toward each other in preference to self-centered satisfaction. Or, turn that around for a moment. Perhaps we just believe that the church is supposed to override Christ's commands at will and Christ is an overbearing, selfish bridegroom. No? Could you tell that from the husbands and wives that we are?

It isn't really hard work finding these instructions. Look through the pages of the Bible just for the topic of how we as families are supposed to be and then look at Christian families today. I don't think it is debatable that in large part we have abdicated our family responsibilities as parents and as spouses in favor of the world's version of those roles. And we know what the Bible says about loving the world (1 John 2:15). Christians, instead, are commanded, "Come out from among them and be separate." (2 Cor 6:17) When we say, "No, thank you; we'll do it our way," we are refusing the responsibility God gave us. That's called abdication.

Sunday, May 24, 2020

The "Nonessential" Conspiracy

You'd have to be not paying attention to not have heard about this current debate in the public square. While liquor stores and golf courses and marijuana stores have been classified as "essential," places of worship are not. Gathering as believers is "nonessential" to many in government and in society.

If you consider the not-so-distant past, this would have been unthinkable. Church wasn't merely "essential"; it was central. Churches were built in the literal center of town because church was central. If you wanted to be able to survive in that town, you had to be part of the church because church was central. It didn't really matter if you were a believer; churches were still central. And in a single generation or two, they've become "nonessential" -- optional, permissible, nice to have, perhaps, but certainly not necessary. How did we get here from there?

Part of it, I'm sure, has been the slow move away from "religion" as good to the "Nones" -- "I'm spiritual, but not religious." This was pushed from one side with the "separation of Church and State" argument which, in the minds of many (most?), meant that Church wasn't as reliable as State. That is, Church was personal and State was more general. "You can have your religion; just don't trot it out in the public square." Part of it is certainly the result of the shift in the culture's morality. As people have embraced sex as god and personal enjoyment as the ultimate good, they have necessarily jettisoned Christian values and, thus, relegated Christianity to "opinion without any basis in fact." And, of course, that bleeds into all sorts of other areas. From sexual immorality to a loss of rational thought on gender to a disintegration of marriage followed obviously by the destruction of family values to ... well, you can see the devolution. All of this, as a society, certainly feeds into the decay from "Church is central" to "Who needs it anyway?"

I suspect, however, that there is a part of this move away from "church as essential" that is our own fault. I suspect that there is no small number of church people that are nodding their heads saying, "Yep, church is not essential." Because many of us have that line of thinking in our heads. We've prepared the ground for it in our "I don't need a building to worship God" kind of line. It is true on the face of it, but it ignores the "one anothers" of the Bible. We've fertilized it with our "Jesus is my boyfriend" kind of thinking where it's purely personal, purely relational, and not really any of your business. We've watered it with the water of "Christianity is a relationship, not a religion." That, unfortunately, is not only mistaken; it's misleading. Christianity is a relationship -- the first part is true -- but it is most certainly a religion as well. The necessity of gathering for fellowship (Heb 10:23-25) shows it. The depiction of Christians as a body (1 Cor 12:12-27) demands it. The Great Commission (Matt 28:18-20) to "make disciples" rather than mere converts and to teach them "all that I commanded you" makes it unavoidable. But we've bought this "You and me, Jesus" line which suggests that Christ is essential, but church is optional.

I wouldn't venture to guess who had the most influence -- Satan and his world or misguided, oblivious Christians. I can't avoid the conclusion that our inattention to God, His Word, and His church are indeed a major contributor. I think that because it isn't just the world telling Christians that church is nonessential. It's church people, too. This COVID-19 crisis didn't cause it; it exposed it. For quite awhile now apparently genuine believers have been saying, "I don't need church; I just need Jesus." And since God's Word thoroughly disagrees -- placing Christianity squarely in the center of vertical and horizontal relationships -- we probably ought to start the process of repenting of our own contributions to this lie. Starting with our own complicity and moving out as groups of co-conspirators. Maybe today would be a good day to start.

Saturday, May 23, 2020

News Weakly - 5/23/2020

Misplaced Aim
I had to laugh at the NFL "testing new facemasks" where they are trying to incorporate COVID-19 style facemasks into football helmets for protection during those times that these players don't practice the proper social distancing on the field but do practice ramming their heads together causing brain damage and death. So funny it sometimes makes me want to cry.

Potential Side Effects
You've heard those ads, I'm sure. Loudly, "Take this wonder drug and it will solve all your problems," followed by -- rapidly and quietly -- "potential side effects include leprosy, obesity, loss of sex drive, and death." And you have to ask, "When is the cure potentially more dangerous than the disease?" UW Medicine is a healthcare system in Seattle. They've announced that, due to the stringent orders to protect us all from the virus, they're furloughing 1,500 staffers with more possible. When a healthcare system has to furlough healthcare workers in a healthcare crisis, that cannot be a good side effect of the "cure."

Sad Passing
I just want to mark the passing of a dear man of God. This week Ravi Zacharias went home to be with the Lord. I don't call it a "sad passing" because he died and went to be with His beloved Savior. I call it that because we are now without an amazingly gentle, kind, well-spoken reasonable, defender of the faith. He will be missed.

The Good, the Bad, or the Ugly?
You decide. The story goes that President Trump (bad) demanded action, so the Department of Health guaranteed AstraZeneca $1.2 billion to accelerate COVID-19 vaccine development in exchange for 300 million doses for the U.S. (good) in order to restart the economy and get an edge over global competitors (ugly). It's a tough story in today's environment where, if the name "Trump" is connected, it must be bad, but it looks like he's working hard for our people so it ought to be good, but an underlying motive is capitalism which everyone knows is ugly. How are we to think about this news item? Sure, it might save lives, but it also might reflect well on Trump. Tough call.

Religion in Government
Chicago has started fining churches that hold services, not because they're not observing any safety considerations or packing in too many people, but because the governor has deemed religious services as nonessential. (That's what the story says; not just my take on it.) One church allowed 10% of their capacity to meet with 13 safety requirements for attendance and paid a $500 fine. Since religion is deemed nonessential, they are limited to less than 10 people. Since liquor stores, superstores, and marijuana dispensaries are, they aren't limited. This is clearly a religious belief in the government that religion is nonessential. They forget that liquor stores are not protected under the First Amendment, but churches are.

