Side Note: It is June 30th. I know I warned earlier that I'd be going offline when Blogger switched to their new operating system, and they're still promising "sometime in late June," but it's as late in June as it can be and it still hasn't happened. So, I'm still here.
____________________
When the rich young man asked Jesus, "Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" Jesus had a response that seemed a bit off topic. "Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone." (Luke 18:18-19) Now as Jesus went on to answer his question directly, I want to hang back a minute and consider His initial response.
Jesus affirmed something here that is thoroughly denied among skeptics, nominal believers, and thorough believers alike. David and Paul both argued, "No one does good, not even one." (Psa 14:1-3; Rom 3:12) Jesus agreed. "No one is good except God alone." For those that disagree, there is little room to stand except outside of God's Word.
But what was His intent in this? Some see this as a denial of His deity. "Why do you call Me good? I'm not God. Only God is good." If that was the case, unfortunately, that also serves as the end of the Christian faith. We would not have an "unblemished lamb" -- a sinless sacrifice. And all the rest of Scripture that ascribes deity to Christ would be wrong. No reliable word of God; no sacrifice for sin; no Christianity.
So if that was not His intent, what was His intent? Well, there is obviously implied in the question an alternate question. "Why do you call me God if only God is good? Are you recognizing Me as God?" A faith question, so to speak. Like the one He gave His disciples: "Who do you say I am?" I suspect this alternate question is part of His intent.
I think there is another. Jesus always knew what people were thinking. He knew where this young man was going with this question. Jesus wasn't surprised that he assured Him that he had kept all those commandments. Jesus knew where this was going. I suspect that a second intent in His question then was preemptive. "You are about to tell Me that you are good. You do realize that can't be, right?"
These are, in fact, two of our own most common errors. Our first is to fail to recognize Christ as God. Why should we? We are God. Our views, our values, our aims and purposes, our comfort ... these are the good and valid things. Not God's. Our second is to fail to recognize our true condition. "Well, sure, those people may not be good, but surely I am." Not too many of us see ourselves as damnable -- literally. We're ... mostly good. In direct contradiction to Jesus.
Tuesday, June 30, 2020
Monday, June 29, 2020
Not Good Enough
We humans have a very common tendency. We tend to "think more highly of yourself than you ought." (Rom 12:3) Oh, we can be very subtle about it. For instance, everyone knows that "self-esteem" can be in short supply. Or, to put it another way, it is common for people to not think highly enough of themselves. I would submit that this is still thinking more highly of yourself than you ought.
Consider. We are made in the image of God (Gen 1:27). That gives us innate value (Gen 9:6). Made by God and made in His image, it would seem that any time we say, "I'm not any good" we are saying, "God, you didn't quite make it with me. You messed up." And that is supremely arrogant. So whether we think we're "all that" or we think we're worthless, we tend to think more highly of ourselves than we ought.
Christians suffer from this often. We know we're sinners (the first premise required to become a Christian). As we see Christ more clearly and love Him more dearly (hey, someone ought to put that in a song), the gap between what we should be and what we are widens. So, in moments (or longer periods) we might despair. "How can God love me? Look at how short I fall." We wonder if God can use us. We wonder if perhaps He's disappointed with us or angry with us. Maybe He loves us, but we're pretty sure He just doesn't like us much right now.
Over against that, we have Scripture. According to Christ, He didn't come to save the "healthy;" He came to save the "sick." "I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners." (Mark 2:17) Beyond that, it's not primarily the wise, the mighty, or the noble that God uses. Instead, "God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, so that no man may boast before God." (1 Cor 1:27-29)
I'm actually concerned about self-professed Christians who think, "I'm okay." From what I see in Scripture and what I've seen in practice, the closer we get to Christ, the greater the gap we realize between our own abilities and righteousness and His. When people tell me "Faith is a crutch," I agree because I think Scripture teaches that all humans are spiritual cripples ... at best. (Most are dead.) When I'm tempted to think, "How could God choose me, use me, love me?" I remind myself of this. God's plan was to choose those who don't deserve it, to use those who aren't intrinsically useful, and love those who aren't lovable in order to thoroughly and wonderfully glorify Himself. My sense of shortfall, then, is confirmation of His magnificent grace, mercy, and love, a clear presentation of His power. Am I too small? Am I unworthy? Am I too weak? Yes! Look past all that and see God! Praise be to God that He can and planned to use a "wretch like me" to His glory.
Consider. We are made in the image of God (Gen 1:27). That gives us innate value (Gen 9:6). Made by God and made in His image, it would seem that any time we say, "I'm not any good" we are saying, "God, you didn't quite make it with me. You messed up." And that is supremely arrogant. So whether we think we're "all that" or we think we're worthless, we tend to think more highly of ourselves than we ought.
Christians suffer from this often. We know we're sinners (the first premise required to become a Christian). As we see Christ more clearly and love Him more dearly (hey, someone ought to put that in a song), the gap between what we should be and what we are widens. So, in moments (or longer periods) we might despair. "How can God love me? Look at how short I fall." We wonder if God can use us. We wonder if perhaps He's disappointed with us or angry with us. Maybe He loves us, but we're pretty sure He just doesn't like us much right now.
Over against that, we have Scripture. According to Christ, He didn't come to save the "healthy;" He came to save the "sick." "I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners." (Mark 2:17) Beyond that, it's not primarily the wise, the mighty, or the noble that God uses. Instead, "God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, so that no man may boast before God." (1 Cor 1:27-29)
I'm actually concerned about self-professed Christians who think, "I'm okay." From what I see in Scripture and what I've seen in practice, the closer we get to Christ, the greater the gap we realize between our own abilities and righteousness and His. When people tell me "Faith is a crutch," I agree because I think Scripture teaches that all humans are spiritual cripples ... at best. (Most are dead.) When I'm tempted to think, "How could God choose me, use me, love me?" I remind myself of this. God's plan was to choose those who don't deserve it, to use those who aren't intrinsically useful, and love those who aren't lovable in order to thoroughly and wonderfully glorify Himself. My sense of shortfall, then, is confirmation of His magnificent grace, mercy, and love, a clear presentation of His power. Am I too small? Am I unworthy? Am I too weak? Yes! Look past all that and see God! Praise be to God that He can and planned to use a "wretch like me" to His glory.
Sunday, June 28, 2020
Walk by Sight by Faith
We all know the verse: "We walk by faith, not by sight." (2 Cor 5:7) And we get it. Paul wrote about "if the tent that is our earthly home is destroyed" (2 Cor 5:1), about the hardship of living this life and, yet, "we are always of good courage" (2 Cor 5:6). Why? Because we walk by faith, not by sight. Sight would tell us we're in deep trouble; faith tells us that there is better to come. Is it possible, however, to walk by sight by faith?
John tells us the story of Jesus healing the man blind from birth (John 9:1-7). In it, Jesus declared, "I am the light of the world." (John 9:5) The man served to display God's glory (John 9:3), but Jesus referred to something much larger. It wasn't mere physical sight. In Acts 16 we read how Lydia, the seller of purple, came to faith. "The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul." (Acts 16:14) Much bigger than physical sight. We need Jesus's eyes.
Jesus had a running theme regarding His words and deeds. "For I have not spoken on my own authority, but the Father who sent Me has Himself given Me a commandment — what to say and what to speak." (John 12:49) "The works that I do in My Father's name bear witness about Me." (John 10:25) Jesus said and did what the Father told Him to say and do. In perfect submission to God the Father, God the Son obeyed. This took Him beyond a world perspective. He looked beyond the here and now. He saw eternity.
So Jesus sees value in "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" (Rom 9:22). He sees evil intent and sees good purpose (Gen 50:20; Rom 8:28-29). He sees suffering and sees opportunity (James 1:2-4). Jesus sees sinners dead in sin (Eph 2:1-3) and produces abundant life (John 10:10). Where we see pleasure and comfort He sees sin and where we see hardships and trials He sees His sufficiency (2 Cor 12:9). Time and time again He sees an eternal view where we can see barely beyond our own noses.
How can we walk by sight by faith? We need to see things as Jesus does. By faith we need to see value in people that Jesus does when they don't necessarily seem so to us. By faith we need to see that He is sufficient when we appear to lack the means. By faith we need to reject the common view that "It's all about me" and replace it with "Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven." (Matt 6:10) By faith we need to see a broader view of God at work when evil and calamity surround us. If we cease to walk by simple sight and walk in faith, we can begin to walk by sight by faith. And it's a much grander view. Mind you, it's not a normal view, but it is much grander.
John tells us the story of Jesus healing the man blind from birth (John 9:1-7). In it, Jesus declared, "I am the light of the world." (John 9:5) The man served to display God's glory (John 9:3), but Jesus referred to something much larger. It wasn't mere physical sight. In Acts 16 we read how Lydia, the seller of purple, came to faith. "The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul." (Acts 16:14) Much bigger than physical sight. We need Jesus's eyes.
Jesus had a running theme regarding His words and deeds. "For I have not spoken on my own authority, but the Father who sent Me has Himself given Me a commandment — what to say and what to speak." (John 12:49) "The works that I do in My Father's name bear witness about Me." (John 10:25) Jesus said and did what the Father told Him to say and do. In perfect submission to God the Father, God the Son obeyed. This took Him beyond a world perspective. He looked beyond the here and now. He saw eternity.
So Jesus sees value in "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" (Rom 9:22). He sees evil intent and sees good purpose (Gen 50:20; Rom 8:28-29). He sees suffering and sees opportunity (James 1:2-4). Jesus sees sinners dead in sin (Eph 2:1-3) and produces abundant life (John 10:10). Where we see pleasure and comfort He sees sin and where we see hardships and trials He sees His sufficiency (2 Cor 12:9). Time and time again He sees an eternal view where we can see barely beyond our own noses.
How can we walk by sight by faith? We need to see things as Jesus does. By faith we need to see value in people that Jesus does when they don't necessarily seem so to us. By faith we need to see that He is sufficient when we appear to lack the means. By faith we need to reject the common view that "It's all about me" and replace it with "Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven." (Matt 6:10) By faith we need to see a broader view of God at work when evil and calamity surround us. If we cease to walk by simple sight and walk in faith, we can begin to walk by sight by faith. And it's a much grander view. Mind you, it's not a normal view, but it is much grander.
Saturday, June 27, 2020
News Weakly - 6/27/20
Lots of news this week, and not all COVID or BLM.
Hate Crime
Nooses were found hanging from trees around Oakland's Lake Merritt; the mayor is investigating it as a hate crime. Mind you, the people that put them there, including a black man, told the police they put them there as exercise equipment, and no one who had seen them for the past several months thought they resembled nooses at all. But if a black man wants to call it "exercise equipment" in a white racist world, we certainly will pin it on hate, that's for sure.
The Hate Crime Du Jour
It has been going on for weeks now, but it's spreading. In San Francisco's Golden Gate Park protesters toppled statues to Ulysses S. Grant and Francis Scott Key. Mind you, Grant was the general that won the war to free the slaves. In fact, Grant was an abolitionist who freed slaves before the war. But the hate is palpable and the aim is clear. Tear it all down without consideration of fact or history or criminality. Don't worry, America. You're next.
Another Senseless Shooting
The spin: "A sheriff deputy killed an armed security guard in Gardena. It was another example of a sweet kid just minding his own business and getting killed for being a person of color." The actual story: Police encountered a young man wearing normal clothing (no uniform or anything) who produced a gun and ran. One officer shot him. The man wasn't a licensed security guard, wore no markings to suggest he was, and his handgun was not registered.
I abhor bad cops who use their position to perpetrate evil of any kind. I believe that such cops are rare. Unlike the loud voices today, I do not assume every shooting is racially motivated, every cop (regardless of skin color) is an anti-minority racist, or that there are no criminals among the people of color. I don't know why the officer shot the young man or why (or even if) the young man ran and produced a weapon. The public voices are ready to lynch the officer without any real evidence, information, or justice system. I'm not. There is another puzzle for me. I don't know why any police officer is still on the job in the current cop-hating climate. I guess I have to admire those who remain on to protect and serve a nation that largely wishes them harm.
More on Moron SCOTUS
Last week the Supreme Court legislated from the bench what the Congress has not. They required by their ruling that the Equality Act be put in force. They redefined "sex" in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to mean "sexual orientation, gender identity, or transgender status." On its heels, 48 senators issued a demand that Senate majority leader McConnell bring the Equality Act up on a vote.
The Equality Act, already passed by the House, is an act intended to silence the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. From the text of the Equality Act itself,
Brothers and sisters, pray for America. Scripture doesn't promise us religious freedom, but the First Amendment does. Clearly the direction is to negate that amendment. Clearly the slippery slope is headed away from Christian faith and values. And the founding fathers assured us that this nation cannot stand without strong faith and values.
Alert! Alert!
Danger! As states are opening up more, "The rising number of COVID-19 cases in states across the country is due in large part to more young people contracting the virus, raising alarms among public health officials." Oh, no! Except ... it appears that they are almost exclusively asymptomatic cases. And the only reason they're catching them now is because of increased testing ... which Trump and Pence claimed and were laughed at for such nonsense.
My only point is, again, this is not a "once size fits all" virus. It affects most people very little if at all. There is an at-risk group and the rest have mild to no symptoms. So we need to treat this problem, but not in this wild "shut 'em all down" fashion when the majority wouldn't even know if they had it at all. And speaking of "one size fits all" approaches, if Biden wasking president, he'd mandate that every last one of you wore masks outside, because if there's one thing Biden values it's freedom.
Trouble in Paradise
That's two shootings and counting now in the gun-free, police-free paradise of "CHOP," formerly known as CHAZ (read "6 square blocks of anarchy and disruption in Seattle"). But, hey, anarchists know best how to make a peaceful life, right? (Note: Since I wrote this, I think the total is now up to 4 shooting incidents in the "gun-free zone" this week.)
I Don't Even ...
In Lincoln County, Oregon, they have issued a mandatory face covering edict like so many others around the country with the exception that people of color don't need to comply. The ACLU said that wearing a face covering in public results in racial profiling for black people, so they are free to choose to spread the virus where everyone else is supposed to try to prevent it. Never mind that the complaint has continued that people of color are harder hit by the virus than others. We are now butting up against crises -- COVID vs BLM -- and BLM is winning.
And now Rhode Island wants to change its name because of "slavery connotations." "Slavery connotations?" you ask? Well, yes. You see, the official name of state is "the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations." Ah, now, see? "Plantations." Now you get it, right? Except that when it was named that (1643) "plantations" was the term for "colony," not "a large farm where black people were enslaved." But, hey, facts are not important today, right? Only sensitivities. In other news, all rope is being removed from shelves because it is too reminiscent of lynchings and all cotton products are being banned because they serve as reminders that slaves picked cotton in the 19th century. I'm guessing that the cotton crops owned by local Native Americans near me will have to be burned, too. More corrections to come as we uncover more obscure triggers from an increasingly sensitive society.
Election Tampering
Showtime has made a two-part series based on former FBI Director James Comey's book, A Higher Loyalty. They moved the premiere date to prior to the presidential election in order to influence voters against Trump based on the obviously biased views of Comey and, clearly, Showtime and the cast. Some of it will include allegations of election tampering from Russia because tampering with elections is wrong for Russia but the moral high ground for Showtime.
Cancel Culture Overdone
The Minneapolis City Council voted unanimously to dismantle the police department. They plan to put it to the voters in November, but their basic idea is to throw away law enforcement in favor of a "Department of Community Safety and Violence Prevention." Public safety will no longer include justice, but would have a nice impact on public health. The mayor isn't on board, but he doesn't have a say as demonstrated first by the demonstrators that booed him off the street as well as the council that voted. Of course, the protesters aren't happy either. That there is anything at all approximating licensed peace officers "would give current and former police way too much power to shape public safety in Minneapolis." So, "lose-lose-lose" it looks like. Minneapolis loses justice and law enforcement, constituents hoping for police protection lose safety, and protesters looking for anarchy over police presence don't get their wish either. But canceling the police is an example of exactly what the cancel culture is all about, isn't it?
