Jesus told Nicodemus, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." (John 3:3) That's where we get that "born again" theme in so much of our Christianese -- the language we Christians speak so fluently even if others don't get it. So John wrote, "As many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name." (John 1:12) That is, contrary to popular thinking, we are not "all God's children." Only those who receive Him get that designation. Only those who place their absolute confidence in Him can be called "born of God" (e.g., 1 John 3:9; 4:7; 5:1, 4, 18)
Now, lots of Christians will tell you -- will insist, even -- that you can be "born of God" with no actual change at all. Well, of course, you're forgiven, but not much else. Scripture doesn't appear to agree with that. John wrote, "Everyone who has this hope fixed on Him purifies himself, just as He is pure." (1 John 3:3) That's an "everyone" term; it leaves no room for "Well, some." And "No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." (1 John 3:9) As we discussed before, that's a "cannot" term, leaving no room for "except." Just on those two points (and there are many more), it would seem that "You can come to Christ and not change at all" doesn't actually make any sense … at all.
When you start from "born again" -- "born of God" -- it makes perfect sense. We are all products of our birth. We are all products of our upbringing. We aren't just hanging around out here without roots or influences; we are someone. And we will express that. So if we are "born of God" as John says, we will express that, won't we? So John says, "By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother." (1 John 3:10) (Note the uneven parallel, where the opposite of "practice righteousness" is "does not love his brother." We can conclude, then, that the righteousness we are to practice is to love our brothers and the unrighteousness they practice is to fail to do that.) And Jesus (speaking of false teachers) says, "You will know them by their fruits." (Matt 7:16) Same notion.
The Bible teaches that when we receive Christ -- invite Him into our lives as Lord -- we are born again -- born of God. We are a "new creature." (2 Cor 5:17) Our goal is not to become a better person; our goal is to become what we already are -- born of God. Our aim is to be an expression of the Spirit that lives in us. Our purpose is to purify ourselves and act as God's children rather than "the children of the devil." All we really want is to become what we are. Put that way, it doesn't sound as hard as it seems, does it?
Wednesday, September 30, 2020
Tuesday, September 29, 2020
Wondering Out Loud
Jesus gave His disciples a new commandment. "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another." (John 13:34) Love one another as He loved us. Now that's big, especially since He gave that command the night that He would be arrested, the day before He died for our sins. "As I have loved you." It so impressed the author of the Gospel of John that he repeated it in His first epistle.
So it leaves me wondering: what does that look like? How would it look if we did that? Sure, it's a lot of self-sacrifice, but what would it look like if you, husbands, loved your wives that way? What would it look like if your church loved each other that way? What would it look like if you Christians loved other Christians in your neighborhood, your town, your state, your nation, your world that way? Just how different would things look if we sought to obey that one, simple, solitary command? What it look like if I worked harder at obeying that one, simple, solitary command in my home, my church, my world? For starters, I'd assume, it would look a lot less like it was about me, wouldn't it?
By this the love of God was manifested in us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him. In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. (1 John 4:9-11)Interestingly, Paul had the same sort of command for husbands.
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless. (Eph 5:25-27)This command is a special command. It is especially for Christians. It is especially for husbands. It is particularly for Christians loving fellow believers and husbands loving their wives. And it is unambiguous. Not just "as you love yourself." Instead, "As I have loved you."
So it leaves me wondering: what does that look like? How would it look if we did that? Sure, it's a lot of self-sacrifice, but what would it look like if you, husbands, loved your wives that way? What would it look like if your church loved each other that way? What would it look like if you Christians loved other Christians in your neighborhood, your town, your state, your nation, your world that way? Just how different would things look if we sought to obey that one, simple, solitary command? What it look like if I worked harder at obeying that one, simple, solitary command in my home, my church, my world? For starters, I'd assume, it would look a lot less like it was about me, wouldn't it?
Monday, September 28, 2020
I Don't Have Enough Faith
Faith … either you have it, or you don't. Well, perhaps not. Jesus spoke of a "mustard seed" of faith and Paul wrote that to each of us is given a "measure" of faith, so there does appear to be a "quantity" to faith. Still …
There is a significant segment of the Pentecostal-type Christianity that tells me that I can and should speak in tongues, that I can and should be able to heal people, that sort of thing. "It's God's will," they tell me. So, why isn't it happening? "Well," they assure me, "clearly you don't have enough faith." Yes, that's what I said. I don't have enough faith. I don't have sufficient faith to say that God will definitely give me spiritual gifts X and Y if I request (demand?) it because, after all, I think the Bible says that the Spirit gives to each one "as He wills" (1 Cor 12:11), not me, and Paul asks obviously rhetorical questions when he writes, "Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret?" (1 Cor 12:30) No, they don't. So my faith isn't sufficient to overcome that -- God, in my view -- so I'm only a second-rate Christian (at best) to those types.