Trump-Haters
In an attempt to exonerate Trump's COVID-19 response (yes, that was sarcastic), the New York Times has published the results of a Columbia University disease model that says that if Trump had locked down the nation on March 1st, he would have saved 50,000 more lives. That is, they aren't simply reporting that Columbia suggests that an earlier national quarantine would have prevented more deaths; they are blaming the president. Because no report goes unbiased. (I would publish the link to the Times report, but the NYT only allows limited views, so I'm putting this link that reports on the Times report ... with the same anti-Trump bias.)

Note: Consider the claim. If the nation had locked down earlier, less people would have been sick. Given. If the nation had locked down in January, almost no one would have been sick. We'll give them that. If we practiced social distancing as a matter of course, all sorts of illnesses would be nearly nonexistent. This isn't news. It is the blame that is news. Oh, and in the U.S., any State could lock down when they want to according to the 10th Amendment ... but no one is blaming the states. It's the Trump we love to hate. (Coming from someone who warned against Trump as president and didn't vote for him and won't. This isn't a "Trump-lover" thing.)

COVID-Related Church Death
No joke. Police suspect a church in Mississippi was torched this week for having a Bible study with more than 10 people and an Easter service. A note was left at the scene: "Bet you stay at home now you hypokrits [sic]." It is, literally, a COVID-related death ... at least of a building. And it says something about a society so terrorized by reports on this virus that someone will hate enough to do something like this.

Justice Denied
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a convicted Idaho pedophile suffering from gender dysphoria will get his state-funded sexual mutilation after all. SCOTUS believes that the way to relieve his "ongoing and extreme suffering" is to deny science and alter his physical appearance so that, when it's all said and done, it will only look like he committed rape of a minor and not homosexual rape. It may not be all bad news. Sure, science is no longer to be believed (God hasn't been able to be believed in this society for a long time), but the aim is to castrate him, so ...

Latest Definition
This was just stunning. Joe Biden informed a black interviewer that if he didn't vote for Biden, "you ain't black." Brand new to me. I thought "black" was defined in terms of genes, origins, skin color, lots of things, but never "votes for Biden." This will come as a real shock to all the African-Americans who didn't vote the Democratic party line or didn't vote at all. Or was this rich old white guy telling him, "Black people do what I say and I say vote for me. If you don't, you ain't black"? I don't know. Sometimes I can't follow Biden's thinking.

Too Close to True
Yes, it's the Babylon Bee. Yes, it's satire. Yes, they advertise themselves as "Your best source for fake news." Still ...

The headline reads, "'I Can't Believe Christians Think It's Safe To Go Back To Church,' Says Woman In Line At Walmart." Waayy too close to real.

Friday, May 22, 2020

Jesus Wept

When I was young and going to youth groups or camps there were always Bible memorization contests. Of course, my brother -- a year and a half younger than me -- would always win if he was part, but, still I did okay. Of course, when simply seeing who could memorize the most verses, we all liked John 11:35. "Jesus wept." Excellent! That's one. As if the only reason that verse is in the Bible was for memorization contests.

In Romans we read, "Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep." (Rom 12:15) You'd think that would be easy. I contend it's not always so. Sometimes, when people are happy about things we think they shouldn't be, we'll be sure, because of our superior morality, to not rejoice with them. But more often, we will often respond to those who weep with attempts to get them to stop. It's well-intentioned. It's generally from genuine concern. I don't mean that it's bad; it's just ... not what Paul says there in Romans.

That's why our favorite memory verse in our youth is so helpful. In the story of John 11, Jesus was told that His dear friend, Lazarus, was sick. "Come quickly." He didn't. He waited until Lazarus died. He had a purpose. He was going to demonstrate His claim, "I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in Me, though he die, yet shall he live." (John 11:25) He told Lazarus's sisters when He arrived. They didn't get it. So He went to the grave. Seeing all the mourners, "Jesus wept." Why? He wasn't unclear on the outcome. He knew what was about to happen. He knew that all these people were weeping for no good reason. Why did He weep? He wept with those who wept. Lots of people conjecture on the motivation. The lack of faith or Man's sin and the death it brought or the cost of redemption or even His own impending death. And any or all of these might be so. But these are all conjecture. What we know is that Jesus wept with those who wept.

Recently a man I've known for 40 years died. (Old age. So far, the human death rate is 100% -- death takes us all.) He was far away and I hadn't seen him in years, but I wept. What I needed at that moment wasn't comfort. I had that. He is with the Lord. It wasn't encouragement. I had that. He was in a better place. I just needed to weep. And that's okay. Because Jesus wept. And that was okay.

We are told to empathize with people -- rejoice with those who rejoice and weep with those who weep -- without necessarily embracing their motivation or reasoning. It's not a bad thing. Our Savior did it. I think it's part of our sharing one another's burdens.

Thursday, May 21, 2020

Science Takes a Hit

Meet Oregon. Oregon is the 9th largest state in terms of land area, but is sparsely populated due largely to the geography, averaging around 40 people per square mile. They have a total population in that state of around 4.3 million. In terms of COVID-19, they currently rank 40th out of the 50 states. With less than 4,000 cases they've had 140 deaths. (Seems like a lot of 4's in there.) In terms of COVID-19 spread, Oregon is the fourth lowest behind Montana, Alaska, and West Virginia. To put that in perspective, Wyoming has approximately 6 people per square mile to Oregon's 40 people per square mile, but Oregon has a lower infection rate than Wyoming.

So it might appear odd that a federal judge overruled a lower court ruling that prevented Oregon Governor Brown from extending the lockdown in that state. The state with the third lowest infection rate and the 10th lowest number of infections is extending these requirements when other states are not. The governor explains why. "The science behind these executive orders hasn't changed one bit. Ongoing physical distancing, staying home as much as possible, and wearing face coverings will save lives across Oregon."

Ah! Science. Good call. Let's see how that holds up. Oregon is one of 17 states that provides their own funds to cover all or most abortions sought by low-income women ... despite the science that says these are human beings. Oregon is one of only 8 states in the Union that has laws protecting people on the basis of "gender identity/expression" ... despite the science that says there are only two genders, and gender is established biologically by birth. So we might have to question the sincerity of her call to science here.