Inciting to Riot
You know I like the Babylon Bee for their satire and all, but this story, presented as a headline and image alone, is too close to inciting a riot. Here's the headline: "'I Think We've Found All The Institutions Founded By Racists And We Can Just Stop Looking For Them Now,' Says Planned Parenthood Spokesperson Nervously." It's a shame to have to explain a joke, but you may not know that Planned Parenthood was founded by racists who sought to decrease the black population by means of eugenics. To this day, Planned Parenthood facilitates more abortions (read "kills more babies") from the black communities than any other. But, don't worry, PP. The double standard will hold. You will be safe because facts and logic are not at work in this current anti-racism climate.
Hate Crime
Nooses were found hanging from trees around Oakland's Lake Merritt; the mayor is investigating it as a hate crime. Mind you, the people that put them there, including a black man, told the police they put them there as exercise equipment, and no one who had seen them for the past several months thought they resembled nooses at all. But if a black man wants to call it "exercise equipment" in a white racist world, we certainly will pin it on hate, that's for sure.
The Hate Crime Du Jour
It has been going on for weeks now, but it's spreading. In San Francisco's Golden Gate Park protesters toppled statues to Ulysses S. Grant and Francis Scott Key. Mind you, Grant was the general that won the war to free the slaves. In fact, Grant was an abolitionist who freed slaves before the war. But the hate is palpable and the aim is clear. Tear it all down without consideration of fact or history or criminality. Don't worry, America. You're next.
Another Senseless Shooting
The spin: "A sheriff deputy killed an armed security guard in Gardena. It was another example of a sweet kid just minding his own business and getting killed for being a person of color." The actual story: Police encountered a young man wearing normal clothing (no uniform or anything) who produced a gun and ran. One officer shot him. The man wasn't a licensed security guard, wore no markings to suggest he was, and his handgun was not registered.
I abhor bad cops who use their position to perpetrate evil of any kind. I believe that such cops are rare. Unlike the loud voices today, I do not assume every shooting is racially motivated, every cop (regardless of skin color) is an anti-minority racist, or that there are no criminals among the people of color. I don't know why the officer shot the young man or why (or even if) the young man ran and produced a weapon. The public voices are ready to lynch the officer without any real evidence, information, or justice system. I'm not. There is another puzzle for me. I don't know why any police officer is still on the job in the current cop-hating climate. I guess I have to admire those who remain on to protect and serve a nation that largely wishes them harm.
More on Moron SCOTUS
Last week the Supreme Court legislated from the bench what the Congress has not. They required by their ruling that the Equality Act be put in force. They redefined "sex" in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to mean "sexual orientation, gender identity, or transgender status." On its heels, 48 senators issued a demand that Senate majority leader McConnell bring the Equality Act up on a vote.
The Equality Act, already passed by the House, is an act intended to silence the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. From the text of the Equality Act itself,
The bill prohibits the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 from providing a claim, defense, or basis for challenging such protections.That is, there will by law be no religious exemption allowed in matters of sexual orientation or gender identity in regards to "discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation." You have an idea that the Bible teaches same-sex behavior is sin? Too bad. You can't allow that to affect your choices in hiring or firing. You're a Christian school who doesn't want an open homosexual teaching your students their moral views? Too late. Your religious views can no longer be taken into account. You believe that God made male and female? Tough. You can't use your biblical views to determine what is right or wrong.
Brothers and sisters, pray for America. Scripture doesn't promise us religious freedom, but the First Amendment does. Clearly the direction is to negate that amendment. Clearly the slippery slope is headed away from Christian faith and values. And the founding fathers assured us that this nation cannot stand without strong faith and values.
Alert! Alert!
Danger! As states are opening up more, "The rising number of COVID-19 cases in states across the country is due in large part to more young people contracting the virus, raising alarms among public health officials." Oh, no! Except ... it appears that they are almost exclusively asymptomatic cases. And the only reason they're catching them now is because of increased testing ... which Trump and Pence claimed and were laughed at for such nonsense.
My only point is, again, this is not a "once size fits all" virus. It affects most people very little if at all. There is an at-risk group and the rest have mild to no symptoms. So we need to treat this problem, but not in this wild "shut 'em all down" fashion when the majority wouldn't even know if they had it at all. And speaking of "one size fits all" approaches, if Biden was
Trouble in Paradise
That's two shootings and counting now in the gun-free, police-free paradise of "CHOP," formerly known as CHAZ (read "6 square blocks of anarchy and disruption in Seattle"). But, hey, anarchists know best how to make a peaceful life, right? (Note: Since I wrote this, I think the total is now up to 4 shooting incidents in the "gun-free zone" this week.)
I Don't Even ...
In Lincoln County, Oregon, they have issued a mandatory face covering edict like so many others around the country with the exception that people of color don't need to comply. The ACLU said that wearing a face covering in public results in racial profiling for black people, so they are free to choose to spread the virus where everyone else is supposed to try to prevent it. Never mind that the complaint has continued that people of color are harder hit by the virus than others. We are now butting up against crises -- COVID vs BLM -- and BLM is winning.
And now Rhode Island wants to change its name because of "slavery connotations." "Slavery connotations?" you ask? Well, yes. You see, the official name of state is "the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations." Ah, now, see? "Plantations." Now you get it, right? Except that when it was named that (1643) "plantations" was the term for "colony," not "a large farm where black people were enslaved." But, hey, facts are not important today, right? Only sensitivities. In other news, all rope is being removed from shelves because it is too reminiscent of lynchings and all cotton products are being banned because they serve as reminders that slaves picked cotton in the 19th century. I'm guessing that the cotton crops owned by local Native Americans near me will have to be burned, too. More corrections to come as we uncover more obscure triggers from an increasingly sensitive society.
Election Tampering
Showtime has made a two-part series based on former FBI Director James Comey's book, A Higher Loyalty. They moved the premiere date to prior to the presidential election in order to influence voters against Trump based on the obviously biased views of Comey and, clearly, Showtime and the cast. Some of it will include allegations of election tampering from Russia because tampering with elections is wrong for Russia but the moral high ground for Showtime.
Cancel Culture Overdone
The Minneapolis City Council voted unanimously to dismantle the police department. They plan to put it to the voters in November, but their basic idea is to throw away law enforcement in favor of a "Department of Community Safety and Violence Prevention." Public safety will no longer include justice, but would have a nice impact on public health. The mayor isn't on board, but he doesn't have a say as demonstrated first by the demonstrators that booed him off the street as well as the council that voted. Of course, the protesters aren't happy either. That there is anything at all approximating licensed peace officers "would give current and former police way too much power to shape public safety in Minneapolis." So, "lose-lose-lose" it looks like. Minneapolis loses justice and law enforcement, constituents hoping for police protection lose safety, and protesters looking for anarchy over police presence don't get their wish either. But canceling the police is an example of exactly what the cancel culture is all about, isn't it?
Inciting to Riot
You know I like the Babylon Bee for their satire and all, but this story, presented as a headline and image alone, is too close to inciting a riot. Here's the headline: "'I Think We've Found All The Institutions Founded By Racists And We Can Just Stop Looking For Them Now,' Says Planned Parenthood Spokesperson Nervously." It's a shame to have to explain a joke, but you may not know that Planned Parenthood was founded by racists who sought to decrease the black population by means of eugenics. To this day, Planned Parenthood facilitates more abortions (read "kills more babies") from the black communities than any other. But, don't worry, PP. The double standard will hold. You will be safe because facts and logic are not at work in this current anti-racism climate.
Friday, June 26, 2020
Institutional Racism
The current battle in America today is around the concept of institutional or systemic racism. The battle is so large that it is spilling over into other countries and continents. The problem, they say, is white privilege. The issue, they say, is that all white people are racists. In fact, in some circles, the definition of "racist" is "white." People of color cannot be racist. White people cannot not racist. It's all built on the popular "Critical Race Theory" and "Intersectionality." Picked up without critical thinking, they've become the driving force for the loudest voices that intend to drive the nation.
There are a couple of key problems with systemic or institutional racism that are never addressed. One is the problem of stereotyping or generalization. These concepts are undeniably a generalization. There certainly is an undercurrent of racism in many corners of our country and our world. That can't be denied. And it's bad. That, too, is undeniable. But it isn't limited to a particular race, nor does it encompass every member of every race. That is, stereotyping and generalizations leave no room for individuals. As such, the principle of systemic or institutional racism makes the problem of racism unsolvable simply because it isn't accurate.
Let me illustrate what I mean from personal experience. In high school my two closest friends were not white. One was a black, legally blind guy and the other had South American parents (Columbia and Chile). We hung out together all the time; after all, we went to the same church, too. Some tagged as as "the United Nations" and others just badgered us for being together. Well, one day I was coming out of the gym and encountered three black guys at the door. They were talking among themselves about the damage they'd like to do to some white guy -- any white guy. I ignored them, but as I crossed the door threshold, one lashed out at me. Oh, he didn't connect, but the idea was clear. I walked on thinking, "Wow, black people must really hate white people" ... for a few moments. Just a few moments because I knew black people that did not hate white people. And it dawned on me that this was how stereotypes were built. If I had allowed the impression the event had given to become the principle, I would have had a problem. What do I do with my black friends?
The other key problem with the principle of systemic racism is that there are no remedies. In a systemic view, the remedy must be systemic. But the fact of the matter is racism is not systemic. There are no "Christian companies" because companies cannot come to Christ -- only individuals. There are no "hate organizations" because organizations are not people and only people can hate. In the same way, applying the "institutional racism" tag may reflect a general truth, but provides no solution since the institution cannot be racist -- only individuals. In the war on terror of the first decade of the 21st century, the argument was made that torture didn't give the information they wanted and only made more terrorists. Similarly, when individuals who are not racist are chastised for being racist, there is a good chance they can be influenced to be racist because of the mistreatment.
We all agree that racism is a problem. I think that the agreement ends there, unfortunately. We don't agree about the definition of the term. We don't agree about the scope of the problem. We don't even have a clue how to address it.
But I would urge all believers in the Savior to address it.
1. I would urge each of us to examine ourselves for the often hidden xenophobia we carry -- the fear of "other." It's that very human failing that produces a "fight or flight" response that is racism. It's sin. I would urge us to ask God to reveal in us those dark sins we may not even be conscious of (Jer 17:9) and repent. I would urge the daily prayer,
There are a couple of key problems with systemic or institutional racism that are never addressed. One is the problem of stereotyping or generalization. These concepts are undeniably a generalization. There certainly is an undercurrent of racism in many corners of our country and our world. That can't be denied. And it's bad. That, too, is undeniable. But it isn't limited to a particular race, nor does it encompass every member of every race. That is, stereotyping and generalizations leave no room for individuals. As such, the principle of systemic or institutional racism makes the problem of racism unsolvable simply because it isn't accurate.
Let me illustrate what I mean from personal experience. In high school my two closest friends were not white. One was a black, legally blind guy and the other had South American parents (Columbia and Chile). We hung out together all the time; after all, we went to the same church, too. Some tagged as as "the United Nations" and others just badgered us for being together. Well, one day I was coming out of the gym and encountered three black guys at the door. They were talking among themselves about the damage they'd like to do to some white guy -- any white guy. I ignored them, but as I crossed the door threshold, one lashed out at me. Oh, he didn't connect, but the idea was clear. I walked on thinking, "Wow, black people must really hate white people" ... for a few moments. Just a few moments because I knew black people that did not hate white people. And it dawned on me that this was how stereotypes were built. If I had allowed the impression the event had given to become the principle, I would have had a problem. What do I do with my black friends?
The other key problem with the principle of systemic racism is that there are no remedies. In a systemic view, the remedy must be systemic. But the fact of the matter is racism is not systemic. There are no "Christian companies" because companies cannot come to Christ -- only individuals. There are no "hate organizations" because organizations are not people and only people can hate. In the same way, applying the "institutional racism" tag may reflect a general truth, but provides no solution since the institution cannot be racist -- only individuals. In the war on terror of the first decade of the 21st century, the argument was made that torture didn't give the information they wanted and only made more terrorists. Similarly, when individuals who are not racist are chastised for being racist, there is a good chance they can be influenced to be racist because of the mistreatment.
We all agree that racism is a problem. I think that the agreement ends there, unfortunately. We don't agree about the definition of the term. We don't agree about the scope of the problem. We don't even have a clue how to address it.
But I would urge all believers in the Savior to address it.
1. I would urge each of us to examine ourselves for the often hidden xenophobia we carry -- the fear of "other." It's that very human failing that produces a "fight or flight" response that is racism. It's sin. I would urge us to ask God to reveal in us those dark sins we may not even be conscious of (Jer 17:9) and repent. I would urge the daily prayer,
Search me, O God, and know my heart! Try me and know my thoughts! And see if there be any grievous way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting! (Psa 139:23-24)2. I would urge each of us to move beyond such sinful biases ourselves. Intentionally expand your circle of friends outside of your comfort zone. Learn from people of different categories -- economic, social, racial, etc. Forgive those who have wronged you (Matt 6:14-15). Seek to learn, to understand, to empathize.
Let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger. (James 1:19)3. Stand against sexism, racism, etc. among believers with an aim to restore (Gal 6:1), not punish them. Correct ourselves individually first, then begin the practice of making those corrections permanent, and then reach out to another believer to help in that process. Because racism may dwell among individuals in systems and institutions -- deeply and indelibly -- but it is an individual problem that is only addressed at the individual level. And with the size of this problem, there are a lot of individuals that need to be addressed ... beginning with myself.
Thursday, June 25, 2020
Woe!
Woe to those who go down to Egypt for help and rely on horses, who trust in chariots because they are many and in horsemen because they are very strong, but do not look to the Holy One of Israel or consult the LORD! And yet He is wise and brings disaster; He does not call back His words, but will arise against the house of the evildoers and against the helpers of those who work iniquity. The Egyptians are men, and not God, and their horses are flesh, and not spirit. When the LORD stretches out His hand, the helper will stumble, and he who is helped will fall, and they will all perish together. (Isa 31:1-3)Isaiah 31 is addressed to Israel, the professing people of God. In this chapter God begins with a warning. We're not really familiar with the concept of "woe." I mean, we kind of get that it's about grief or indignation or something, but in biblical terms it is something much more. Isaiah used the term about himself in Isaiah 6 when he saw God. "Woe is me! for I am undone." (Isa 6:5) The language is not merely of grief or indignation. It is an unraveling of the person. It's a lament, but it carries with it the sense of being cursed. "God is turning His back on me." It is a term of judgment. We think, "It means things won't go well for you," but this is really bad. What brought about this statement from God about His people?
Well, they did something awful. They ... expected help in battle from perhaps the world's most powerful army at the time. Now, hang on. How is that "woeful"? Isn't that rational? If you want to get healthy, go to a doctor. If you want to make money, get a job. If you want to protect yourself from enemies, buy protection. It makes sense. "Woe"???
Of course, I'm not precisely correct. It wasn't that they sought help from Egypt. It was that they relied on Egypt. It was that they didn't "look to the Holy One of Israel or consult the LORD." They trusted in horses and chariots to the exclusion of the LORD, their only actually reliable help.
We do that, don't we? We look to better judges or better leadership to make America better. We hope for better laws to make America more moral. We work out better programs to make people less racist or less sexist or more inclusive. (Have you heard recently that the language of "inclusiveness" is now considered racist because it is condescending? No win.) We try to get better stuff to make a better life, whether it's better equipment for church or better Bible studies for personal use or better training to get along better with others.
Mind you, I'm not suggesting in the least that we shouldn't do any of this. What I'm suggesting is that, like God's self-professed people, we are mistaken (to the level of "woe") if that's where we're putting our trust. We're wrong (to the level of the biblical curse) if we do it without seeking God and relying on Him. I'm suggesting that our eyes need to be on the Lord and Him alone. He may often supply what we need through these means, but never forget that it is Him, not them, that is our focus and sufficiency.
Wednesday, June 24, 2020
Cancel Culture
Maybe you haven't heard the term, "cancel culture." You've certainly seen the idea in action. According to Dictionary.com, "cancel culture" is a "the popular practice of withdrawing support for (canceling) public figures and companies after they have done or said something considered objectionable or offensive." We've always had boycotts and such, so this isn't really new. It's just boycotting with nukes. Driven largely by social media, it is a group shaming technique where we don't merely oppose the "objectionable or offensive" item, but terminate the perpetrator.