There is a surprising number of Christians these days who are really into the "name it and claim it" kind of faith -- the Prosperity Gospel. It is big in the U.S., of course, but it is surprisingly popular in Africa and South America, too. They actually believe that God wants you to be happy and healthy and wealthy and wise. (Okay, I threw in that "wise" thing for the rhythm of the sentence.) They tell me that all I have to do is have enough faith and I can have all that. Steve Taylor sang, "I know You'll give me what I need; they say I need a shopping mall." Yes, that kind of stuff. So why don't I have it? In fact, why don't most of them have it? Well, it's obviously not God's fault. It's ours. We don't have enough faith. We don't even have enough faith to get our prayer "Help my unbelief" answered. So I could be really rich and really healthy and stunningly good-looking (Do they offer that, or was I just dreaming it?), but I don't have enough faith.
There is a significant segment of modern Christendom that has arrived at an amazing place in these last days. They have discovered that all of Christendom for all time has failed to properly grasp Scripture -- its meaning, its purpose, its veracity (or lack thereof) -- and they, in these latter days, have figured it out. To be fair, many have bought the lines offered by modern con artists. Like those who argue that the concept of biblical inerrancy is new, coming in around the 18th and 19th centuries, never before seen prior. Of course, history doesn't actually support that notion and the Bible (2 Tim 3:16-17) doesn't support it, but someone said it, so it must be true. So they've "moved on" while remaining "truly biblical." They discovered that the "God-breathed" Scriptures are actually wrong, certainly outdated, and clearly improved upon by modern ideas and morality. They discovered that Paul was wrong when he referenced "dishonorable passions" when men and women exchanged the "natural relations" for passion for the same sex (Rom 1:26-27). They realized that Sodom and Gomorrah died of inhospitality, not "sexual immorality" and "unnatural desire" (Jude 1:7). They figured out that Paul's "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man" (1 Tim 2:12) was simple misogyny and could be removed now. They argue that "There is none who does good; no, not one" (Rom 3:10) actually means there are lots of people who do good. In fact, humans are basically good. And so on and so on. These particular elite and their followers (When did "elite" become in insult?) discovered that they had some sort of special "in" with God so that they could see all this when all of Christendom before them did not. I don't have enough faith for that. I don't think I'm that bright, that intelligent, that spiritual. I don't have enough faith in myself to believe that I can correct 2,000 years of consistent Christian thinking. I don't have enough faith.
So I'm stuck here in the mediocre. I just take God's Word for what it says, believing in a measly God who doesn't make mistakes and isn't limited by time or people and can actually mean what He breathes to be said and maintain it and keep it and have it be understood. See? Simplistic. I'm not up to reinterpreting the Bible or correcting the Church Fathers so that Scriptures can be manipulated into meaning nearly nothing at all. I'm just not that good. So I don't get miraculous spiritual gifts, magnificent wealth or health, or expert divine guidance to correct Christendom along the way.
And I'm okay with that.
There is a significant segment of the Pentecostal-type Christianity that tells me that I can and should speak in tongues, that I can and should be able to heal people, that sort of thing. "It's God's will," they tell me. So, why isn't it happening? "Well," they assure me, "clearly you don't have enough faith." Yes, that's what I said. I don't have enough faith. I don't have sufficient faith to say that God will definitely give me spiritual gifts X and Y if I request (demand?) it because, after all, I think the Bible says that the Spirit gives to each one "as He wills" (1 Cor 12:11), not me, and Paul asks obviously rhetorical questions when he writes, "Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret?" (1 Cor 12:30) No, they don't. So my faith isn't sufficient to overcome that -- God, in my view -- so I'm only a second-rate Christian (at best) to those types.
There is a surprising number of Christians these days who are really into the "name it and claim it" kind of faith -- the Prosperity Gospel. It is big in the U.S., of course, but it is surprisingly popular in Africa and South America, too. They actually believe that God wants you to be happy and healthy and wealthy and wise. (Okay, I threw in that "wise" thing for the rhythm of the sentence.) They tell me that all I have to do is have enough faith and I can have all that. Steve Taylor sang, "I know You'll give me what I need; they say I need a shopping mall." Yes, that kind of stuff. So why don't I have it? In fact, why don't most of them have it? Well, it's obviously not God's fault. It's ours. We don't have enough faith. We don't even have enough faith to get our prayer "Help my unbelief" answered. So I could be really rich and really healthy and stunningly good-looking (Do they offer that, or was I just dreaming it?), but I don't have enough faith.