But there is another issue, and this isn't about Oregon or abortion or the like. I think it is unavoidably true scientifically that preventing contact between people will absolutely decrease or even eliminate the spread of COVID-19. We, of course, aren't actually doing that. We're only approaching it. But there can be no doubt that isolation will stop the spread of this virus. The logic, then, is "To save lives, let's do what is necessary to stop the spread of this virus." All well and good. No dispute. Well, no dispute except that we're NOT. But, moving on. My question is why does this logic stop at COVID-19? How many people die from smoking? Why haven't we banned it? How many die alcohol-related deaths? Why haven't we banned it? How many people die from heart disease due to under-exercise and over-eating? Why aren't we regulating that? In the current larger picture with the looming devastation of global climate change, the only actual fix is to drastically curtail human activity. We need to step back to lower numbers of humans and much more primitive technology. If saving lives is our highest concern and we know what we can do to do it, why aren't we doing it?

These measures that we've thrown into place certainly change the course and spread of COVID-19. Let no one convince you otherwise. Do they do it more effectively than other methods? No, absolutely not. A total quarantine would have certainly affected it greater. Of course, we would have all died from that level of quarantine with no supplies, no support, no help at all. But COVID-19 would have been stopped in its tracks ... right along with the rest of us. Are there other more effective possibilities? I think so, but we won't even consider them (like protecting the most at-risk rather than locking down those who aren't). Was this course necessary? Given the current data that says that this virus wasn't nearly as virulent for the largest part of the population as they thought it would be, it doesn't seem so. But these are not my point. My point is that people need to apply their standards evenly. More people die from more common reasons than COVID. When they call on Science to say we need to take these measures to save lives but they deny Science when saving lives is less convenient or desired, it puts the god of Science to shame and invalidates the whole "Science" argument. Science is a puny god when it can be overruled by the true god of most people -- "me."

Wednesday, May 20, 2020

Options

I have a coworker who, when he learned I was a Christian, explained to me how he thought that the Bible was nonsensical. I asked him, "Oh, so you've read it?" He admitted he hadn't. "Well," I replied, "you really ought to read a book before you critique it, shouldn't you?" He had the typical "Who can read that?" objection and I told him about free Bibles in modern languages to read, but I thought that was the end of that. You can imagine my surprise when he came back from lunch the next day and said, "I have some questions about this stuff in the Gospel of Matthew." He actually accepted the challenge!

He went on to read a lot of the Bible. He read the Gospels, Acts, Romans, Galatians. He went back to Genesis and read most of the historical books up through Chronicles. He actually enjoyed it. And he'd often come with questions and comments. He wondered what this passage meant or what was wrong with those stupid Israelites who turned their backs on God after He had done so much for them. In the end he admitted he'd been wrong. The Bible wasn't nonsensical. It really made a lot of sense. But, "Oh, give my life to Jesus? No, I don't think so."

This guy to this day won't give in. He's friendly (mostly) toward Christianity in general. He sees that there is sense to it. He has even changed many of his own opinions on truth because of our conversations. He's no longer, for instance, convinced that Evolution is true or that abortion is morally acceptable. But he still holds out.

Why is that? It struck me the other day. He still thinks of Christ as another guy, thinks of Christianity as another worldview. All worldviews being equal, he'd rather keep his own, thank you very much. It's just one among many. His own approach doesn't ask him to change, so he'll keep that one, but if you want to go down that path, good for you.

For me, however, it's not so easy. The weight of the evidence, the inevitability of the reasoning, and the inescapable logic of it all forms in my head an incontrovertible and solid truth that requires I either submit to it or die ... literally and eternally. It's not "an option" for me. It's like he's saying, "Well, sure, you might live in an oxygen atmosphere, but I prefer living underwater." It just can't be done. It's not an option I've chosen; it's the only possible reality.

How many of us are "stuck" like that? Like Saul's encounter with Christ on the road to Damascus, I no longer have the option of any other direction. Like the disciples when Jesus asked, "Who do you think I am?", I have nowhere else to go. I can pursue Christ or I can surrender all faith, all reason, all of life and die. Those are my options. How about you? How serious is this to you?

Tuesday, May 19, 2020

Name That Pandemic

They have a new tool coming online on this COVID-19 thing. Back in April Google and Apple announced that they could build a system for your phones that could help track this virus and make things a lot better. Of course, most of us thought, "Oh, no, we don't want them tracking our phones!" "But," they reassured us, "it's not tracking phones. It's tracking exposure."

Here's the way it is supposed to work. Smartphones enabled with this system will quietly, behind the scenes, listen with their Bluetooth ears for other phones. Bluetooth has a limited range, so they'd only "hear" phones within that range. (The strongest Bluetooth transmitters go 100 meters -- 328 feet. Most are around 10 meters -- 33 feet.) So every so often they will "ping" their surroundings and gather the phone ID's of those in their range and record it. Then, if you come down with the virus, they can go to your phone, track the places you have been, and find out who you were around at the time. Then they can notify them or perhaps trace where you got infected.

Seems pretty benign, actually. It's not linked. It's not monitored. No one is secretly gathering data. (That is, they say they aren't. I'm not a conspiracy nut, so I'll just go with that.) They only gather the information when the infection is verified in order to contact others who might be at risk. Seems reasonable. So that shouldn't be a problem.

Shouldn't.

It shouldn't be a problem when fighting a pandemic, but who is to say what pandemic they are fighting? The plan has been to incorporate this helpful software into all operating systems. So when we get a handle on this virus, what's the next objective? How about fighting the viral crime pandemic? Could they use it to arrest, say, an "Al Capone" type and track down the people he associated with to catch them all? Very possible. Could they get the information off a convicted prostitute's phone to get a list of customers? Not far fetched. Could they decide that Christians were a viral problem and hunt them down with the phones of others? Well, now ... I don't see the point ... now. I mean, right now they could simply walk into our churches and accomplish that trick. Maybe in China or North Korea or Iran, places where it's illegal. And, of course, there are currently those in America who are on a sort of "naughty list." You know, "subversive" types who preach that Christ must be obeyed above all and that God's Word teaches that homosexual behavior is a sin and stuff like that. Not too far fetched, then.