In a boycott the idea is to hurt them in the pocketbook so they will change the offensive practice. The "cancel culture" isn't so benign. It's aim is to "kill." How many people have lost their jobs in the last few years for perceived offense? How many have been censured? How many traditions, acceptable for so long, have been tossed aside? How many statues have been removed? The "cancel culture" is not a corrective, but a termination.
In the "cancel culture" mentality, there are two serious problems. First, there is no redemption. There is no retraction, no second chances, no forgiveness, no return. The apparent requirement to remain functional in a "cancel culture" environment is to never say or do anything considered objectionable or offensive. Which leads to the second problem. The problem is not actually "objectionable or offensive," but that which is considered objectionable or offensive. And that category is ever expanding. Things that never offended before are now perceived as offensive. Now it's offensive to play the national anthem or "Tara's Theme" at a football game. THe SEC is planning to ban all college sports in Mississippi unless the state changes its flag. Portland protestors toppled the statue of the first American president as well as Thomas Jefferson, two of the key players that gave them the freedom to topple the statues. I recently heard an "anti-racism professor" explain that the reason we like some accents over others is because we're racists. White people are offensive; we have to go. We have grown a "cancel culture" with a hair-trigger "offense" mechanism complete with "microaggression" and "I feel" without regard to reality or common sense.
In the beginning, "cancel culture" seemed like a good tool. Make the offensive shut up. Of course, there was no trial, no "innocent until proven guilty," no "court of law" or even analysis. There was no "30-days for bad behavior." It was cancellation -- social capital punishment without recourse. But, hey, they were being offensive! Now "offensive" is whatever anyone thinks it is. A football team named after Native Americans because they viewed Native Americans as brave and strong and valiant fighters is offensive ... because we think so. Having an opinion on something that differs from others is offensive ... because we say so. Voicing said opinion deserves social death, and that always translates into serious ramifications. Who needs a justice system when we can simply cancel offenders? And who is safe from such a system when "offensive" is fluid and skin-deep?
In our rush to "social justice" we've become a petty, heartless society. Swift to cut down those we don't like and to make an ever expanding list of who that is, we have no room for compassion, no room for forgiveness, no mechanism for restoration. In the most offensive sense, we've become just like the popular view of the church: "They've sinned against us; burn them."
As for you, brothers and sisters, don't let that be you. Genuine followers of Christ don't operate on a "cancel culture" mode of operation. We all begin as "objectionable and offensive" and our only recourse is repentance and forgiveness from the One who truly understands and defines "objectionable and offensive," but died on our behalf to save us. Genuine followers of Christ don't aim at "cancel," but "restore" (Gal 6:1). Don't be like the world, brothers and sisters. Love God; love your neighbors. Forgive as you have been forgiven. Restore the fallen.
In a boycott the idea is to hurt them in the pocketbook so they will change the offensive practice. The "cancel culture" isn't so benign. It's aim is to "kill." How many people have lost their jobs in the last few years for perceived offense? How many have been censured? How many traditions, acceptable for so long, have been tossed aside? How many statues have been removed? The "cancel culture" is not a corrective, but a termination.
In the "cancel culture" mentality, there are two serious problems. First, there is no redemption. There is no retraction, no second chances, no forgiveness, no return. The apparent requirement to remain functional in a "cancel culture" environment is to never say or do anything considered objectionable or offensive. Which leads to the second problem. The problem is not actually "objectionable or offensive," but that which is considered objectionable or offensive. And that category is ever expanding. Things that never offended before are now perceived as offensive. Now it's offensive to play the national anthem or "Tara's Theme" at a football game. THe SEC is planning to ban all college sports in Mississippi unless the state changes its flag. Portland protestors toppled the statue of the first American president as well as Thomas Jefferson, two of the key players that gave them the freedom to topple the statues. I recently heard an "anti-racism professor" explain that the reason we like some accents over others is because we're racists. White people are offensive; we have to go. We have grown a "cancel culture" with a hair-trigger "offense" mechanism complete with "microaggression" and "I feel" without regard to reality or common sense.
In the beginning, "cancel culture" seemed like a good tool. Make the offensive shut up. Of course, there was no trial, no "innocent until proven guilty," no "court of law" or even analysis. There was no "30-days for bad behavior." It was cancellation -- social capital punishment without recourse. But, hey, they were being offensive! Now "offensive" is whatever anyone thinks it is. A football team named after Native Americans because they viewed Native Americans as brave and strong and valiant fighters is offensive ... because we think so. Having an opinion on something that differs from others is offensive ... because we say so. Voicing said opinion deserves social death, and that always translates into serious ramifications. Who needs a justice system when we can simply cancel offenders? And who is safe from such a system when "offensive" is fluid and skin-deep?
In our rush to "social justice" we've become a petty, heartless society. Swift to cut down those we don't like and to make an ever expanding list of who that is, we have no room for compassion, no room for forgiveness, no mechanism for restoration. In the most offensive sense, we've become just like the popular view of the church: "They've sinned against us; burn them."
As for you, brothers and sisters, don't let that be you. Genuine followers of Christ don't operate on a "cancel culture" mode of operation. We all begin as "objectionable and offensive" and our only recourse is repentance and forgiveness from the One who truly understands and defines "objectionable and offensive," but died on our behalf to save us. Genuine followers of Christ don't aim at "cancel," but "restore" (Gal 6:1). Don't be like the world, brothers and sisters. Love God; love your neighbors. Forgive as you have been forgiven. Restore the fallen.
Tuesday, June 23, 2020
Post Father's Day
On Father's Day Sean Williams trotted out his organization called "The Dad Gang." Mostly white neighbors in his Long Island neighborhood had complimented him for spending so much time with his kids, and it bothered him because "according to the CDC black fathers bathe, dress or diaper the kids they live with on a daily basis more than any other group."
Personally, I don't get the insult. I think any and every father that takes care of his kids should be complimented. But Williams wanted to declare that "the stereotype is just not true." The stereotype was that black fathers were not as involved with the kids in their homes as other fathers. I guess I wasn't aware of that stereotype. I am aware of the stereotype that black fathers are more absent than other races, but that's not a prejudice; that's a statistic. In the 2013 CDC report cited by Williams, the document claimed that black fathers were more active, but more absent. That is, the fathers that were present were more connected to their children than others, but on the whole black fathers were more likely to leave.
The numbers are really devastating, and I'm not talking about "black fathers" here; I'm talking about American fathers. In 2014 23.6% of U.S. children lived in father-absent homes. According to a 2012 Census.gov report, black children (55%) and Hispanic children (31%) were more likely to live with one parent than non-Hispanic white children (21%) or Asian children (13%). Again, I'm not talking about black fathers here; it is just as devastating that more than one in five "non-Hispanic white children" live in homes without two parents as it is that more than half black children do.
The effects of fatherlessness are well documented. Increased poverty and obesity, higher infant mortality, higher teen pregnancy, greater suicide rates, increased behavioral problems and criminal tendencies, decreased educational success, greater emotional upheaval ... the list just goes on and on. Insofar as black culture embraces black fathers leaving their children, this is a black problem, but I don't think this is a black problem. I think it's a human problem in general and, more specifically, an American problem. I think it's a direct result of American immorality. Cheapening marriage, cheapening sex, discounting morality and commitment and selflessness and sacrifice, elevating personal pleasure and instant gratification, we've made this monster ourselves. You can't point at any give race for that. We built this city on 1960's style "If it feels good, do it" so well that even the "harm defines morality" crowd has missed it entirely.
To be more specific, however, I think that our American efforts to jettison biblical morality in favor of self is not merely an American thing. We had help. We had a mentor, a backer. Scripture speaks of two fathers. Jesus said, "If God were your Father, you would love Me" (John 8:42), but we don't. Instead, "You are of your father, the devil." (John 8:44) That father aims to displace the Father. That father aims to discredit the Father. I can't tell you how many times I've talked to people about God as Father only to have them retort something to the effect of "My father was lousy; why would I want yours?" I believe that the devastating problem of fatherlessness in America and around the world is a direct product of sin, part of a conspiracy from the father of lies to convince us that we can't trust our fathers and we certainly can't trust the Father. Isn't it odd, then, that even people from the worst experiences in fathers can evaluate fathers based on an innate sense of what a father should be? We know intrinsically that a father should be present, loving, caring, involved, protecting, encouraging, empowering -- all the traits that so many fathers don't have and we bemoan it -- because God has placed it in our hearts (Eccl 3:11; Psa 19:1; Rom 1:19-20).
Humans need fathers. We were designed for a two-parent, "two-become-one" household. We were made to have a mother married to a father at home raising children together, both contributing their own special components to make well-rounded offspring in the image of God. More importantly, we were built for a relationship with the Father obtained only by faith in the Son. The fact that our world largely contradicts these realities simply demonstrates that our world is blinded by the god of this world (2 Cor 4:4). That's not a "black problem;" it's a sinful human problem. And we who know the Father have work to do.
Personally, I don't get the insult. I think any and every father that takes care of his kids should be complimented. But Williams wanted to declare that "the stereotype is just not true." The stereotype was that black fathers were not as involved with the kids in their homes as other fathers. I guess I wasn't aware of that stereotype. I am aware of the stereotype that black fathers are more absent than other races, but that's not a prejudice; that's a statistic. In the 2013 CDC report cited by Williams, the document claimed that black fathers were more active, but more absent. That is, the fathers that were present were more connected to their children than others, but on the whole black fathers were more likely to leave.
The numbers are really devastating, and I'm not talking about "black fathers" here; I'm talking about American fathers. In 2014 23.6% of U.S. children lived in father-absent homes. According to a 2012 Census.gov report, black children (55%) and Hispanic children (31%) were more likely to live with one parent than non-Hispanic white children (21%) or Asian children (13%). Again, I'm not talking about black fathers here; it is just as devastating that more than one in five "non-Hispanic white children" live in homes without two parents as it is that more than half black children do.
The effects of fatherlessness are well documented. Increased poverty and obesity, higher infant mortality, higher teen pregnancy, greater suicide rates, increased behavioral problems and criminal tendencies, decreased educational success, greater emotional upheaval ... the list just goes on and on. Insofar as black culture embraces black fathers leaving their children, this is a black problem, but I don't think this is a black problem. I think it's a human problem in general and, more specifically, an American problem. I think it's a direct result of American immorality. Cheapening marriage, cheapening sex, discounting morality and commitment and selflessness and sacrifice, elevating personal pleasure and instant gratification, we've made this monster ourselves. You can't point at any give race for that. We built this city on 1960's style "If it feels good, do it" so well that even the "harm defines morality" crowd has missed it entirely.
To be more specific, however, I think that our American efforts to jettison biblical morality in favor of self is not merely an American thing. We had help. We had a mentor, a backer. Scripture speaks of two fathers. Jesus said, "If God were your Father, you would love Me" (John 8:42), but we don't. Instead, "You are of your father, the devil." (John 8:44) That father aims to displace the Father. That father aims to discredit the Father. I can't tell you how many times I've talked to people about God as Father only to have them retort something to the effect of "My father was lousy; why would I want yours?" I believe that the devastating problem of fatherlessness in America and around the world is a direct product of sin, part of a conspiracy from the father of lies to convince us that we can't trust our fathers and we certainly can't trust the Father. Isn't it odd, then, that even people from the worst experiences in fathers can evaluate fathers based on an innate sense of what a father should be? We know intrinsically that a father should be present, loving, caring, involved, protecting, encouraging, empowering -- all the traits that so many fathers don't have and we bemoan it -- because God has placed it in our hearts (Eccl 3:11; Psa 19:1; Rom 1:19-20).
Humans need fathers. We were designed for a two-parent, "two-become-one" household. We were made to have a mother married to a father at home raising children together, both contributing their own special components to make well-rounded offspring in the image of God. More importantly, we were built for a relationship with the Father obtained only by faith in the Son. The fact that our world largely contradicts these realities simply demonstrates that our world is blinded by the god of this world (2 Cor 4:4). That's not a "black problem;" it's a sinful human problem. And we who know the Father have work to do.
Monday, June 22, 2020
Unintended Consequences
Just a thought here. As we all know, the "conservative" SCOTUS voted recently to redefine "sex" without any consensus from science or any regard for the original intent of the use of the term it referenced when it decided that "sex" meant "sexual orientation, gender identity, and transgender status." It was hailed as a victory for the LGBT alphabet soup. But did anyone notice that it put an end to the LGBT alphabet soup?
Consider. "L" - "lesbian: woman who is sexually attracted to other women." "G" - "gay: presumably a reference to men who are attracted to other men." (Presumably because most of the dictionaries defined "lesbian" as a "gay woman." It has always been confusing to me, since "gay" has meant "same-sex attraction" but is apparently only/sometimes a reference only to the male version. Odd. But, I digress.) "B" - "bisexual: sexually attracted to both men and women." (Historically this category has been totally underrepresented by the LGBT alphabet soup since no one has yet to pass a law to help out the "B" version of that list.) There we have it. Oh, and the "T" -- let's not forget the "T." That would be "transgender: a person whose gender identity differs from the sex the person had at birth." All clear enough ... you'd think. Except now SCOTUS has made "gender identity" a protected definition of "sex." The fundamental tenet of "gender identity" is that binary gender does not exist.
Oh, now, hang on. That would, by definition, delete the "lesbian," "gay," and "bisexual" categories because all of them assume binary gender. There is for instance, no category for a female who is attracted to a "two-spirits" (one of the vast array of "gender identity" categories available). If a homosexual male finds himself attracted to a gender fluid (another of those grand categories), is he a homosexual? If the prefix "homo" means "the same" and "hetero" means "different," wouldn't that make him a heterosexual? Doesn't the denial of binary gender and the embrace of fluid gender of any sort make all of these LGB categories undefinable?
But wait! Transgender is a person whose gender identity differs from the sex they were born with. "Born with" is a biologically defined gender (and there are only two). The reason a woman who believes she's a man or a man who believes he's a woman can come to that conclusion is because they recognize binary gender categories. No biological male undergoes chemical and surgical alterations to become a genderflux (still another category of "gender identity" on the market). He becomes a binary gender female.
Face it. We all know it. There are two genders. Only two. They are present at birth. They are measurable -- XX or XY. Like it or not, these scientific facts make categories like "lesbian" or "gay" or even "transgender" possible. If we deny these facts, we nullify them all. So SCOTUS has bought the anti-science insanity and, in an attempt to protect the downtrodden, has officially erased them. Oh, don't worry. We're a valiant society. We won't let facts and science and logic bother us. We'll keep a brave face and move forward, protecting men who want to be allowed into the women's bathrooms and changing rooms and sports teams because they "identify as female" while we undefine "female." It's just one of those endearing quirks of ours. (Go ahead. Pat yourselves on the back for that.)
Consider. "L" - "lesbian: woman who is sexually attracted to other women." "G" - "gay: presumably a reference to men who are attracted to other men." (Presumably because most of the dictionaries defined "lesbian" as a "gay woman." It has always been confusing to me, since "gay" has meant "same-sex attraction" but is apparently only/sometimes a reference only to the male version. Odd. But, I digress.) "B" - "bisexual: sexually attracted to both men and women." (Historically this category has been totally underrepresented by the LGBT alphabet soup since no one has yet to pass a law to help out the "B" version of that list.) There we have it. Oh, and the "T" -- let's not forget the "T." That would be "transgender: a person whose gender identity differs from the sex the person had at birth." All clear enough ... you'd think. Except now SCOTUS has made "gender identity" a protected definition of "sex." The fundamental tenet of "gender identity" is that binary gender does not exist.
Oh, now, hang on. That would, by definition, delete the "lesbian," "gay," and "bisexual" categories because all of them assume binary gender. There is for instance, no category for a female who is attracted to a "two-spirits" (one of the vast array of "gender identity" categories available). If a homosexual male finds himself attracted to a gender fluid (another of those grand categories), is he a homosexual? If the prefix "homo" means "the same" and "hetero" means "different," wouldn't that make him a heterosexual? Doesn't the denial of binary gender and the embrace of fluid gender of any sort make all of these LGB categories undefinable?
But wait! Transgender is a person whose gender identity differs from the sex they were born with. "Born with" is a biologically defined gender (and there are only two). The reason a woman who believes she's a man or a man who believes he's a woman can come to that conclusion is because they recognize binary gender categories. No biological male undergoes chemical and surgical alterations to become a genderflux (still another category of "gender identity" on the market). He becomes a binary gender female.