The question, then, comes down to a single start. Who gets to name the pandemic? If the law enforcement community considers a crime wave, say, as a pandemic-type event, do they get to use this? Would we even think that was a bad thing? If the the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) continues to gain momentum and clout or the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is taken as a valid source for hate group identification, could they be the source for "naming that pandemic"? I can't say for sure, but I really don't think it's that far out of the realm of possibility.

Monday, May 18, 2020

Fruit Trees

Jesus taught, "Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears My word and believes Him who sent Me has eternal life." (John 5:24) Paul assured us that we are saved by grace through faith apart from works (Eph 2:8-9). Some taught that you needed more -- obey the laws, get circumcised, that sort of thing. Paul didn't dismiss them; he anathematized them (Gal 1:6-10). He cursed them. He damned them.

Well, that settles that, right? You'd think. But it doesn't.

Jesus taught, "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments." (John 14:15) Paul followed the "not of works" text with "For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." (Eph 2:10) Odd. It looks like they yanked the standard "saved by works" out of the equation and then slipped it back in. How do we correlate "saved by grace apart from works" with "for good works"? What do works and salvation have to do with each other?

I know people who tell me, "I'm saved because I believe in Jesus and Jesus taught that's what was required for salvation." The statement, on the face of it, is certainly true. But if you look at the lives of some of those people there isn't a shred of evidence that they belong to Christ. And Jesus taught, "You will recognize them by their fruits." (Matt 7:16) Perhaps there is a clue to my question about works and salvation in Jesus's words there. Maybe another is in Paul's warning in 2 Corinthians.
But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough. (2 Cor 11:3-4)
Is that what we're looking at?

We live in a world with multiple "Jesuses." (I'm sorry. I don't know the plural for "Jesus.") We know, for instance, that the Jesus of the Latter Day Saints is not the Jesus of the Bible. We know that the Jehovah's Witnesses acknowledge Jesus, but not the biblical version. There is more than one "Jesus" to choose from. I know people who "have faith in Jesus," but when they tell me about the Jesus they trust, it is often not the Jesus of the Bible. He's kind, but has no wrath. He's loving but isn't holy. He's warm and friendly but has no genuine authority. He's nonjudgmental and doesn't much care about what I do. They tend to mix biblical aspects of Christ with nonbiblical aspects of Christ and deny other biblical aspects of Christ to make a non-Jesus as their savior. They believe fully in a Jesus of their own making and not the Jesus of Scripture.

We are not saved by works. That fact is indisputable. We are saved apart from works. But, as a tree produces the fruit that is its nature to produce, a person born of God will produce fruit that is his or her nature to produce. The tree doesn't define its nature; neither do we. But if we know the genuine Christ -- the One in the Word -- it will change how we think and act -- over time, certainly, but inexorably -- and define us as followers of Christ. If, on the other hand, we are followers of a false Christ spawned by the father of lies, that, too will show itself in how we think and act. As the fruit is the result of the tree, so too is our actions and thoughts the result of our natures. We can have Christ-empowered, Christ-altered natures or not. The fruit will tell us which we are, even with our "I believe in Jesus" claims.

Sunday, May 17, 2020

Appreciating the Little Things

When Paul describes the fall of Man in Romans 1, he lists one of the early causes in the descent. "Even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened." (Rom 1:21) They failed to "give thanks." I think it's an ongoing problem, in fact. Gratitude is still scarce today, even among believers.

We might recognize the big things. We are grateful for mothers on Mothers Day and even (sometimes) fathers on Fathers Day. (I say "sometimes" because it's interesting how many Mothers Day sermons are "Mothers, we appreciate you" while Fathers Day sermons are "Fathers, you have to do better.") We might appreciate a good spouse in a world where it seems like good spouses aren't that common. A gift on an occasion like a birthday or Christmas is pretty easy to recognize and be grateful for. But so much of the every day is missed.

I've become aware how this whole virus event has highlighted so many of those little things to us -- those things we take for granted. They're always there and we don't really pay a lot of attention. Until now. I'm sure, for instance, you've seen the ground swell of gratitude for teachers and nurses. Now that parents are teaching their own kids at home, teachers are right up at the top of the grateful list. And with everyday medical folks now working the frontlines of this pandemic, we are more grateful than ever for them.

I've thought of more, too. My wife and I did a drive-thru dinner and I found I was so grateful for the behind-the-counter staff. These are bleak times and they're trying to be cheerful and helpful and I appreciated it.

One of the things we often take for granted is contact. I'm surprised at how much I miss the simple, personal, physical interaction of shaking hands or giving a hug. Were we thankful for that before? I'm in a lot of Zoom meetings both for work and much more and the like, and I've noticed how hard it is not to be able to make eye contact with people. It is very personal way to make that connection and our electronic substitute doesn't allow for it. More than once I've been in a store wearing the required mask and I've had to tell staff or customers, "I'm smiling in here" because they can't see facial expressions when they can't see your face. And now I'm very grateful for facial expressions.

This would be an incredibly long entry if I continued the list. The absence of so many things we have always taken for granted has highlighted for me that there are so many things we have always taken for granted, meaning that I have failed to give thanks. Maybe that is a positive outcome from this event: repentance and awareness of the big and little things for which I can be thankful. Maybe you're becoming aware of these, too. If we learn to give thanks more for God's "little" gifts as well as the big ones, that would be a good thing.

Saturday, May 16, 2020

News Weakly - 5/16/2020

No Win
Half the country has been screaming for "clean energy." So when the Trump administration gave final approval for the biggest solar energy project in the U.S. this week, you'd think they'd have been delighted. They weren't. They say "It will destroy thousands of acres of habitat critical to the survival of the threatened Mojave desert tortoise in Nevada." Well, now, hang on. What do you want? Clean energy or protecting animals? Because there is a trade off for clean energy, you know. Nothing comes for free. Sometimes you just can't win.