Face it. We all know it. There are two genders. Only two. They are present at birth. They are measurable -- XX or XY. Like it or not, these scientific facts make categories like "lesbian" or "gay" or even "transgender" possible. If we deny these facts, we nullify them all. So SCOTUS has bought the anti-science insanity and, in an attempt to protect the downtrodden, has officially erased them. Oh, don't worry. We're a valiant society. We won't let facts and science and logic bother us. We'll keep a brave face and move forward, protecting men who want to be allowed into the women's bathrooms and changing rooms and sports teams because they "identify as female" while we undefine "female." It's just one of those endearing quirks of ours. (Go ahead. Pat yourselves on the back for that.)
Sunday, June 21, 2020
Father's Day, 2020
A day set aside for dad's. Not so sure that's popular anymore, but I'm only sorry there aren't more. It's interesting the piles of memories from my growing up with my father. At the time you figure, "This is just the way it is," and nothing is remarkable. Looking back, it really was.
I wasn't a fisherman in my youth (and less so today), but my dad sure loved to fish. So we'd fish. If that sounds like a complaint, you missed it just like I did. We went camping and we went to "opening day" in the Sierras and we went to Ensenada, Mexico, and we went to Alaska ... we went all over the place to fish. Dad would load my brother and I in the car on a Friday, drive us down to Ensenada to go out on an early-morning deep-sea fishing trip, and have us home by Sunday. He had a friend fly us down to a sleepy town in Baja California to fish in a dinghy in the Bay of California. Fishing? Okay. But all this was special time with my brother and my dad doing stuff together.
Fishing wasn't all there was. He took us on trips -- trips around the U.S., trips to Canada, trips to Mexico -- even untraveled portions of Mexico where we hiked to a village to visit missionaries there. He took us on a backpacking trip in the mountains for a week. He set us up horseback riding on the beach in Ensenada. (I still have that indelible memory etched in my mind when the saddle he was in slipped, he fell onto the sand, and a wave washed over him. Good times.) He had a friend from work take us out on his sailboat for a whale-watching excursion. Family vacations, sightseeing and travels, mission trips, Dad did it all with us.
One of my memories is a bit ... odd. Dad was a civil engineer for the County of Los Angeles, specializing in storm water runoff -- preventing floods. I remember one stormy night he said, "Hey, Stan, I have to go look at this flooding going on. Want to come along?" Really? Why not? He took his son for no reason other than he wanted to. He took my brother and I with him when he went to skid row to give the men there the gospel. He took us breakfast with the Christian Businessmens' Committee (CBMC). He took us to Billy Graham crusades. Oh, and we never, ever missed church. We went every week unless there was an exception like we were traveling. Then we'd go where we were. Or if someone was sick. Then he'd hold a service in the home. Never miss church.
My dad has always been what the '50's crowd thought a dad should be. Involved, connected, modeling the role of a loving husband, firm but fair, caring, a kind of "storybook" dad. Simple stuff, maybe. Not extravagant but generous, not selfish but sharing. I've been recalling a lot of this stuff lately and am reminded once again of how fortunate I have been to have my father even when I took him for granted and how blessed I have been that God would give me such a dad.
Happy Father's Day, Dad.
I wasn't a fisherman in my youth (and less so today), but my dad sure loved to fish. So we'd fish. If that sounds like a complaint, you missed it just like I did. We went camping and we went to "opening day" in the Sierras and we went to Ensenada, Mexico, and we went to Alaska ... we went all over the place to fish. Dad would load my brother and I in the car on a Friday, drive us down to Ensenada to go out on an early-morning deep-sea fishing trip, and have us home by Sunday. He had a friend fly us down to a sleepy town in Baja California to fish in a dinghy in the Bay of California. Fishing? Okay. But all this was special time with my brother and my dad doing stuff together.
Fishing wasn't all there was. He took us on trips -- trips around the U.S., trips to Canada, trips to Mexico -- even untraveled portions of Mexico where we hiked to a village to visit missionaries there. He took us on a backpacking trip in the mountains for a week. He set us up horseback riding on the beach in Ensenada. (I still have that indelible memory etched in my mind when the saddle he was in slipped, he fell onto the sand, and a wave washed over him. Good times.) He had a friend from work take us out on his sailboat for a whale-watching excursion. Family vacations, sightseeing and travels, mission trips, Dad did it all with us.
One of my memories is a bit ... odd. Dad was a civil engineer for the County of Los Angeles, specializing in storm water runoff -- preventing floods. I remember one stormy night he said, "Hey, Stan, I have to go look at this flooding going on. Want to come along?" Really? Why not? He took his son for no reason other than he wanted to. He took my brother and I with him when he went to skid row to give the men there the gospel. He took us breakfast with the Christian Businessmens' Committee (CBMC). He took us to Billy Graham crusades. Oh, and we never, ever missed church. We went every week unless there was an exception like we were traveling. Then we'd go where we were. Or if someone was sick. Then he'd hold a service in the home. Never miss church.
My dad has always been what the '50's crowd thought a dad should be. Involved, connected, modeling the role of a loving husband, firm but fair, caring, a kind of "storybook" dad. Simple stuff, maybe. Not extravagant but generous, not selfish but sharing. I've been recalling a lot of this stuff lately and am reminded once again of how fortunate I have been to have my father even when I took him for granted and how blessed I have been that God would give me such a dad.
Happy Father's Day, Dad.
Saturday, June 20, 2020
News Weakly - 6/20/2020
Not Getting It
There are more than a few sports teams with names like "Indians," or "Braves," or "Redskins" -- names from Native American roots. The reason sports teams have those names is because, generally speaking, Native Americans were regarded as brave, fearless, determined, strong, powerful -- those kinds of attributes. Apparently this view is offensive to many. Washington D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser is calling (again) for a change of name for the Redskins because, darn it all, showing respect and admiration for Native American people will just never do in today's "everything is racist" world. Either she's not getting it or I'm not getting it. Something here just doesn't make sense.
Who You Gonna Call?
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio agrees. The best approach to easing racial tensions and decreasing crime is to cut the police budget by $1 billion. Makes sense to me. What could go wrong? I'm sure that when the numbers of officers and the quality of policing (technology, skills, experience, training, etc.) drops radically, the people of the city will relax and become the good citizens that they are underneath. Well, I'm pretty sure they will become what they are underneath, at least. Gives a whole new meaning to Ghostbusters, "Who you gonna call?" doesn't it?
The Wrong Message
You've known those kind of people, I'm sure. Nothing is ever "good enough." Nothing is ever "okay." They don't like their jobs, their friends, their family, their country, whatever. Just a thoroughly negative outlook. They used to be rare, fortunately. Now, it seems, we're becoming a nation of negative outlook. Witness Boston's Emancipation Memorial celebrating the release of slaves in America. You'd think that would be something, especially in today's racially-charged America, that we'd want to celebrate. Wrong! Sure, it depicts Lincoln freeing slaves, but it's intended to depict blacks still under "the Man." Celebrate emancipation? Don't you dare, you bigoted racist! It won't be "good enough", I guess, until we get a statue with a released slave with his foot on the neck of Uncle Sam. (On a personal note, I see the statue in question as Abraham Lincoln encouraging the released slave on his knees to get up and go and be free, but, hey, I'm just one of those "Polyanna" types, right?)
You Keep Using That Word ...
CHAZ -- the "Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone" -- still stands in Seattle, a monument to the failure to understand. They are "autonomous" with "armed citizens" standing guard, citizens and businesses asked to pay fees to operate, fences on their borders, pleas for food, and cries for outside help. Which is not "autonomy." They've released their demands. First on the list is a total abolition of police forces and the justice system. They want to defund all cops ... including all retired police. "Thanks for your service; now die in poverty." They want all armed force banned except, I guess, for the armed force they possess. They demand retrials of all cases involving people of color (which will be pretty hard to do since they abolished the Criminal Justice system). This next one works out fine; the abolition of imprisonment. It works out because they abolished police to enforce laws and a justice system to judge on those laws. They demand the right to take the law into their own hands -- "localized anti-crime systems" they call it. Because if you put the justice system into the hands of individuals, you'll never have a problem with abuse. But, of course, here's what's really important. The city must fund arts and culture because, after all, that's a basic human right, right? "We have liberated Free Capitol Hill in the name of the people of Seattle," they say. I wonder how many of the people of Seattle appreciate it.
Definitive Redefinition
More than 55 years ago we passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. One key component was the basic concept that employers could not discriminate on the basis of "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." In a landmark ruling this week the Supreme Court redefined terms. When they wrote "sex" in 1964, they meant "one of two possible genders." When SCOTUS ruled, they redefined it to mean "sexual orientation," "gender identity," and "transgender status." According to this ruling, you cannot hire or fire on the basis of any of the above including the all-new definition of "sex" that includes anti-science classifications.
The ruling is disturbing for churches or even people of conscience like Thomas Rost, a Christian running a small business, who believed that his faith required that he not have his business represented by a man who thought he was a woman and wished to appear as one (one of the two issues before SCOTUS). More disturbing, however, is the fact that it was a 6-3 decision. Christians thought that if they could vote in a president who would appoint conservative justices, they could make some headway toward a more godly nation. That 6 included Gorsuch and Roberts, two "sure things" for conservative issues. Trump had no comment on the ruling, but later tweeted, "We need more Justices or we will lose our 2nd. Amendment & everything else." Of course, his ire was up because his effort to diminish DACA was blocked, but surely even he can see that "more justices" won't help when his contribution voted against conservatives. The other disturbing issue is the precedent set. There can be absolutely no doubt that in 1964 not one single lawmaker that passed the Act had "sexual orientation," "gender identity," or "transgender status" in mind. If the language of laws made in the past can be reinterpreted with modern language to mean something no one ever intended, where does it stop?
Christians, remember the next time you hold your nose and vote for a bad alternative to a bad alternative with the expectation of a better court that we will not have a better America by legislation or the judicial system in a world that hates God. And don't count on the law to protect your freedoms. We have a higher source to rest on and we ought to be concerning ourselves with sharing Him with the rest of our world.
Unintended Consequences
In our rush to "do what feels good," to "live your best life now," to be happy, it appears we've taken a wrong turn. Although we are freer today to do whatever we want with the force of law behind it, Americans are reporting that we are the saddest we've been in 50 years. Huh. Who would have thought? Apparently caring about others and being grateful are the kinds of things that make us happy and not focusing on self and wanting more. Go figure.
Too Much Fodder
Meriam-Webster defines "fodder" as "inferior or readily available material used to supply a heavy demand" such as "fodder for tabloids." In this case, it's fodder for the Babylon Bee, and they've been given way too much. There's the story about the New Social Justice Study Bible that replaces all mention of "sin" with "systemic oppression." They offer this item about how activists are fighting racism by driving all people of color out of pop culture. Think Aunt Jemima, Uncle Ben's, Land O Lakes and even the Simpson's cartoon characters. On it's heels, they tell about how Cracker Jack is undergoing a name change to the more politically-correct Caucasian Jack. Because no one likes to hear white people referred to the racially insensitive term, "cracker," right? The one that was almost disturbing because it seemed almost reasonable was the headline that Democrats have clarified that Black Lives Matter only until November. Way too close to true.
Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
There are more than a few sports teams with names like "Indians," or "Braves," or "Redskins" -- names from Native American roots. The reason sports teams have those names is because, generally speaking, Native Americans were regarded as brave, fearless, determined, strong, powerful -- those kinds of attributes. Apparently this view is offensive to many. Washington D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser is calling (again) for a change of name for the Redskins because, darn it all, showing respect and admiration for Native American people will just never do in today's "everything is racist" world. Either she's not getting it or I'm not getting it. Something here just doesn't make sense.
Who You Gonna Call?
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio agrees. The best approach to easing racial tensions and decreasing crime is to cut the police budget by $1 billion. Makes sense to me. What could go wrong? I'm sure that when the numbers of officers and the quality of policing (technology, skills, experience, training, etc.) drops radically, the people of the city will relax and become the good citizens that they are underneath. Well, I'm pretty sure they will become what they are underneath, at least. Gives a whole new meaning to Ghostbusters, "Who you gonna call?" doesn't it?
The Wrong Message
You've known those kind of people, I'm sure. Nothing is ever "good enough." Nothing is ever "okay." They don't like their jobs, their friends, their family, their country, whatever. Just a thoroughly negative outlook. They used to be rare, fortunately. Now, it seems, we're becoming a nation of negative outlook. Witness Boston's Emancipation Memorial celebrating the release of slaves in America. You'd think that would be something, especially in today's racially-charged America, that we'd want to celebrate. Wrong! Sure, it depicts Lincoln freeing slaves, but it's intended to depict blacks still under "the Man." Celebrate emancipation? Don't you dare, you bigoted racist! It won't be "good enough", I guess, until we get a statue with a released slave with his foot on the neck of Uncle Sam. (On a personal note, I see the statue in question as Abraham Lincoln encouraging the released slave on his knees to get up and go and be free, but, hey, I'm just one of those "Polyanna" types, right?)
You Keep Using That Word ...
CHAZ -- the "Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone" -- still stands in Seattle, a monument to the failure to understand. They are "autonomous" with "armed citizens" standing guard, citizens and businesses asked to pay fees to operate, fences on their borders, pleas for food, and cries for outside help. Which is not "autonomy." They've released their demands. First on the list is a total abolition of police forces and the justice system. They want to defund all cops ... including all retired police. "Thanks for your service; now die in poverty." They want all armed force banned except, I guess, for the armed force they possess. They demand retrials of all cases involving people of color (which will be pretty hard to do since they abolished the Criminal Justice system). This next one works out fine; the abolition of imprisonment. It works out because they abolished police to enforce laws and a justice system to judge on those laws. They demand the right to take the law into their own hands -- "localized anti-crime systems" they call it. Because if you put the justice system into the hands of individuals, you'll never have a problem with abuse. But, of course, here's what's really important. The city must fund arts and culture because, after all, that's a basic human right, right? "We have liberated Free Capitol Hill in the name of the people of Seattle," they say. I wonder how many of the people of Seattle appreciate it.
Definitive Redefinition
More than 55 years ago we passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. One key component was the basic concept that employers could not discriminate on the basis of "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." In a landmark ruling this week the Supreme Court redefined terms. When they wrote "sex" in 1964, they meant "one of two possible genders." When SCOTUS ruled, they redefined it to mean "sexual orientation," "gender identity," and "transgender status." According to this ruling, you cannot hire or fire on the basis of any of the above including the all-new definition of "sex" that includes anti-science classifications.
The ruling is disturbing for churches or even people of conscience like Thomas Rost, a Christian running a small business, who believed that his faith required that he not have his business represented by a man who thought he was a woman and wished to appear as one (one of the two issues before SCOTUS). More disturbing, however, is the fact that it was a 6-3 decision. Christians thought that if they could vote in a president who would appoint conservative justices, they could make some headway toward a more godly nation. That 6 included Gorsuch and Roberts, two "sure things" for conservative issues. Trump had no comment on the ruling, but later tweeted, "We need more Justices or we will lose our 2nd. Amendment & everything else." Of course, his ire was up because his effort to diminish DACA was blocked, but surely even he can see that "more justices" won't help when his contribution voted against conservatives. The other disturbing issue is the precedent set. There can be absolutely no doubt that in 1964 not one single lawmaker that passed the Act had "sexual orientation," "gender identity," or "transgender status" in mind. If the language of laws made in the past can be reinterpreted with modern language to mean something no one ever intended, where does it stop?
Christians, remember the next time you hold your nose and vote for a bad alternative to a bad alternative with the expectation of a better court that we will not have a better America by legislation or the judicial system in a world that hates God. And don't count on the law to protect your freedoms. We have a higher source to rest on and we ought to be concerning ourselves with sharing Him with the rest of our world.
Unintended Consequences
In our rush to "do what feels good," to "live your best life now," to be happy, it appears we've taken a wrong turn. Although we are freer today to do whatever we want with the force of law behind it, Americans are reporting that we are the saddest we've been in 50 years. Huh. Who would have thought? Apparently caring about others and being grateful are the kinds of things that make us happy and not focusing on self and wanting more. Go figure.
Too Much Fodder
Meriam-Webster defines "fodder" as "inferior or readily available material used to supply a heavy demand" such as "fodder for tabloids." In this case, it's fodder for the Babylon Bee, and they've been given way too much. There's the story about the New Social Justice Study Bible that replaces all mention of "sin" with "systemic oppression." They offer this item about how activists are fighting racism by driving all people of color out of pop culture. Think Aunt Jemima, Uncle Ben's, Land O Lakes and even the Simpson's cartoon characters. On it's heels, they tell about how Cracker Jack is undergoing a name change to the more politically-correct Caucasian Jack. Because no one likes to hear white people referred to the racially insensitive term, "cracker," right? The one that was almost disturbing because it seemed almost reasonable was the headline that Democrats have clarified that Black Lives Matter only until November. Way too close to true.
Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
Friday, June 19, 2020
Unfinished Songs
Generally speaking, I am not a man given to emotional outbursts. I think those who know me best would concur. Sometimes, though ...
When my wife and I were planning our wedding, I mostly kept out of it. I understood that weddings were made for brides -- make it her day. But I did have at least one input. I hoped, for our wedding day, to sing a special song for her.
Stephen Curtis Chapman's I Will Be Here said so clearly what I wanted to say to my bride. Of course, that dream died quickly. It did say what I wanted, but there was no way I could get that accomplished without breaking down. Too close to the heart. So we had Stephen Curtis Chapman sing it (a recording, not live).
You know what I mean? There are a lot of good songs out there from a lot of sources, but there a some -- a few -- that just stop me in my tracks. I cannot sing them straight-faced, so to speak. Too close to the heart. Some I can hardly even talk about without tearing up or a quaver in my voice. These are what I'm calling "unfinished songs," not because they're not finished, but because if it were up to me, we'd never get to the end of them.
I love "How Great Thou Art." The song stands tall in glorifying God. It stirs the heart and soul. Written originally by a Swedish pastor caught in a sudden thunderstorm on a mountainside, then enjoying the after-scene, it pulls from Psalm 8's "How majestic is Your Name in all the earth" (Psa 8:1) theme. Later it migrated to Russia where English translators picked it up. One of them, Stuart Hine, added the popular third verse.
In times like ours, a classic hymn like "Be Still My Soul" cannot be more appropriate. Filled with reminders to "Bear patiently the cross of grief or pain" because "the Lord is on thy side" and that "thy best, thy heav'nly Friend thro' thorny ways leads to a joyful end" are timeless as we all endure such things in life. Being a devotee of a Sovereign God, however, the line that really hits me is at the end of the second verse.
More contemporary songs can have a similar effect on me. Downhere's My Last Amen gets me every time. It's about the internal almost subliminal recognition that there is something more beyond "here and now." It's about the deep yearning to be where we belong -- in the presence of our Savior. It is an intrinsic desire for faith to be sight, to no longer pray, "Amen -- let it be so," but to have it be so. That's my heart's desire. Or take MercyMe's "Even If." The song is one of anguish. Things are not going as they should. God isn't doing what you want Him to. Premised on the words of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego (Dan 3:16-18), the cry is "Even if You don't, my hope is You alone." That's my cry. It's not a demand for better treatment; it's a reminder that He is enough ... always. It calls to attention that God doesn't always act the way we want, but He always does what's best. I must call that to mind often.
On a whimsical note, I've heard respins of a lot of traditional hymns in recent years. Mostly I applaud the effort. I heard a few versions of "Praise to the Lord, the Almighty." And I'm just amused that the modern generation doesn't know how to pronounce "Gladly for aye we adore Thee." I mean, they love the pirate culture. They even have an "International Talk Like a Pirate Day." So why do pirates say "I, I, captain," and modern singers sing "Gladly for A we adore Thee"? Just makes me laugh. Sorry ... I digress.
There are truths that touch me at my core. Most of them are the truths that transcend my meager grasp of things and call me to Someone higher. The reminder that He is in charge despite my faulty perceptions in good and bad times is an ever-present help. The reminder of His grace and mercy to one who deserved neither is my constant need. These kinds of things really get me right where it counts, and I have to stop and think and pray and praise God.
When my wife and I were planning our wedding, I mostly kept out of it. I understood that weddings were made for brides -- make it her day. But I did have at least one input. I hoped, for our wedding day, to sing a special song for her.
Stephen Curtis Chapman's I Will Be Here said so clearly what I wanted to say to my bride. Of course, that dream died quickly. It did say what I wanted, but there was no way I could get that accomplished without breaking down. Too close to the heart. So we had Stephen Curtis Chapman sing it (a recording, not live).
You know what I mean? There are a lot of good songs out there from a lot of sources, but there a some -- a few -- that just stop me in my tracks. I cannot sing them straight-faced, so to speak. Too close to the heart. Some I can hardly even talk about without tearing up or a quaver in my voice. These are what I'm calling "unfinished songs," not because they're not finished, but because if it were up to me, we'd never get to the end of them.
I love "How Great Thou Art." The song stands tall in glorifying God. It stirs the heart and soul. Written originally by a Swedish pastor caught in a sudden thunderstorm on a mountainside, then enjoying the after-scene, it pulls from Psalm 8's "How majestic is Your Name in all the earth" (Psa 8:1) theme. Later it migrated to Russia where English translators picked it up. One of them, Stuart Hine, added the popular third verse.
And when I think that God, His Son not sparing,See, that's the one for me. That's the trigger point, the end of my reasoned singing. God sent Him to die. Jesus died to bear my burden. He bled and died to take away my sin. Don't ask me to lead in singing that verse. I have to stop there.
Sent Him to die, I scarce can take it in;
That on the Cross, my burden gladly bearing,
He bled and died to take away my sin.
In times like ours, a classic hymn like "Be Still My Soul" cannot be more appropriate. Filled with reminders to "Bear patiently the cross of grief or pain" because "the Lord is on thy side" and that "thy best, thy heav'nly Friend thro' thorny ways leads to a joyful end" are timeless as we all endure such things in life. Being a devotee of a Sovereign God, however, the line that really hits me is at the end of the second verse.
Be still, my soul: the waves and winds still knowWe don't find peace in avoiding difficulties. The Greek word in the New Testament for "perseverance" means literally "to remain under." We find peace that passes understanding in the confidence of His love and care and comfort in the midst of hardships. In a COVID/BLM moment, it is immense comfort that we walk with the One who ruled the storm.
His voice, who ruled them while He dwelt below.
More contemporary songs can have a similar effect on me. Downhere's My Last Amen gets me every time. It's about the internal almost subliminal recognition that there is something more beyond "here and now." It's about the deep yearning to be where we belong -- in the presence of our Savior. It is an intrinsic desire for faith to be sight, to no longer pray, "Amen -- let it be so," but to have it be so. That's my heart's desire. Or take MercyMe's "Even If." The song is one of anguish. Things are not going as they should. God isn't doing what you want Him to. Premised on the words of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego (Dan 3:16-18), the cry is "Even if You don't, my hope is You alone." That's my cry. It's not a demand for better treatment; it's a reminder that He is enough ... always. It calls to attention that God doesn't always act the way we want, but He always does what's best. I must call that to mind often.
On a whimsical note, I've heard respins of a lot of traditional hymns in recent years. Mostly I applaud the effort. I heard a few versions of "Praise to the Lord, the Almighty." And I'm just amused that the modern generation doesn't know how to pronounce "Gladly for aye we adore Thee." I mean, they love the pirate culture. They even have an "International Talk Like a Pirate Day." So why do pirates say "I, I, captain," and modern singers sing "Gladly for A we adore Thee"? Just makes me laugh. Sorry ... I digress.
There are truths that touch me at my core. Most of them are the truths that transcend my meager grasp of things and call me to Someone higher. The reminder that He is in charge despite my faulty perceptions in good and bad times is an ever-present help. The reminder of His grace and mercy to one who deserved neither is my constant need. These kinds of things really get me right where it counts, and I have to stop and think and pray and praise God.
Thursday, June 18, 2020
Can We Rethink if We Never Thought?
Back in March, NPR put out a story that assured us that increased testing would reveal more U.S. COVID-19 cases. I mean, it seems completely logical, doesn't it? Better detection means more detection. So when Trump and Pence suggested that part of the reason for the spike in cases recently was the surge in testing, the media is outraged.
So am I. Outraged that we're being given a one-size-fits-all report. "The numbers are up" is a data point without qualification. Are deaths or death rates up? Are symptoms up? Is the "at-risk" group changing? At least two Dallas Cowboys players have tested positive. Are they sick? Or are they among the majority of COVID recipients who are without symptoms? Are the cases up because more places are opening or are they up because of better testing? I'm not saying ... because we don't know. We're looking at numbers and drawing faulty "cause and effect" conclusions without scientific fact. (Example: If you look at the chart for daily cases for this virus, you find a spike every 7 days. Odd, isn't it? Well, that's not because Fridays were bad days for COVID; it's because Friday's were reporting days. Basing "a spike in COVID" on those numbers would be misleading.)
I don't think Americans understand PPE. The term refers to Personal Protective Equipment. A lot of careers use it. Depending on the environment, there are different requirements. In the case of viruses, PPE would include a mask that can block the virus from entering the airways, protective clothing that would allow you to remove it after exposure without exposing yourself to it, safety glasses or face shield to protect the rest of your face, probably a hair covering to keep it out of your hair, and gloves to keep the virus you come in contact with from coming in contact with your skin. It is Personal Protective Equipment. But we have face masks to protect others and gloves that protect no one. Companies advertise "no-touch" services as if it exists. (The minute a person puts the product in a box, that box has been touched and the next person to touch it will come in contact with whatever that handler had. Gloves pass it on, not block it. Gloves, remember, simply keep the wearer's hands from being exposed.) So we panic and we tear about trying to ensure that we all have PPE while we fail to grasp its purpose or its capabilities and we feel so much better ... falsely.
This disease is bad. It needs to be handled. If you want to shut it down, it's easy. Everyone stay home. No one in contact with anyone. Wait two weeks; four if you want to be completely safe. End of story. Oh, well, some won't survive. No food, no essential services, that sort of thing, but that wasn't the question, was it? Or we can "middle ground" it and make most people stay home, destroy a world economy, kill people by suicide and health problems brought about by stress, panic, loss of work, income, etc. and call that a "better alternative." Or we could actually target COVID. Test, actually isolate, and don't penalize the rest of the world for being healthy. That might result in some deaths as well (although the "at risk" group remains the same in all cases), but it doesn't kill the innocent -- our current plan -- with the sick. "Oh, you just want everything opened up." No, that's not what I said. At no point did I list that as an option. But haters are going to hate and panickers are going to panic and there is surely an element of "whatever it takes to discredit Trump and injure America" in there, too. So for reasons that elude me we continue down a failing and debilitating path, angry that anyone would question our "settled science" and unconcerned about the death in our wake. It seems there is a worse "virus" here than COVID. It is narrow-minded obstinance -- "My way or the highway."
So am I. Outraged that we're being given a one-size-fits-all report. "The numbers are up" is a data point without qualification. Are deaths or death rates up? Are symptoms up? Is the "at-risk" group changing? At least two Dallas Cowboys players have tested positive. Are they sick? Or are they among the majority of COVID recipients who are without symptoms? Are the cases up because more places are opening or are they up because of better testing? I'm not saying ... because we don't know. We're looking at numbers and drawing faulty "cause and effect" conclusions without scientific fact. (Example: If you look at the chart for daily cases for this virus, you find a spike every 7 days. Odd, isn't it? Well, that's not because Fridays were bad days for COVID; it's because Friday's were reporting days. Basing "a spike in COVID" on those numbers would be misleading.)
I don't think Americans understand PPE. The term refers to Personal Protective Equipment. A lot of careers use it. Depending on the environment, there are different requirements. In the case of viruses, PPE would include a mask that can block the virus from entering the airways, protective clothing that would allow you to remove it after exposure without exposing yourself to it, safety glasses or face shield to protect the rest of your face, probably a hair covering to keep it out of your hair, and gloves to keep the virus you come in contact with from coming in contact with your skin. It is Personal Protective Equipment. But we have face masks to protect others and gloves that protect no one. Companies advertise "no-touch" services as if it exists. (The minute a person puts the product in a box, that box has been touched and the next person to touch it will come in contact with whatever that handler had. Gloves pass it on, not block it. Gloves, remember, simply keep the wearer's hands from being exposed.) So we panic and we tear about trying to ensure that we all have PPE while we fail to grasp its purpose or its capabilities and we feel so much better ... falsely.
This disease is bad. It needs to be handled. If you want to shut it down, it's easy. Everyone stay home. No one in contact with anyone. Wait two weeks; four if you want to be completely safe. End of story. Oh, well, some won't survive. No food, no essential services, that sort of thing, but that wasn't the question, was it? Or we can "middle ground" it and make most people stay home, destroy a world economy, kill people by suicide and health problems brought about by stress, panic, loss of work, income, etc. and call that a "better alternative." Or we could actually target COVID. Test, actually isolate, and don't penalize the rest of the world for being healthy. That might result in some deaths as well (although the "at risk" group remains the same in all cases), but it doesn't kill the innocent -- our current plan -- with the sick. "Oh, you just want everything opened up." No, that's not what I said. At no point did I list that as an option. But haters are going to hate and panickers are going to panic and there is surely an element of "whatever it takes to discredit Trump and injure America" in there, too. So for reasons that elude me we continue down a failing and debilitating path, angry that anyone would question our "settled science" and unconcerned about the death in our wake. It seems there is a worse "virus" here than COVID. It is narrow-minded obstinance -- "My way or the highway."
Wednesday, June 17, 2020
Give a Defense
You all know about Apologetics, the defense of the faith. We take the term from the "go to" verse, "In your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect." (1 Peter 3:15) The Greek word, apologia, is translated "make a defense" here, so we get "Apologetics."
I was struck the other day with some points I've never seen before on this text.
First, "In your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy." That's the origin, the basis, the primary thought. It is this that spawns the command to always be prepared. The thought is "Have no fear" (1 Peter 3:14) because you have set Christ aside in your heart as holy. There is no higher, no other, nothing else. The honor we offer Christ is exclusive. He is all we need, all we desire, all that matters. He is complete and completes us. There is nothing else. Set apart. This makes sense, then, as an answer to fear. Do you fear suffering? Don't; you have Christ. Do you fear need or pain or harm or lack? Don't; you have Christ. Do you fear evil or failure? Don't; you have Christ. What Peter wrote to Christians in Nero's Rome we need today. What do you fear? Don't; you have Christ. As long as He is it -- singular, alone, all there is, complete -- then you have nothing to fear.
That leads directly into the second point. The text doesn't say what we all seem to think it says. It doesn't say, "Be prepared to make a defense for your faith." It's just not in there. What are we expected to defend? "The hope that is in you." That hope is what we have in the face of all sorts of bad stuff because Christ is all we need and we have Christ. So, in the midst of otherworldly hope, expect questions. Expect challenges. Expect people to ask about this. When our dear sister in Christ discovered she had a brain tumor and not much more than 4 months to live, she responded with cheer and hope and the Gospel for all -- family, friends, neighbors, medical people, anyone she comes across. That is the kind of thing that makes people ask questions. When I was in Basic Training in the Air Force and did not respond with the same despair that other recruits had with the psychological assaults from trainers, fellow recruits asked me how. Why does my sister in church have hope where there appears to be none? Why did I bear up so well in training when others were ready to collapse? What we are told to be ready to defend is not our faith; it is our hope.
A couple of thoughts on that. First, Hebrews says, "Faith is the assurance of things hoped for." (Heb 11:1) So while I snatch "defend the faith" from the text and substitute "defend your hope," keep in mind that the two are irrevocably linked. The reason for our hope is our faith. Our faith in Christ, our assurance that He is sufficient, our singular vision of Christ as all in all. So, one stepped removed, we will need to defend our faith. But the starting point is hope. Second, you have to ask yourself. "Do I have supernatural hope?" Do we live lives of unexplained hope? Do people see us and think, "What in the world makes those people tick?" Do we exhibit hope in apparently hopeless situations that will make them ask about it? You see, if we hide the hardships and just put on a plastic smile, they won't see it. If we take on other values than the singularity of Christ, we won't have the hope-filled lives that make people ask about our hope. In either direction, they won't ask, so you won't have to defend or explain it.