Disturbing
A professor in Israel has plotted the rates of new coronavirus cases in 9 countries from Israel with a severe quarantine to Sweden with almost no quarantine and he's made a disturbing discovery. It appears as if the virus cycle works the same in all scenarios. The cases appear to peak in the sixth week and subside by the eighth ... regardless of quarantine. His study suggests that the devastation the world has spread to its people was unnecessary. I can't say if the professor is right, but if he is, that's disturbing.

This is News
In California, a bastion for the Left, a Republican flipped a congressional seat for the first time since 1998. Mike Garcia filled former Representative Katie Hill's seat in a special election by double digits. I don't know Garcia -- good or not -- but it is certainly news when a Republican takes office in a state like California.

The God-Given Right to Read
According to Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, "Every student, no matter where they come from, has a birthright to a quality public education." Whence comes this right? By birth. Think of the millennia of people who were never afforded this right. The horror! So she applauded the payout of $280,000 to seven Detroit student plaintiffs. "This settlement is a good start," she said. Now, I'm not saying there was no-harm-no-foul. I'm just wondering where the right to literacy came from and what other new rights we might expect soon, because this isn't the first "right" we've manufactured out of thin air.

Counting the Cost in Lives
Currently unemployment is at 15%. Goldman Sachs is predicting that unemployment in America could hit 25% before this thing is all over. That's huge; equal to the devastating rates of the Great Depression. And it doesn't take into account the people who are so discouraged they stop looking for work. Worse, it appears that the hardest hit are the least capable to survive it, with 40% of low-income Americans losing their jobs in March. At what point does the overreaction to this pandemic cost more lives than this pandemic? If poverty kills at the same rate as heart attack and stroke, the defense against this virus could kill more than the virus ever would.

When is Helping Not Helping?
Democrats in the House passed an additional $3 trillion relief package for this pandemic. Given that the previous $3 trillion set of packages hasn't really helped much, many are skeptical. They figure it will cost their grandchildren a lot of money without a lot of help. But it's not likely the Senate will take it up at all. Senator Lindsey Graham calls it "dead on arrival." And Trump promised to veto it after that. The upside is that the bill included a simplified tax form. "Line 1: Enter your income. Line 2: Send it in." Keep trying guys. There are still a few people with money that you can try to take.

Breaking News
And, in case you missed this cataclysmic breaking news story, Olympic gold medalist Hope Solo's dog was shot in a "heinous act" and is in critical condition (at the writing of this story). Stay tuned for updates ... just not from me.

On the Plus Side
On a positive note, it appears that Taco Bell is totally unaffected by the meat shortage. Hmmm ... I wonder why that is. And the really compassionate Americans -- 68% of us -- say the lockdown shouldn't end until all diseases are eradicated and there is no war, hunger or suffering.

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

Friday, May 15, 2020

The Gift that Keeps on Giving

Every believer knows (or, at least, should know) that we are saved by grace, not by works (Eph 2:8-9). It is one of the real distinctives between Christianity and every other world religion. Not by works, but by grace. And we understand that "grace" has a somewhat unique definition in Christianity. It is "unmerited favor" or "getting what you don't deserve." Now, the Greek word behind that concept is not defined that way in general. It is simply "favor" and could be earned or unearned. But Paul said, "At the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace." (Rom 11:5-6) So biblical grace is defined as "not on the basis of merit" and if it is on the basis of merit it "would no longer be grace."

Great. We have that settled.

But it's strange. We often seem to think of grace as an end. "Good," we tend to think, "I'm 'saved by grace' -- end of story." It's not. In fact, that doesn't even make sense. God doesn't extend grace for grace's sake. He extends unmerited favor for a purpose.

The most obvious purpose, of course, is our salvation. Salvation is a gift given by God by His favor given to us without our having earned it. (So ... why do so many of us have trouble thinking, "God must be really disappointed with me because I'm not living up to His demands"?) Maybe that purpose is clear to most of us. The point there is salvation, not the vehicle of grace. But there is more. At the end of that wonderful "saved by grace through faith apart from works" passage, we find an outcome of grace that we don't seem to expect.
For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. (Eph 2:10)
That "for" links "saved by grace" to "good works" as a primary purpose. God's grace makes us His workmanship. This is in agreement with 2 Corinthians 9:8.
And God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that having all sufficiency in all things at all times, you may abound in every good work.
Grace abounds to provide sufficiency and enable us to abound in ... good works.

There's more. Paul found that God's grace was sufficient in his weakness (2 Cor 12:9). That is, God's unmerited favor sustains us in our trials. Scripture says that it is God's unmerited favor that makes His unmerited favor not pointless (1 Cor 15:10). (Which, again, should eliminate that "God's disappointed with me" feeling.)

You can begin to see, I hope, that grace is not an end. God's grace is a gift that keeps on giving. And like gift-giving, if giving the gift was the end -- the point -- then it would be kind of anticlimactic, wouldn't it? God gives His unmerited favor with purpose, and that is to enable us to work, to obey, to have sufficiency, to grow, to follow Christ. God's grace isn't simply a character trait of God. God's grace is truly amazing, but keep looking because what He gives His grace for is equally amazing.

Thursday, May 14, 2020

The Hero

I am a fan of science fiction. It's an interesting way to tell stories about humans from a different perspective. Only in sci-fi, it seems, can we see one of the common themes, for instance, of aliens invading to try to wipe us out -- global annihilation. And it seems like we always win. Go figure. In the vast majority of them, human luck and ingenuity is highlighted. In the 1996 movie Independence Day a vastly superior force starts to devastate the planet until 1) a smart fellow figures out how to put a virus in an alien computer (Good thing those aliens used Microsoft products, right?) and 2) a brave pilot figures out how to shoot a missile into the most vulnerable place and ... boom! (literally) ... humans win! In the comedy, Mars Attacks!, superior aliens are killing everyone ... until an unlikely kid accidentally discovers that Slim Whitman singing his iconic Indian Love Call makes their heads explode (like it does for many of the rest of us). Over and over we overcome in these stories because, well, we're just that kind of hero. (I have to point out that H.G. Well's War of the Worlds is a marked exception. Humans "triumph" -- we live and the invaders die -- but not because of anything we do. They die of Earth viruses.)