Apologetics is commanded in Scripture. It is not commanded that we each take courses to learn the logical, philosophical, and theological reasons for what we believe. Some should, but this is not a command for that. This command is premised on a life built on Christ alone in a fearful world and a life that will make people ask. We are required to be able to explain why we have hope when all outward appearances would suggest we shouldn't. That will certainly include defending our faith. But the command is to be ready to make a defense for your hope. So, do you have hope? And are you ready to tell others why? That's the point.
I was struck the other day with some points I've never seen before on this text.
First, "In your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy." That's the origin, the basis, the primary thought. It is this that spawns the command to always be prepared. The thought is "Have no fear" (1 Peter 3:14) because you have set Christ aside in your heart as holy. There is no higher, no other, nothing else. The honor we offer Christ is exclusive. He is all we need, all we desire, all that matters. He is complete and completes us. There is nothing else. Set apart. This makes sense, then, as an answer to fear. Do you fear suffering? Don't; you have Christ. Do you fear need or pain or harm or lack? Don't; you have Christ. Do you fear evil or failure? Don't; you have Christ. What Peter wrote to Christians in Nero's Rome we need today. What do you fear? Don't; you have Christ. As long as He is it -- singular, alone, all there is, complete -- then you have nothing to fear.
That leads directly into the second point. The text doesn't say what we all seem to think it says. It doesn't say, "Be prepared to make a defense for your faith." It's just not in there. What are we expected to defend? "The hope that is in you." That hope is what we have in the face of all sorts of bad stuff because Christ is all we need and we have Christ. So, in the midst of otherworldly hope, expect questions. Expect challenges. Expect people to ask about this. When our dear sister in Christ discovered she had a brain tumor and not much more than 4 months to live, she responded with cheer and hope and the Gospel for all -- family, friends, neighbors, medical people, anyone she comes across. That is the kind of thing that makes people ask questions. When I was in Basic Training in the Air Force and did not respond with the same despair that other recruits had with the psychological assaults from trainers, fellow recruits asked me how. Why does my sister in church have hope where there appears to be none? Why did I bear up so well in training when others were ready to collapse? What we are told to be ready to defend is not our faith; it is our hope.
A couple of thoughts on that. First, Hebrews says, "Faith is the assurance of things hoped for." (Heb 11:1) So while I snatch "defend the faith" from the text and substitute "defend your hope," keep in mind that the two are irrevocably linked. The reason for our hope is our faith. Our faith in Christ, our assurance that He is sufficient, our singular vision of Christ as all in all. So, one stepped removed, we will need to defend our faith. But the starting point is hope. Second, you have to ask yourself. "Do I have supernatural hope?" Do we live lives of unexplained hope? Do people see us and think, "What in the world makes those people tick?" Do we exhibit hope in apparently hopeless situations that will make them ask about it? You see, if we hide the hardships and just put on a plastic smile, they won't see it. If we take on other values than the singularity of Christ, we won't have the hope-filled lives that make people ask about our hope. In either direction, they won't ask, so you won't have to defend or explain it.
Apologetics is commanded in Scripture. It is not commanded that we each take courses to learn the logical, philosophical, and theological reasons for what we believe. Some should, but this is not a command for that. This command is premised on a life built on Christ alone in a fearful world and a life that will make people ask. We are required to be able to explain why we have hope when all outward appearances would suggest we shouldn't. That will certainly include defending our faith. But the command is to be ready to make a defense for your hope. So, do you have hope? And are you ready to tell others why? That's the point.
Tuesday, June 16, 2020
Success
We have a hard time correctly evaluating "harm" and, as such, have a hard time using it as a determining basis for "moral." In the same way, we have a hard time correctly defining "success" and, as such, keep aiming at a "success" that isn't actual success.
Many define "success" in a church in terms of numbers, programs, butts in the seats. If you have lots of those, it's "successful." If the numbers are declining, it's not. Many define "success" in sharing the Gospel with others in terms of conversions. If you give the Gospel and they turn, you succeeded. If they don't, you failed. Many (most?) of us determine the success of prayer in the obtaining of the answer we sought. God did what we asked and that was a successful prayer. God did not do what we asked and it was a failure. I submit that these kinds of measures are not valid or biblical. They are standard metrics from the world's perceptions, but we are not of this world, are we?
What does "success" look like in a biblical worldview? Let's look at an example from Jesus's teaching. Matthew 25 includes the Parable of the Talents (Matt 25:14-30) (where "talents" is a reference to money of the time, not our "natural aptitude" concept). (Some calculate a talent to be 20 years' wages for the common worker. Some put it between $1,000 and $30,000 in today's terms.) In this famous parable, a master gives three servants varying amounts of this money. One gets 5, a second 2, and a third 1. The first two invested and got a return on investment equal to their principal. The third panicked, buried it, and returned the principal. The first two were commended: "Well done, good and faithful servant." (Matt 25:21, 23) The third was punished. What did the master classify as "well done"? What was "success" in this story? "You have been faithful over a little." (Matt 25:21, 23) I submit that this constitutes biblical "success."
Conversely, what is not success? Well, lots of things, sure, but we can all agree that "suffering" is not success ... right? Except that Scripture teaches that one expected outcome of doing good would be suffering (1 Peter 3:14). In fact, Peter says, "For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God's will, than for doing evil." (1 Peter 3:17) "If that is God's will" says "and it is." So he says, "Therefore let those who suffer according to God's will entrust their souls to a faithful Creator while doing good." (1 Peter 4:19) Our human version of "success" does not include "suffering for doing good." God's does.
We are not held to account for those who accept our message. We are not being evaluated on our good delivery, our wise words, our numbers of converts, our notches on our spiritual guns. We are not counting success in terms of numbers of people in our churches or programs or converts. We are held accountable for being faithful to the task given. Biblical success is not outcome-based; it is input-based. Have I done what I was told to do? Not, "Did it work out like it should?"
The truth is, we often don't know what "work like it should" actually is. Take, for instance, Joseph's getting sold into slavery. Did that "work like it should"? In the end, yes, but no one at the time thought, "Good plan." Because we don't know the the inscrutable mind of the Master. So Paul sowed and Apollos watered and God gave growth (1 Cor 3:6). Which one failed? Which one succeeded? If "success" is measured in numbers, Paul and Apollos failed. Fortunately, it's not. If you want success, stop aiming at worldly standards and outcome-based measurements. Do what you should do. That is what earns a "Well done, good and faithful servant" from God.
Many define "success" in a church in terms of numbers, programs, butts in the seats. If you have lots of those, it's "successful." If the numbers are declining, it's not. Many define "success" in sharing the Gospel with others in terms of conversions. If you give the Gospel and they turn, you succeeded. If they don't, you failed. Many (most?) of us determine the success of prayer in the obtaining of the answer we sought. God did what we asked and that was a successful prayer. God did not do what we asked and it was a failure. I submit that these kinds of measures are not valid or biblical. They are standard metrics from the world's perceptions, but we are not of this world, are we?
What does "success" look like in a biblical worldview? Let's look at an example from Jesus's teaching. Matthew 25 includes the Parable of the Talents (Matt 25:14-30) (where "talents" is a reference to money of the time, not our "natural aptitude" concept). (Some calculate a talent to be 20 years' wages for the common worker. Some put it between $1,000 and $30,000 in today's terms.) In this famous parable, a master gives three servants varying amounts of this money. One gets 5, a second 2, and a third 1. The first two invested and got a return on investment equal to their principal. The third panicked, buried it, and returned the principal. The first two were commended: "Well done, good and faithful servant." (Matt 25:21, 23) The third was punished. What did the master classify as "well done"? What was "success" in this story? "You have been faithful over a little." (Matt 25:21, 23) I submit that this constitutes biblical "success."
Conversely, what is not success? Well, lots of things, sure, but we can all agree that "suffering" is not success ... right? Except that Scripture teaches that one expected outcome of doing good would be suffering (1 Peter 3:14). In fact, Peter says, "For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God's will, than for doing evil." (1 Peter 3:17) "If that is God's will" says "and it is." So he says, "Therefore let those who suffer according to God's will entrust their souls to a faithful Creator while doing good." (1 Peter 4:19) Our human version of "success" does not include "suffering for doing good." God's does.
We are not held to account for those who accept our message. We are not being evaluated on our good delivery, our wise words, our numbers of converts, our notches on our spiritual guns. We are not counting success in terms of numbers of people in our churches or programs or converts. We are held accountable for being faithful to the task given. Biblical success is not outcome-based; it is input-based. Have I done what I was told to do? Not, "Did it work out like it should?"
The truth is, we often don't know what "work like it should" actually is. Take, for instance, Joseph's getting sold into slavery. Did that "work like it should"? In the end, yes, but no one at the time thought, "Good plan." Because we don't know the the inscrutable mind of the Master. So Paul sowed and Apollos watered and God gave growth (1 Cor 3:6). Which one failed? Which one succeeded? If "success" is measured in numbers, Paul and Apollos failed. Fortunately, it's not. If you want success, stop aiming at worldly standards and outcome-based measurements. Do what you should do. That is what earns a "Well done, good and faithful servant" from God.
Monday, June 15, 2020
Not All Lives Matter
I saw the video of a police officer kneeling on the neck of a man for almost 9 minutes, killing the man, and I was horrified. Why? Because this was one man who believed that his life mattered more than the life of this other man. Because no one should be killed without cause. Because the man who died was an image-bearer of the Most High and, as such, possessed God-given value. And I am appalled that we don't think so anymore.
It is unavoidable to acknowledge that a lot of basic American moral values were originally rooted in the Judeo-Christian ethic. You can see it from the beginning with the reference to "all men are created equal" and that "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." "Created" and given rights by the divine? Undeniably Judeo-Christian. The early fathers believed that the only way this republic could survive and thrive was if it had its own internal morality. John Adams wrote, "Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other." But, of course, we've come a long way from those days. Without even realizing it, we've managed to undercut the very foundation upon which this nation was built.
So, we no longer believe that human life is "created" and, necessarily, that any "Creator" endowed us with rights. The value of human life is a variable. Pre-birth? Apparently a relative scale based on the mother's perception. Kill it or not; it doesn't matter. Old people? You know, we should let them go, too, if they want. Why? Because we are not created, there is not higher power, and your stupid "unalienable rights" endowed by some "Creator" exist only at our whim.
The response to George Floyd's murder illustrates it. I am horrified at the brutal murder of a valued human being. That makes me a racist because it is not because he was a black man. I am a racist because his skin color didn't matter to me; his value in God's eyes does. And, in the declaration that I value all humans, I become devalued in the eyes of the world today. Why? Because no lives matter in and of themselves. (Do you disagree? Police kill more white people than black, but no one is protesting the deaths of white people, are they?) Only those lives who are deemed worthy at the moment. All value is applied fluidly at the time, not by God, not by something higher than ourselves that can say definitively so. George Floyd's death was a tragedy because the masses currently place value on the lives of the oppressed groups and minimize value on the police or the "power" groups. For now. That will change. Because all value is fluid and we can apply it and we can remove it ... which means it isn't real.
I am devastated that a segment of American society perceives that, just on the basis of their skin color, they are viewed as less and face hardships and discrimination not in line with the value God places on them. I despise how one gender treats another purely on the basis of their gender without regard to their personhood. I abhor the violence some in this country apply to others because of their particular preference for sexual practices. None of this is up for debate with me. I don't think that one group deserves greater honor than another or that these values change with time. That's because I believe that we are created, we are created equal, and that God has endowed us with value and rights. My earliest training on the subject of race was, "Red and yellow, black and white, they are precious in His sight." It frustrates me, then, that including "white" in the list of those who are precious to God classifies me as a racist. I'm just sorely disappointed and even surprised that this apparently consistent and universally-valuing view decreases my value and makes me a bigot.
It is unavoidable to acknowledge that a lot of basic American moral values were originally rooted in the Judeo-Christian ethic. You can see it from the beginning with the reference to "all men are created equal" and that "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." "Created" and given rights by the divine? Undeniably Judeo-Christian. The early fathers believed that the only way this republic could survive and thrive was if it had its own internal morality. John Adams wrote, "Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other." But, of course, we've come a long way from those days. Without even realizing it, we've managed to undercut the very foundation upon which this nation was built.
So, we no longer believe that human life is "created" and, necessarily, that any "Creator" endowed us with rights. The value of human life is a variable. Pre-birth? Apparently a relative scale based on the mother's perception. Kill it or not; it doesn't matter. Old people? You know, we should let them go, too, if they want. Why? Because we are not created, there is not higher power, and your stupid "unalienable rights" endowed by some "Creator" exist only at our whim.
The response to George Floyd's murder illustrates it. I am horrified at the brutal murder of a valued human being. That makes me a racist because it is not because he was a black man. I am a racist because his skin color didn't matter to me; his value in God's eyes does. And, in the declaration that I value all humans, I become devalued in the eyes of the world today. Why? Because no lives matter in and of themselves. (Do you disagree? Police kill more white people than black, but no one is protesting the deaths of white people, are they?) Only those lives who are deemed worthy at the moment. All value is applied fluidly at the time, not by God, not by something higher than ourselves that can say definitively so. George Floyd's death was a tragedy because the masses currently place value on the lives of the oppressed groups and minimize value on the police or the "power" groups. For now. That will change. Because all value is fluid and we can apply it and we can remove it ... which means it isn't real.
I am devastated that a segment of American society perceives that, just on the basis of their skin color, they are viewed as less and face hardships and discrimination not in line with the value God places on them. I despise how one gender treats another purely on the basis of their gender without regard to their personhood. I abhor the violence some in this country apply to others because of their particular preference for sexual practices. None of this is up for debate with me. I don't think that one group deserves greater honor than another or that these values change with time. That's because I believe that we are created, we are created equal, and that God has endowed us with value and rights. My earliest training on the subject of race was, "Red and yellow, black and white, they are precious in His sight." It frustrates me, then, that including "white" in the list of those who are precious to God classifies me as a racist. I'm just sorely disappointed and even surprised that this apparently consistent and universally-valuing view decreases my value and makes me a bigot.
Sunday, June 14, 2020
Pragmatic or Principled
I've used the terms "orthodoxy" and "orthopraxy" before. The first refers to right thinking and the second to right practice. I suppose, in a sense, it could be seen as the difference between principle and pragmatism. Pragmatism is doing what works and principle is the basis. Orthodoxy is why we do what's right. We do what's right because we know what's right.
We are at the edge of another prime example of pragmatism vs principle. It seems to come around every four years in America -- the presidential elections. Of course, this pragmatism vs principle is primarily among Christians. You see, Bible-believing Christians all agree that humans are sinful, that the best we can get in human government is not "good," but "the lesser evil." So we always have to hold our noses and vote. Of course, sometimes it's not so bad. Sometimes the clear "lesser evil" is noticeably lesser. In the last election I don't think it was and I said so. I warned that their supposed "lesser evil" was likely more harmful than the obvious "greater evil." And they all shouted me down. "You don't want her in office, do you???" No, obviously not. But I didn't want him. And I voted accordingly. This year it's no better. I have no "lesser evil" I can identify. So do I vote on principle or pragmatism?
I'm not writing this today about politics. The elections are just a clear example of a concept. We are very used to making our choices in opposition to principle when it seems more pragmatic. There are a lot of ways, but the one I'm most thinking about today is in church. What we aim for is "what works" rather than "what is right." It's kind of like the harm principle of morality. We determine what "harm" is and then make that the basis for "immoral" ... only to find out that we were wrong about harm. We determine what "works" is and make that "the right thing to do" only to discover that our measurement of "what works" is wrong.
Yet, it seems to be our operating principle. "You know, Scripture says that homosexual behavior is in violation of God's values (1 Cor 6:9-10). But, you know, that would mean that people I know and care about would be in violation of God's values, so let's set aside the principle and go with the pragmatic." "Scripture is not unclear that women are not supposed to lead churches (1 Tim 2:12-14), but I know a lot of godly women who could do the job, so let's set aside the principle and go with the pragmatic." "Sure, I can read the qualifications for elders and deacons in my Bible (1 Tim 3:1-13), but that's not practical. Let's ditch the principle and go with the pragmatic." "I know it says, 'Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.' (1 John 2:15) But surely you can see that if we want to compete in this world we have to embrace their ways. Ditch the principle; go with the pragmatic." "Sure, we need to 'Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God.' (Col 3:16) It's just that people won't like that as much. We need to let the principle go and embrace the pragmatic." Over and over again.