If sci-fi is telling stories about humans from a different perspective, we certainly get this story. Humans are the heroes. Individually or as a race, we're the winners. We can do it. We are the living end (so to speak). Yea, humans! So perhaps it is excusable that we would see all of existence from that perspective. Even when we come to the Bible, it is likely that we'd come to the same conclusion. God made us. God loves us. We must be wonderful beings, the hero of the story, so to speak.

It is, of course, bunk. A product of sin. "I will be like the Most High." The very moment we step up to that position, we reveal our condition. We are not the point; God is. The Bible isn't about human triumph; it's about God's supremacy. It's not about human glory; it's about God's glory. It isn't about how wonderful or lovable or worthwhile we are; it's about God.

It is our natural bent to replace God with self because, well, we are, by nature, bent. The problem with that is that it is sin, of course, ("fall short of the glory of God" is the accusation in Rom. 3:23) but it is also not real. It is not true. In fact, getting the facts right -- God is the point -- will lead to all kinds of marvelous places that we should revel in rather than avoid. That book is His story. The aim of that book is to point to Him. All He does is for His glory. That we benefit from that is marvelous, but it really is all about Him. He is the Hero of His own story.

Wednesday, May 13, 2020

Blessed Assurance

"If you die, will you go to heaven?" It seems like a simple question, and you'll likely get a straightforward answer ... depending on when you ask. Because the question is mainly not about facts, but about assurance. Whether or not you will go to heaven when you die is a fixed truth, but how you feel about it can vary. So "assurance" is confidence that we are saved. And for most of us that can be a variable.

For your own peace of mind, assurance is important. Lots of Christians can wonder, at least from time to time, "Am I really saved?" Paul described his conflict between his flesh and his mind in Romans 7. All Christians experience this. And there is an innate understanding that, in fact, "I'm not good enough." So is assurance possible ... or even safe? The Roman Catholics say, "No." It's dangerous to have assurance because that will lead to sin and sin will lead to lost salvation and ... well, it's not good. But John wrote, "These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life." (1 John 5:13) Jesus said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life." (John 5:24) Note that, given the verb tenses, this is a past event in the life of a believer -- "has eternal life" and "has passed out of death into life." You can't pass in and out of eternal life. You either have eternal life or you don't, and if, once you have it, you lose it, it never was eternal, was it?

So the real question is "Do I have eternal life?" Or, perhaps, if the question is being asked, it is, "Have I ever had eternal life?" Whence comes this seemingly fleeting assurance?

There are those who will tell you that it's easy. Just look at your life. Are you godly? Voilà! Assurance. No? Then no assurance for you. But which of us feels we're godly? Godly enough? No, assurance doesn't come by reflection on our own lives. That is a fluctuating thing and if that was the measure, assurance would be a myth at best and a danger at worst. But we can know we have eternal life, so how?

Assurance is not our baby. It's God's. Assurance isn't found in my faith or my actions; it's found in God's faithfulness and God's promises. It's in Jude's doxology.
Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling, and to make you stand in the presence of His glory blameless with great joy, to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen. (Jude 1:24-25)
It's in Jesus's certainty that "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand." (John 10:27-29) )Notice Jesus's repetition. That's a standard Hebraism, where repeating something for emphasis is their version of italicizing and bold print.) Over and over again Scripture repeats this concept. We don't "keep God"; we are kept by God. We don't maintain our salvation; our salvation is maintained by God.

The question you need to ask, then, isn't "How confident am I that I am going to heaven?" because that's not your job. God saves and God keeps and we don't earn that or keep it (Gal 3:1-3). Have you believed? Now, Jesus warned of false believers (John 8:30-32), so "Yes, I once acknowledged Jesus" isn't the "believe" you're looking for. Jesus said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life." (John 5:24) There are repeated warnings that we must persevere in the faith. But that is what Christ accomplishes in us (Php 2:12-13). Because salvation, from faith to heaven, is God's work, not ours. That's what allows us to say, "I know whom I have believed and I am convinced that He is able to guard what I have entrusted to Him until that day." (2 Tim 1:12) Those who belong to Christ will simply reflect that in changed hearts and changed lives. Because our assurance is in the finished work of Christ and the ongoing work of God in the lives of those who belong to Him, and He cannot fail.

Tuesday, May 12, 2020

Why Don't We Make Jesus Known?

We Christians are not hazy on this fact. It is the deep, abiding, constant responsibility of all believers to make Jesus known. We have a variety of responsibilities in our service to God -- pray, go to church, the "one anothers" of the Bible, and so on -- but one we all know and all acknowledge with our lips is "Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation." (Mark 16:15) We are all supposed to be reflections of Christ in this world to the glory of God (Matt 5:14-16). And the vast majority of us genuine believers just don't do it. Not regularly; not as a general rule. We clam up. We keep quiet. We either don't let people know we know Jesus or we do it carefully, privately, "on the sly." "Psst, buddy. You know, we're good enough friends ... I have a confession to make. I'm a Christian."

Why is that? Oh, sure, it's an overgeneralization and, oh, sure, there are believers that are not like that, but surely you have to admit that there is far more than 50% of believers that remain pretty quiet about their faith to those outside the faith. Why? Most of us are not knocking on our neighbors' doors. "Hey! I have really great news! You need Jesus!" Most of us aren't declaring it to our work mates. We aren't shouting it to our family members. If we have a hot tip for the stock market or a sincere political agenda, we might be passing that around to everyone who will listen, but Jesus? Oh, no, not Him. Why?

There are lots of reasons, of course. We just don't know how to do it. We're busy with everyday life. We're embarrassed about God's justice in judging sinners. We're afraid of what others might think or of the very real consequences such actions might bring. Underlying it all is the two-sided coin, I'm not as concerned about their eternal state (one side) as I am about my personal concerns and comfort (the other side). We may have a list of personal concerns and comfort issues, from noble to trivial, but it appears that they clearly outweigh the very real concern for the spiritual condition of our friends, family, neighbors, or coworkers if they cause us to keep quiet about Christ. Nor does our love for Christ outweigh our love of self.

I think we need a heart transplant. Okay, that's not accurate. I think we need to be more in tune with the new heart given to those who are born of God. We need to be less attentive to the pleasures and concerns of the world and more enthralled with Christ. So enthralled that keeping Him to ourselves wouldn't be an option. Everyone needs to hear about Him. And if my aim is to share Christ (as opposed to "make converts") with everyone, then how can I fail? If "born again" is a product of God's work, not mine, it seems as if a love for my Savior and for my fellow humans would demand that I set aside personal concerns and pursuits to share Him with them. I suspect the obstruction here is me, and that's a problem, isn't it?

Monday, May 11, 2020

So Says the Light of the World

In John 8 Jesus was explaining to the Pharisees and the crowd that, "I am the light of the world." (John 8:12-30) An argument ensues that ends with Him telling the Pharisees, "When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He." (John 8:28-29) John writes, "As He was saying these things, many believed in Him." (John 8:30) So it is that in verse 31 Jesus begins to speak to the Jews who had believed in Him. He intended to clarify what it meant to follow Him -- to be His disciple. "You think you believe in Me? Here's what it looks like."
"If you abide in My word, you are truly My disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." (John 8:31-32)
What does the Son of God highlight as the key indicator of a true believer? "If you abide in My word."

So critical is this concept that Jesus brings it up multiple times in the ensuing discussion. "You seek to kill Me because My word finds no place in you." (John 8:37) That is, the absence of His word in them is the reason they seek to kill Him. "Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear My word." (John 8:43) Wherein is the communication gap? Not Jesus. It is their resistance to His word. "Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God." (John 8:47) Why are they resistant to God's word? Because they are not of God. Those who are of God embrace His word.

Time again in both the case of the Christian skeptic -- "I'm a Christian, but I just don't buy all this 'the Bible is the word of God' stuff" -- and the case of the Deconvert -- "I was a Christian once, but I no longer believe that" -- the basis for denying God's truth is found in their denying God's word. Jesus told believers that true disciples lived in His word. His intent is clear. If you don't embrace His word and if you don't abide in His word, you are not His disciple. You may "believe" in some sense, but not in the sense of being His follower. Which, by the way, is the definition of "Christian" -- a follower of Christ. Denying God's word is contrary to Christ's version of being a Christian.

Sunday, May 10, 2020

Mother's Day, 2020

My mother has an enviable reputation. She is known as a godly woman. I know people who have met her and tell me, "Be sure to talk to your mother about this stuff. She knows the Lord." I will share a prayer request with some and they'll say, "Tell your mom, too. She's a good person for prayer." Someone told me the other day, "How did you come to this problem in your life? Your mother is such a godly woman."

I was raised in a Christian home. I mean that in the very real sense, not the nominal sense. My mother and father actively love God; they have as long as I can remember. Since my youth my mother has discipled young women because, shock of shocks, she figured that was what Jesus told us to do. Since my youth she has taught ladies' Bible studies because that is what the Spirit has gifted her to do, so she has. In my home I was Bible-bathed. My mother urged us to read Scripture and to memorize Scripture and to know Scripture. I remember as a youngster I complained once that I didn't want to sit in church because I didn't understand the sermons. (I grew up in a time when parents took kids into church with them rather than farming them out to "youth ministries" that, I contend, separates rather than builds up families.) My mother was wise. "Yes," she said, "I can see that. I'll tell you what. Here's a pad of paper and a pencil. When you hear a word in the sermon you don't understand, write it down and we'll talk about it later." Clever girl. She not only got me to stay in the church service listening to adult sermons; she made me pay attention.

The truth is clear. God made me. He told Jeremiah, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations." (Jer 1:5) David said, "In Your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them." (Psa 139:16) God made me. But because of the grace of God, His chosen method to accomplish this was my father and mother. My mother birthed me. In the most direct sense, my mother made me. She made me physically. She was critical in forming my thinking, my beliefs, my character. My parents -- especially my mother -- built in a great love for God's Word. My mother, in daily interactions with her children, introduced us to the God she knows personally and encouraged that in us. She still does.

I'm grateful to God for that. Today, I'm grateful to God for my mother for that. I thank God for having been given a mother I dearly love and appreciate, a mother who formed me in the best possible way, a mother who modeled godliness to encourage godliness. God uses instruments, and my mother has been an incredibly useful instrument in His hands and in my life. Thank you, Mom. 

Saturday, May 09, 2020

News Weakly - 5/9/2020

Me Too, But Not You
Embattled Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer is on a shortlist of women to be Joe Biden's vice president, so it shouldn't surprise anyone that she supports Biden over Tara Reade's sexual allegations. A survivor of sexual abuse herself, she decided to take the reasonable approach of "We need to give people an opportunity to tell their story. Then we have a duty to vet it. And just because you’re a survivor doesn't mean that every claim is equal." (That was not a sarcastic "reasonable" on my part.) She and the #MeToo movement ruled out that approach with Kavanaugh and any other conservative who was accused. Survivor and feminist Whitmer argues we should not just "believe all women." That is news.

And then this odd twist to a related story. The New York Times recently "acquitted" Biden for Tara Reade's accusation of sexual abuse (after, as it turned out, the Biden campaign asked them to modify their story) -- "found no evidence" kind of thing -- and now they're urging the DNC to investigate. Is that not a plain, "Don't believe us"?

Values Clarification: Perceptions, Not Lives, Matter
In response to the "Black Lives Matter" movement, police have adopted what is called the "thin blue line" flag to say, "Blue Lives Matter," referring to police. San Francisco's police chief, Bill Scott, has ordered his officers not to wear this as some may perceive it as "divisive and disrespectful." It's a little disturbing when the chief of police appears to argues that police lives don't matter as much as not being perceived as "divisive and disrespectful." Police lives don't matter that much, right, Chief?

Greta v the World
In the midst of a fatal pandemic -- fatal to hundreds of thousands of humans and to the world economy -- Greta Thunberg has lawyers suing the world for climate change. Okay, officially they've brought suit against Argentina, Brazil, France, Germany and Turkey, but we all know it doesn't -- can't -- end there. For "reasons we don't understand" (wink, wink) they ignored two of the biggest polluters -- China and the U.S. Sixteen child petitioners ages 8 to 17 from 12 countries want the world to cut emissions. I'm pretty sure 1) they won't like the world moved back to pre-Industrial Age standards of living and 2) that no one will actually take the steps required to return emissions to pre-Industrial Age levels. Good luck with that, kids. But in a world where we've decided that the wisest people are the youngest, we shouldn't expect anything less.