I guess we're not paying much attention. We didn't make these things up; they come from the Creator, the Most High. Maybe we need to return to principle. Maybe we need to recall "right thinking" -- orthodoxy. Maybe, if we embraced the Master's plans, things would, you know, work out better. Which would make it very pragmatic, wouldn't it?
We are at the edge of another prime example of pragmatism vs principle. It seems to come around every four years in America -- the presidential elections. Of course, this pragmatism vs principle is primarily among Christians. You see, Bible-believing Christians all agree that humans are sinful, that the best we can get in human government is not "good," but "the lesser evil." So we always have to hold our noses and vote. Of course, sometimes it's not so bad. Sometimes the clear "lesser evil" is noticeably lesser. In the last election I don't think it was and I said so. I warned that their supposed "lesser evil" was likely more harmful than the obvious "greater evil." And they all shouted me down. "You don't want her in office, do you???" No, obviously not. But I didn't want him. And I voted accordingly. This year it's no better. I have no "lesser evil" I can identify. So do I vote on principle or pragmatism?
I'm not writing this today about politics. The elections are just a clear example of a concept. We are very used to making our choices in opposition to principle when it seems more pragmatic. There are a lot of ways, but the one I'm most thinking about today is in church. What we aim for is "what works" rather than "what is right." It's kind of like the harm principle of morality. We determine what "harm" is and then make that the basis for "immoral" ... only to find out that we were wrong about harm. We determine what "works" is and make that "the right thing to do" only to discover that our measurement of "what works" is wrong.
Yet, it seems to be our operating principle. "You know, Scripture says that homosexual behavior is in violation of God's values (1 Cor 6:9-10). But, you know, that would mean that people I know and care about would be in violation of God's values, so let's set aside the principle and go with the pragmatic." "Scripture is not unclear that women are not supposed to lead churches (1 Tim 2:12-14), but I know a lot of godly women who could do the job, so let's set aside the principle and go with the pragmatic." "Sure, I can read the qualifications for elders and deacons in my Bible (1 Tim 3:1-13), but that's not practical. Let's ditch the principle and go with the pragmatic." "I know it says, 'Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.' (1 John 2:15) But surely you can see that if we want to compete in this world we have to embrace their ways. Ditch the principle; go with the pragmatic." "Sure, we need to 'Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God.' (Col 3:16) It's just that people won't like that as much. We need to let the principle go and embrace the pragmatic." Over and over again.
I guess we're not paying much attention. We didn't make these things up; they come from the Creator, the Most High. Maybe we need to return to principle. Maybe we need to recall "right thinking" -- orthodoxy. Maybe, if we embraced the Master's plans, things would, you know, work out better. Which would make it very pragmatic, wouldn't it?
Saturday, June 13, 2020
News Weakly - 6/13/20
Change
George Floyd was buried this week amid bowed heads, signs of the cross, or raised fists. The protests have continued. If we say it loud enough and long enough, with or without violence, we can make it better. Just tell us to be better and, with enough people behind it, we will.
Oh, we do need to change. We do need to realize that people are people and people have value and skin color or gender or economic status or weight or ... whatever does not diminish that value. Well, except for birth status. If you haven't passed through the magical birth canal, you only have the value placed on you by your mother. But otherwise .... But I digress. We need to change as a human race. Unfortunately protests, laws, and removal of statues won't do it. But who's going to tell them? We're gonna need a Bigger voice.
Cultural Appropriation
Democrats in Congress knelt for 8 minutes and 46 seconds to recognize George Floyd. Some of them did it in Kente cloth in solidarity for African Americans ... or "cultural appropriation" if we apply current standard terminology. Oh, sorry, that's only for the Right.
Defund, Not Abolish
That's what Kamala Harris is saying. Saying that defunding the police is the same as abolishing police is "Creating fear where none is necessary." Except that's what the protestors called for in Minneapolis. "We don't want no police in our neighborhoods." That is abolishment. Now, of course, maybe it's time to eliminate police. You can argue that. But if we don't fund it, it won't be. Defunding is aiming at abolishment. If that's your argument, defend it. Don't argue conflicting ideas.
(CNN had an article defending abolishing police departments by giving examples of cities that have. Unfortunately, they didn't actual disband them. They reconfigured them. Not the same thing.)
(If you have any doubts whether or not the plan is to abolish cops, I think it's abundantly clear in this story and this one, too. Doubt it if you want, but Cops and Live PD have been canceled in the wake of the Floyd protests. See?) (Yes, that was intended as humor. I think it's clear, however, that the national bent is leaning toward "Blue Lives do not matter.")
No Greater Faith
I know we have a problem. Racism reigns (among all sorts of other "ism" evils). I wouldn't even begin to try to deny it. (I would deny it's a "white people" thing. It is a human thing.) George Floyd's death was unnecessary and unjust and the law must be followed. It's easy to see the shared outrage across the world. But the question I've been asking is "What do we want?" What do the protesters want to be done? Now I have an answer. George Floyd's younger brother told the House Judiciary Committee, "Do the right thing." So, apparently, the solution to a few bad cops is new and improved laws. If Congress can pass a Justice in Policing Act, white people will no longer be racist, cops will no longer break laws or kill people, and Rodney King's dream will finally be fulfilled -- we can all just get along. I guess I'm just not that kind of optimistic about Congress, racists, or legal solutions to a problem of the human heart. Am I opposed to new laws? Of course not. I just don't anticipate that they will be a solution, that they will make things right.
A Better World ... Can You Say "Anarchy"?
Protesters in Seattle, Baltimore, Denver, and, of course, Minneapolis are all demanding "no police" and expect, in some cases, the mayors to resign if they don't comply. Others, like Los Angeles and New York City are cutting funds to police and investing that money in minority programs, but many want a world without cops. Are you ready for a society without law enforcement? Lots of people seem to be.
Feel Good Story of the Week
An Italian woman underwent open brain surgery. It lasted less than an hour and while they were doing it, she prepared 90 "Ascoli-style" olives. Making good use of her time. (Actually to monitor her during the brain surgery, but you have to admit ...)
Finally
A couple of stories left.
Ridiculous claims have been silenced once again for good and all. They've pulled Bibles from the shelves for claiming we're all one race and made in the image of God. Racist!
We're all delighted, I'm sure, at the news that they finally put down McGruff the Crime Dog in the growing anti-police tide. They debated putting him out on a farm, but that would have cost money and "defunding police" is the aim, right?
Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
George Floyd was buried this week amid bowed heads, signs of the cross, or raised fists. The protests have continued. If we say it loud enough and long enough, with or without violence, we can make it better. Just tell us to be better and, with enough people behind it, we will.
Oh, we do need to change. We do need to realize that people are people and people have value and skin color or gender or economic status or weight or ... whatever does not diminish that value. Well, except for birth status. If you haven't passed through the magical birth canal, you only have the value placed on you by your mother. But otherwise .... But I digress. We need to change as a human race. Unfortunately protests, laws, and removal of statues won't do it. But who's going to tell them? We're gonna need a Bigger voice.
Cultural Appropriation
Democrats in Congress knelt for 8 minutes and 46 seconds to recognize George Floyd. Some of them did it in Kente cloth in solidarity for African Americans ... or "cultural appropriation" if we apply current standard terminology. Oh, sorry, that's only for the Right.
Defund, Not Abolish
That's what Kamala Harris is saying. Saying that defunding the police is the same as abolishing police is "Creating fear where none is necessary." Except that's what the protestors called for in Minneapolis. "We don't want no police in our neighborhoods." That is abolishment. Now, of course, maybe it's time to eliminate police. You can argue that. But if we don't fund it, it won't be. Defunding is aiming at abolishment. If that's your argument, defend it. Don't argue conflicting ideas.
(CNN had an article defending abolishing police departments by giving examples of cities that have. Unfortunately, they didn't actual disband them. They reconfigured them. Not the same thing.)
(If you have any doubts whether or not the plan is to abolish cops, I think it's abundantly clear in this story and this one, too. Doubt it if you want, but Cops and Live PD have been canceled in the wake of the Floyd protests. See?) (Yes, that was intended as humor. I think it's clear, however, that the national bent is leaning toward "Blue Lives do not matter.")
No Greater Faith
I know we have a problem. Racism reigns (among all sorts of other "ism" evils). I wouldn't even begin to try to deny it. (I would deny it's a "white people" thing. It is a human thing.) George Floyd's death was unnecessary and unjust and the law must be followed. It's easy to see the shared outrage across the world. But the question I've been asking is "What do we want?" What do the protesters want to be done? Now I have an answer. George Floyd's younger brother told the House Judiciary Committee, "Do the right thing." So, apparently, the solution to a few bad cops is new and improved laws. If Congress can pass a Justice in Policing Act, white people will no longer be racist, cops will no longer break laws or kill people, and Rodney King's dream will finally be fulfilled -- we can all just get along. I guess I'm just not that kind of optimistic about Congress, racists, or legal solutions to a problem of the human heart. Am I opposed to new laws? Of course not. I just don't anticipate that they will be a solution, that they will make things right.
A Better World ... Can You Say "Anarchy"?
Protesters in Seattle, Baltimore, Denver, and, of course, Minneapolis are all demanding "no police" and expect, in some cases, the mayors to resign if they don't comply. Others, like Los Angeles and New York City are cutting funds to police and investing that money in minority programs, but many want a world without cops. Are you ready for a society without law enforcement? Lots of people seem to be.
Feel Good Story of the Week
An Italian woman underwent open brain surgery. It lasted less than an hour and while they were doing it, she prepared 90 "Ascoli-style" olives. Making good use of her time. (Actually to monitor her during the brain surgery, but you have to admit ...)
Finally
A couple of stories left.
Ridiculous claims have been silenced once again for good and all. They've pulled Bibles from the shelves for claiming we're all one race and made in the image of God. Racist!
We're all delighted, I'm sure, at the news that they finally put down McGruff the Crime Dog in the growing anti-police tide. They debated putting him out on a farm, but that would have cost money and "defunding police" is the aim, right?
Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
Friday, June 12, 2020
June 20 is on the horizon
My first blog entry -- my entry into blogging -- was June 20, 2006. Originally it was called "Birds of the Air" and was intended to focus on birds. That, of course, didn't have a long lifespan. I changed it fairly early on to "Winging It" to expand the venue, so to speak.
My aim at the time was one a day. As of June 12, 2020, there have been 5105 days and I have 5198 posts. I've missed a few days and doubled up on a few days and did better than one a day. Others are far more prolific, but I think I met my goal.
I've done some labeling; not a lot, but some. There are 101 entries on Marriage, 124 entries on Politics, and -- I can hardly believe it -- 193 "News Weakly" entries. (I had no idea I had been doing those that long.) There are multiple labels in the general "Reformed Theology" category which people are surely aware is one of my own favorites. There are labels for "Same-sex marriage" and "Homosexual" that are related but don't combine sufficiently to cover the amount of stuff I've written on them. Oh, look at this little tidbit. I have a "Marriage" category which has 101 entries and another category -- "Marriage 101" -- that has another 11. (That was a kind of series on basic teachings in Scripture about marriage.) But I'm confident that readers would agree that the labels don't rightly reflect my leanings. I've been all about words. What are words? What do they mean? What does it matter if we use them incorrectly? And Scripture. The authority, the truth, the meaning, the application of Scripture, all this and more has been central. So my second largest label -- "Politics" -- is misleading because I've written so much more on Scripture and language.
I've had more traffic than I expected. The site reports that I've had nearly 900,000 pageviews. Who would have thought? My most visited page has been the Hard Sayings - "Sell all your possessions" entry. Almost 35,000 for that one alone. Not far behind is The History of the Choir with almost 30,000 hits. Seriously, who would have thought, right? I made friends here I never would have, both online and in person. I have some faithful readers and some diligent haters and that must mean I'm doing okay. (You know that will get the hater's britches in a bunch. All I mean by "haters" is that there is a knee jerk "Stan said it so it must be wrong" response and despite the fact that no argument or reasoning or evidence or even dialog as to why I'm wrong or why they're right is forthcoming (essentially Bulverism), they feel it is important that they continue to fight against the evil forces of "Stan" on this earth. Their motivation is not "Stan is dear to me so I need to correct this error on his behalf." Hate.) And I've had a wide variety of interactions ranging from "Can I use this for my church?" to "What kind of idiot are you?" Lots of wonderful stuff beyond the simple blessings of writing and sharing.
But I suspect you're getting a sense of "Where is he going with all this?" Some with an "uh-oh" and others with "about time." Due to forces beyond my control, it looks like my blogging days are coming to an end. Blogger has decided to change their format, the format I've been using for ... what ... 14 years. They intend to multiply my work, not ease it. I'm afraid I won't be able to continue this when they do. They're switching to "the new Blogger" which removes the default method by which I've made my entries 5198 times. "You're welcome!" No thanks. Between the negative forces (which is really a minor issue) and the times (viruses and medical and stuff) other responsibilities and aging and, oh, yeah, I probably haven't had an original idea for years, I think this final straw is God's way of saying, "Lay your burden down." Readership is way down despite the large numbers of people currently online with nothing better to do than to search the web for me. (That was intended to be hilarious.) So I don't think I could decrease or randomize my entries and expect anyone to continue reading. I will likely continue for a short time longer until I no longer have the option of using this entry method and then go quietly into the night.
I thank you all for your time over the years. I have greatly appreciated a lot of the comments and conversations. Writing this stuff every day has helped shape my everyday thinking from random to focused. "How will this bless someone else?" Of course, not everyone recognizes that and it's not all their fault. Communication is difficult and in electronic form it's only more difficult. But I've benefited and I think others have benefited and I hope you have, too. I leave satisfied, not strained. No hard feelings. Some prayers for some of you, to be sure. The Lord bless you and keep you.
My aim at the time was one a day. As of June 12, 2020, there have been 5105 days and I have 5198 posts. I've missed a few days and doubled up on a few days and did better than one a day. Others are far more prolific, but I think I met my goal.
I've done some labeling; not a lot, but some. There are 101 entries on Marriage, 124 entries on Politics, and -- I can hardly believe it -- 193 "News Weakly" entries. (I had no idea I had been doing those that long.) There are multiple labels in the general "Reformed Theology" category which people are surely aware is one of my own favorites. There are labels for "Same-sex marriage" and "Homosexual" that are related but don't combine sufficiently to cover the amount of stuff I've written on them. Oh, look at this little tidbit. I have a "Marriage" category which has 101 entries and another category -- "Marriage 101" -- that has another 11. (That was a kind of series on basic teachings in Scripture about marriage.) But I'm confident that readers would agree that the labels don't rightly reflect my leanings. I've been all about words. What are words? What do they mean? What does it matter if we use them incorrectly? And Scripture. The authority, the truth, the meaning, the application of Scripture, all this and more has been central. So my second largest label -- "Politics" -- is misleading because I've written so much more on Scripture and language.
I've had more traffic than I expected. The site reports that I've had nearly 900,000 pageviews. Who would have thought? My most visited page has been the Hard Sayings - "Sell all your possessions" entry. Almost 35,000 for that one alone. Not far behind is The History of the Choir with almost 30,000 hits. Seriously, who would have thought, right? I made friends here I never would have, both online and in person. I have some faithful readers and some diligent haters and that must mean I'm doing okay. (You know that will get the hater's britches in a bunch. All I mean by "haters" is that there is a knee jerk "Stan said it so it must be wrong" response and despite the fact that no argument or reasoning or evidence or even dialog as to why I'm wrong or why they're right is forthcoming (essentially Bulverism), they feel it is important that they continue to fight against the evil forces of "Stan" on this earth. Their motivation is not "Stan is dear to me so I need to correct this error on his behalf." Hate.) And I've had a wide variety of interactions ranging from "Can I use this for my church?" to "What kind of idiot are you?" Lots of wonderful stuff beyond the simple blessings of writing and sharing.