Please ...
Ohio state representative Nino Vitale has refused to "be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution" (2 Peter 2:13) or to "be subject to the governing authorities" (Rom 13:1) on the basis of an arbitrary "We're all made in the image of God ... so I won't wear a mask." He did not follow through on his own logic with, "Nor will I wear any clothes because I'm made in the image of God, and I want to see it in my brothers and sisters." (That last phrase was a quote from him.) Please, Mr. Vitale. Stand your ground all you want, but don't do it in the name of God. "The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you." (Rom 2:24) Don't be "that guy."

Can You Say, "No First Amendment"?
The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments this week that would tell religious organizations that the First Amendment does not apply to them. "Do your religious beliefs require that you do not supply women's birth control? Well, too bad. Time to require you to change religious beliefs." Why would the rest of us expect any different?

Love in Other Words
I've heard some outlandish names parents have given their babies. One nurse told me about a pregnant woman who was diagnosed with chlamydia. When she was told the diagnosis, she said, "'Chlamydia' ... that would be a great name for a daughter." Please don't! At least 5 people out there are named Abcde. Cruel. Perhaps my favorite for worst is Sssst. Four s's makes it "four s't." Get it? "Forest." In a similar vein, out of their deep and abiding love for their new baby boy, Mr. and Mrs. Elon Musk have named him ... X Æ A-12 Musk, an entirely unpronounceable, essentially meaningless name that is sure to embarrass this kid for a long, long time. (I'm trying to imagine the response when a potential employer sees that in the header of resume.) Nothing says "love" like a lifetime of abuse, eh?

Headline Bias
In every news outlet I saw, the headline was something like "Trump Contradicts Nurse." There was "dispute," "rebuke," and even "testy oval office exchange." It appears to go unnoticed that the nurse answered, "Oh, no, I agree, Mr. President." Because the news is clearly biased everywhere. (Yes, even here.)

I Read It On The Internet
One reader bemoaned the fact that I put all this "downer" stuff in here last week and didn't include any "relief humor" to offset it, so here is some of the latest headlines from the Babylon Bee. One I noticed was, "'It's Worth It If It Saves Just One Life,' Says Woman Who Supports Abortion On Demand." Another read, "Bill Of Rights Was Hidden Away For Safekeeping During Lockdown And Now No One Can Find It." And, of course, there was the satirical, "Democrats Warn We Shouldn’t Reopen The Country Until We Can Be Safe From Trump Getting Credit For A Good Economy." That was satirical ... right?

Friday, May 08, 2020

Suffering in Context

In Peter's first epistle he talks about a variety of things. One recurring theme is suffering. But look at the context of this text.
What credit is there if, when you sin and are harshly treated, you endure it with patience? But if when you do what is right and suffer for it you patiently endure it, this finds favor with God. For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps. (1 Peter 2:20-21)
This is a bit of a shake up as it is. Peter says that one of the purposes for which we were called to follow Christ was to suffer for doing right. Not incidental. Not, "Well, this might happen." A purpose of God for us.

Now, of course, I always recommend examining context to understand a text better. What is the context?

He starts this section with "Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution." (1 Peter 2:13) Oh, that might produce suffering, mightn't it? It gets more so in verse 18.
Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and gentle, but also to those who are unreasonable. (1 Peter 2:18)
That, dear reader, is the immediate context of verses 20 and 21 -- obeying unreasonable masters. "You have been called for this purpose."

But wait! Keep reading! (Chapter breaks sometimes disrupt thought processes.)
In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives. (1 Peter 3:1)
Do you see the echoes of the previous thought? Servants, submit to your masters ... who are unreasonable. Wives, submit to your husbands who ... are disobedient to the word. You were called for this purpose.

Peter here isn't saying, "Hey, want to have some fun? Let's all be masochists! Let's take beatings from bad government, submit to evil masters, and endure abuse from bad spouses." Not at all. He's saying that these things are not pleasant. He's saying that we should expect to give up our own comfort for Christ, whether it's in obedience to government or bad masters or bad spouses. He's saying there is a higher purpose to it, that God is at work here, that God has a purpose in these injustices. What purpose? It finds favor with God. We are learning to follow Christ who endured the same (1 Peter 2:21-24). We are transferring our rights and preferences to Christ and expect satisfaction from Him. And where does that leave us? That leaves us in the hands of the Shepherd and Guardian of our souls (1 Peter 2:25). And that's very good.

Thursday, May 07, 2020

Pleasure Seekers

We often get the sense that Christians aren't supposed to experience pleasure. You know, put aside your fleshly lusts, do this, don't do that, all that stuff. Sometimes it feels like God said, "Now, what would they like the most? Let's ban it." It's not true, you know.

In one of his prayers in the Psalms, David asks God to preserve him (Psa 16:1). The final thought in that psalm is
"You make known to me the path of life; in Your presence there is fullness of joy; at Your right hand are pleasures forevermore." (Psa 16:11)
Does that strike you as odd? "At Your right hand are pleasures forever more." Really? Aren't we told, basically, to avoid pleasures? Apparently not.

Of course, it's not just here. Jesus said, "I came that they may have life and have it abundantly." (John 10:10) How many of us see the Christian life as "abundant"? Jesus said, "He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, 'From his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.'" (John 7:38) How many of us have that kind of Christian life experience? "Rivers of living water"? Streams? Creeks? Trickles, maybe? It looks like some of us are missing out.

The problem, of course, is in our definition. We think of "pleasures" as worldly things -- food, drink, sexual pleasures, "stuff" ... all sorts of stuff. What we're missing is the "fullness of joy," the actual pleasures available to us in His right hand. Eternal pleasures.

Think about it. If we saw God as our ultimate source of joy -- our best source of pleasure -- how would that alter our direction in life? It would be like someone offering you sand when you've going to pick up diamonds. No temptation at all. It looks like we don't have a problem of pleasure seeking; we have a problem of not grasping the real pleasures in God's right hand for us.