But I suspect you're getting a sense of "Where is he going with all this?" Some with an "uh-oh" and others with "about time." Due to forces beyond my control, it looks like my blogging days are coming to an end. Blogger has decided to change their format, the format I've been using for ... what ... 14 years. They intend to multiply my work, not ease it. I'm afraid I won't be able to continue this when they do. They're switching to "the new Blogger" which removes the default method by which I've made my entries 5198 times. "You're welcome!" No thanks. Between the negative forces (which is really a minor issue) and the times (viruses and medical and stuff) other responsibilities and aging and, oh, yeah, I probably haven't had an original idea for years, I think this final straw is God's way of saying, "Lay your burden down." Readership is way down despite the large numbers of people currently online with nothing better to do than to search the web for me. (That was intended to be hilarious.) So I don't think I could decrease or randomize my entries and expect anyone to continue reading. I will likely continue for a short time longer until I no longer have the option of using this entry method and then go quietly into the night.
I thank you all for your time over the years. I have greatly appreciated a lot of the comments and conversations. Writing this stuff every day has helped shape my everyday thinking from random to focused. "How will this bless someone else?" Of course, not everyone recognizes that and it's not all their fault. Communication is difficult and in electronic form it's only more difficult. But I've benefited and I think others have benefited and I hope you have, too. I leave satisfied, not strained. No hard feelings. Some prayers for some of you, to be sure. The Lord bless you and keep you.
Thursday, June 11, 2020
Judgmental
The best known verse in the Bible these days is Matthew 7:1. "Judge not that you be not judged." Oh, they take it way out of context. They ignore the fact that Jesus goes on to say the right way to judge (beginning with yourself) (Matt 7:3-5). They ignore the fact that the chapter includes "judgmental" things like "You will know them by their fruits." (Matt 7:15-16) They completely miss one of the most "judgmental" passages in all of Scripture where Jesus describes those who come to Him in the end saying, "Lord, Lord" and He answers, "I never knew you; depart from Me, you workers of lawlessness." (Matt 7:21-23) Still, people are quite sure that it is a Christian virtue not to notice or recognize sin. "Don't be judgmental" is the mantra.
I'm not writing this today about judging each other, though. I'm writing about the astounding phenomenon that we see almost every day around us of the supreme judgmentalism of almost every human being. It is routine, common, normal, even applauded. What am I talking about? It is the common practice of human beings to judge God. All the time.
What am I talking about? We see it as a common approach when circumstances occur that we don't like. Someone we love "dies too soon" or a dear one is diagnosed with cancer or we lose a job or a natural disaster occurs or ... everyday stuff that we don't like. And we say, "Where is God??!" We question the Sovereign. Like the Jews in John 11 when Jesus showed up after Lazarus died. "Could not he who opened the eyes of the blind man also have kept this man from dying?" (John 11:37) Like the guy who almost died last summer told me. "If the disastrous events of last summer were God's plan, I'm going to have a problem with God." If we are going to be satisfied with God, we don't try to adjust our expectations; we demand He meet them. He can do anything, right? Well, surely He can see how our demands are good and right and obviously better than His, so He should knuckle under and get to it.
We see it as a common approach to God's Word. Bible-believing Christians understand that Scripture is God-breathed. If God is God, He cannot be wrong. He cannot change. He cannot make a mistake. If He is omniscient, He can't be wrong even in future considerations. If He is omnipotent, He can protect His Word for all time so that the original texts and the ones we have today give us the same message. We don't worship a book; we worship God and value the book God has given us to tell us about Him. Still, the common approach is "Yes, yes, it's all well and good ... unless I disagree." So, for instance, that "sell all your possessions and give to the poor" thing is good because we're social justice warriors, but "the poor you will always have with you" is right out because we know better. "Judge not that you be not judged" is great because we don't want to be judged but "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor 6:9-10) has to go because modern morality has cleared the way for that. So we -- and not just "those guys" -- pick and choose what Scriptures we like and what doesn't pass muster and pass judgment on God ... again.
So those who pound their bully pulpits demanding "No judgmentalism" are deeply and arrogantly judgmental when it comes to God. Imagine that! Imagine the gall that it takes to tell the Most High, "Sorry, you don't measure up." To require that God's Word must align with my wise thinking in order to be believed. If we are to believe God and follow Him, we have to figure out where He is wrong and fix Him ... and His Word. What could possibly be more arrogant than that?
That, dear readers, is the epitome of hubris, the pinnacle of judgmentalism. It is outside of reason and outside of wisdom and outside of anything at all that could be considered safe. So it is disturbing that so many of us practice it without even thinking of it. We don't need to rail on people about this. We need to take the log out of our own eye (Matt 7:5). Because we all do it at times. Because then we can see to help others, not judge them. Not castigate them. Not point fingers. And not ignore, either.
I'm not writing this today about judging each other, though. I'm writing about the astounding phenomenon that we see almost every day around us of the supreme judgmentalism of almost every human being. It is routine, common, normal, even applauded. What am I talking about? It is the common practice of human beings to judge God. All the time.
What am I talking about? We see it as a common approach when circumstances occur that we don't like. Someone we love "dies too soon" or a dear one is diagnosed with cancer or we lose a job or a natural disaster occurs or ... everyday stuff that we don't like. And we say, "Where is God??!" We question the Sovereign. Like the Jews in John 11 when Jesus showed up after Lazarus died. "Could not he who opened the eyes of the blind man also have kept this man from dying?" (John 11:37) Like the guy who almost died last summer told me. "If the disastrous events of last summer were God's plan, I'm going to have a problem with God." If we are going to be satisfied with God, we don't try to adjust our expectations; we demand He meet them. He can do anything, right? Well, surely He can see how our demands are good and right and obviously better than His, so He should knuckle under and get to it.
We see it as a common approach to God's Word. Bible-believing Christians understand that Scripture is God-breathed. If God is God, He cannot be wrong. He cannot change. He cannot make a mistake. If He is omniscient, He can't be wrong even in future considerations. If He is omnipotent, He can protect His Word for all time so that the original texts and the ones we have today give us the same message. We don't worship a book; we worship God and value the book God has given us to tell us about Him. Still, the common approach is "Yes, yes, it's all well and good ... unless I disagree." So, for instance, that "sell all your possessions and give to the poor" thing is good because we're social justice warriors, but "the poor you will always have with you" is right out because we know better. "Judge not that you be not judged" is great because we don't want to be judged but "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor 6:9-10) has to go because modern morality has cleared the way for that. So we -- and not just "those guys" -- pick and choose what Scriptures we like and what doesn't pass muster and pass judgment on God ... again.
So those who pound their bully pulpits demanding "No judgmentalism" are deeply and arrogantly judgmental when it comes to God. Imagine that! Imagine the gall that it takes to tell the Most High, "Sorry, you don't measure up." To require that God's Word must align with my wise thinking in order to be believed. If we are to believe God and follow Him, we have to figure out where He is wrong and fix Him ... and His Word. What could possibly be more arrogant than that?
That, dear readers, is the epitome of hubris, the pinnacle of judgmentalism. It is outside of reason and outside of wisdom and outside of anything at all that could be considered safe. So it is disturbing that so many of us practice it without even thinking of it. We don't need to rail on people about this. We need to take the log out of our own eye (Matt 7:5). Because we all do it at times. Because then we can see to help others, not judge them. Not castigate them. Not point fingers. And not ignore, either.
Wednesday, June 10, 2020
Glory
I'm going to go light today. Just a thought. Jesus said, "Let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven." (Matt 5:16) It's actually an odd thought. How do we do our works that causes people to glorify God? Something to think about.
But I thought of an example. You're on a worship team. You serve in the music ministry of your church. Maybe you lead worship. Good works. Now, it should go without saying that the gifts we give to the Lord should be our very best. I don't think there is an argument that can be made that God deserves boring and poorly executed gifts. So quality here is not in question. But apparently motivation is. If you are one of those music ministry folks, are you in it to bring glory to God or are you in it to perform? Are you hoping that people will notice how well you did, or are you desperately in need of pointing everyone to God? Hey, maybe a hint. Do they applaud when you finish? That might suggest it wasn't worship that they heard, but performance.
Just an example. We are supposed to be doing good works (Eph 2:10). No question. But why? Not for us. Not to win points or impress. Not to be recognized or thanked. So that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father. Always.
But I thought of an example. You're on a worship team. You serve in the music ministry of your church. Maybe you lead worship. Good works. Now, it should go without saying that the gifts we give to the Lord should be our very best. I don't think there is an argument that can be made that God deserves boring and poorly executed gifts. So quality here is not in question. But apparently motivation is. If you are one of those music ministry folks, are you in it to bring glory to God or are you in it to perform? Are you hoping that people will notice how well you did, or are you desperately in need of pointing everyone to God? Hey, maybe a hint. Do they applaud when you finish? That might suggest it wasn't worship that they heard, but performance.
Just an example. We are supposed to be doing good works (Eph 2:10). No question. But why? Not for us. Not to win points or impress. Not to be recognized or thanked. So that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father. Always.
Tuesday, June 09, 2020
Ashamed of the Word
In John 12 there is a brief little comment about people who believed but wouldn't admit it.
Take, for instance, that stuff in the Old Testament about killing Amalekites (1 Sam 15). "I mean, really ... 'Kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey'?" Embarrassing. That will have to go. It says God struck Uzzah dead for steadying the Ark (2 Sam 6:1-8). Really? No, that can't be right. And, of course, all that New Testament stuff is wrong, wrong, wrong. Calling homosexual behavior sin (Rom 1:26-2; 1 Cor 6:9-10) or not allowing women to be pastors (1 Tim 2:12-15)? First century nonsense. Homophobia before they knew what it was. Sexism through the ages. Not good. Not good at all.
It is undeniable that Scripture stands, at times, starkly against our modern society. Jesus claimed to be the only way; we deny exclusivity. God regulated slavery while we abhor it. God instituted the death penalty while the Roman Catholic Church leads the way in negating it. We see sexism and racism in the pages of the Bible and we're embarrassed and ashamed. We've progressed. Modern values have moved past God's values. And modern Bible-believing Christians find themselves ashamed of God's Word.
It's not new, you know. It is exactly what the serpent suggested to Eve (Gen 3:1). Nor is it unlikely that an infinite and perfect God would hold different views and values and purposes than a finite, deceived, blinded, rebellious race of creatures. So you have to ask yourself who you're going to believe? God or Man? You have to ask yourself if you prefer the glory from Man or the glory from God? Careful, now. Your answer could have long lasting ramifications ... either way.
Nevertheless, many even of the authorities believed in Him, but for fear of the Pharisees they did not confess it, so that they would not be put out of the synagogue; for they loved the glory that comes from Man more than the glory that comes from God. (John 12:42-43)That could have been written today as well. Lots of people -- genuine believers even -- are coming out in favor of that which God opposes because they prefer rather to be liked by their fellow human beings than God. Many Christians I know read their Bibles and say, "Um, no, not that. Not now." They're all gung ho about "saved by grace" and God's love and mercy and all, but if they are being honest, there are just some things in the Bible of which they are truly ashamed.
Take, for instance, that stuff in the Old Testament about killing Amalekites (1 Sam 15). "I mean, really ... 'Kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey'?" Embarrassing. That will have to go. It says God struck Uzzah dead for steadying the Ark (2 Sam 6:1-8). Really? No, that can't be right. And, of course, all that New Testament stuff is wrong, wrong, wrong. Calling homosexual behavior sin (Rom 1:26-2; 1 Cor 6:9-10) or not allowing women to be pastors (1 Tim 2:12-15)? First century nonsense. Homophobia before they knew what it was. Sexism through the ages. Not good. Not good at all.
It is undeniable that Scripture stands, at times, starkly against our modern society. Jesus claimed to be the only way; we deny exclusivity. God regulated slavery while we abhor it. God instituted the death penalty while the Roman Catholic Church leads the way in negating it. We see sexism and racism in the pages of the Bible and we're embarrassed and ashamed. We've progressed. Modern values have moved past God's values. And modern Bible-believing Christians find themselves ashamed of God's Word.
It's not new, you know. It is exactly what the serpent suggested to Eve (Gen 3:1). Nor is it unlikely that an infinite and perfect God would hold different views and values and purposes than a finite, deceived, blinded, rebellious race of creatures. So you have to ask yourself who you're going to believe? God or Man? You have to ask yourself if you prefer the glory from Man or the glory from God? Careful, now. Your answer could have long lasting ramifications ... either way.
Monday, June 08, 2020
Jeremiah's Hope
I've said before that context is important in our understanding of Scripture. Consider this well-known, much-loved passage:
Now consider the context.
This is in the middle of the book of Lamentations. I don't think you need me to tell you the meaning of the title. It's a lament. Jeremiah is lamenting the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BC. That's a painful starting point.
The text itself is about a third of the way through the 3rd chapter. What leads up to it? Jeremiah begins, "I am the man who has seen affliction under the rod of His wrath." (Lam 3:1) He goes on to describe his utter anguish. And he lays it on God. "He has made my flesh and my skin waste away." (Lam 3:4) "He has walled me about so that I cannot escape." (Lam 3:7) "He bent His bow and set me as a target for His arrow." (Lam 3:12) Decidedly not warm and friendly stuff. In preface to the passage we started with he writes,
When we get to the famous passage, he says, "But this I call to mind, and therefore I have hope." (Lam 3:21) In the midst of abject horror -- even from God -- in what does a man who has lost his hope from God find hope? In God. Not in God's "being nice" or "fixing things" or "doing what I ask." He finds it in the nature of God. God is love (1 John 4:8). He finds it in God's mercy. He finds it in God's faithfulness.
Jeremiah was a broken man, the "weeping prophet." His hope was not that his circumstances would improve. His hope was in his relationship with God. Knowing God was what he needed in order to find hope. Not hope for improved conditions or answered prayer. Hope in a God that appeared to have harmed him.
Most of us will never experience the level of grief that Jeremiah did. All of us, however, will experience some pain and grief, and all of us can experience that hope that passes understanding. We experience it by looking at our Lord and not the circumstances. We do it with an intimate knowledge of who God is and not what we're immediately experiencing. Everyone of us can answer as Jeremiah did.
The steadfast love of the LORD never ceases; His mercies never come to an end; they are new every morning; great is Your faithfulness. (Lam 3:22-23)We write songs with that thought. This is the stuff that feel-good posters are made of. It's a biblical hug from God. It's a wonderful reminder in stark times. It really is good stuff.
Now consider the context.
This is in the middle of the book of Lamentations. I don't think you need me to tell you the meaning of the title. It's a lament. Jeremiah is lamenting the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BC. That's a painful starting point.
The text itself is about a third of the way through the 3rd chapter. What leads up to it? Jeremiah begins, "I am the man who has seen affliction under the rod of His wrath." (Lam 3:1) He goes on to describe his utter anguish. And he lays it on God. "He has made my flesh and my skin waste away." (Lam 3:4) "He has walled me about so that I cannot escape." (Lam 3:7) "He bent His bow and set me as a target for His arrow." (Lam 3:12) Decidedly not warm and friendly stuff. In preface to the passage we started with he writes,
He has filled me with bitterness; He has sated me with wormwood. He has made my teeth grind on gravel, and made me cower in ashes; my soul is bereft of peace; I have forgotten what happiness is; so I say, "My endurance has perished; so has my hope from the LORD." Remember my affliction and my wanderings, the wormwood and the gall! (Lam 3:15-19)This is not hope and joy. This is deep anguish. He isn't only in torment; he feels his torment is from God. He hasn't just lost hope; he has last hope from the LORD.
When we get to the famous passage, he says, "But this I call to mind, and therefore I have hope." (Lam 3:21) In the midst of abject horror -- even from God -- in what does a man who has lost his hope from God find hope? In God. Not in God's "being nice" or "fixing things" or "doing what I ask." He finds it in the nature of God. God is love (1 John 4:8). He finds it in God's mercy. He finds it in God's faithfulness.
Jeremiah was a broken man, the "weeping prophet." His hope was not that his circumstances would improve. His hope was in his relationship with God. Knowing God was what he needed in order to find hope. Not hope for improved conditions or answered prayer. Hope in a God that appeared to have harmed him.
Most of us will never experience the level of grief that Jeremiah did. All of us, however, will experience some pain and grief, and all of us can experience that hope that passes understanding. We experience it by looking at our Lord and not the circumstances. We do it with an intimate knowledge of who God is and not what we're immediately experiencing. Everyone of us can answer as Jeremiah did.
The LORD is my portion, therefore I will hope in Him. The LORD is good to those who wait for Him, to the soul who seeks Him. It is good that one should wait quietly for the salvation of the LORD. (Lam 3:24-26)The context doesn't change the meaning of the text here, but it certainly enlarges it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)