There is a significant segment of modern Christendom that has arrived at an amazing place in these last days. They have discovered that all of Christendom for all time has failed to properly grasp Scripture -- its meaning, its purpose, its veracity (or lack thereof) -- and they, in these latter days, have figured it out. To be fair, many have bought the lines offered by modern con artists. Like those who argue that the concept of biblical inerrancy is new, coming in around the 18th and 19th centuries, never before seen prior. Of course, history doesn't actually support that notion and the Bible (2 Tim 3:16-17) doesn't support it, but someone said it, so it must be true. So they've "moved on" while remaining "truly biblical." They discovered that the "God-breathed" Scriptures are actually wrong, certainly outdated, and clearly improved upon by modern ideas and morality. They discovered that Paul was wrong when he referenced "dishonorable passions" when men and women exchanged the "natural relations" for passion for the same sex (Rom 1:26-27). They realized that Sodom and Gomorrah died of inhospitality, not "sexual immorality" and "unnatural desire" (Jude 1:7). They figured out that Paul's "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man" (1 Tim 2:12) was simple misogyny and could be removed now. They argue that "There is none who does good; no, not one" (Rom 3:10) actually means there are lots of people who do good. In fact, humans are basically good. And so on and so on. These particular elite and their followers (When did "elite" become in insult?) discovered that they had some sort of special "in" with God so that they could see all this when all of Christendom before them did not. I don't have enough faith for that. I don't think I'm that bright, that intelligent, that spiritual. I don't have enough faith in myself to believe that I can correct 2,000 years of consistent Christian thinking. I don't have enough faith.
So I'm stuck here in the mediocre. I just take God's Word for what it says, believing in a measly God who doesn't make mistakes and isn't limited by time or people and can actually mean what He breathes to be said and maintain it and keep it and have it be understood. See? Simplistic. I'm not up to reinterpreting the Bible or correcting the Church Fathers so that Scriptures can be manipulated into meaning nearly nothing at all. I'm just not that good. So I don't get miraculous spiritual gifts, magnificent wealth or health, or expert divine guidance to correct Christendom along the way.
And I'm okay with that.
Sunday, September 27, 2020
Just One of Those Things
I love birds. I really do. I mean, they fly. How cool is that? But, seriously, that's just the tip of the iceberg. Bottom line, the intricacy and wonder of birds are indeed the iceberg that seem to sink the Titanic of Evolution. It is "irreducible complexity."
So recently I came across this article from Livescience.com. No, not a Creationist site. Quite the opposite. The article examines the question of how birds can navigate long distances. Darwin thought they memorized their twists and turns in one direction and simply reversed them to go the other way. Darwin was wrong. According to the article, about "50 animal species, ranging from birds and mammals to reptiles and insects, use Earth's magnetic field for navigation." Earth's magnetic field is so weak that scientists can't figure out how they can possibly do it. Apparently something in the birds' eyes produces a photochemical molecule that acts as a magnetic compass. Birds can "see" north or south. Now how cool is that? (Science still isn't clear on how they use it to navigate.) For me it's just one of those things; one of those "irreducible complexity" things that makes me a theist rather than not.
Now, look, there is a lot of stuff about birds. There is their unique hollow bone structure, their unusual feather coverings, their fascinating "velcro" feather structures, their built-in practices, their unique compositions … their obvious design features. All of this and more combines to scream "Maker!" and not "Chance!" And we know Who that Maker is.
So recently I came across this article from Livescience.com. No, not a Creationist site. Quite the opposite. The article examines the question of how birds can navigate long distances. Darwin thought they memorized their twists and turns in one direction and simply reversed them to go the other way. Darwin was wrong. According to the article, about "50 animal species, ranging from birds and mammals to reptiles and insects, use Earth's magnetic field for navigation." Earth's magnetic field is so weak that scientists can't figure out how they can possibly do it. Apparently something in the birds' eyes produces a photochemical molecule that acts as a magnetic compass. Birds can "see" north or south. Now how cool is that? (Science still isn't clear on how they use it to navigate.) For me it's just one of those things; one of those "irreducible complexity" things that makes me a theist rather than not.
Now, look, there is a lot of stuff about birds. There is their unique hollow bone structure, their unusual feather coverings, their fascinating "velcro" feather structures, their built-in practices, their unique compositions … their obvious design features. All of this and more combines to scream "Maker!" and not "Chance!" And we know Who that Maker is.
Saturday, September 26, 2020
News Weakly - 9/26/20
Hypocrisy or Just irony?
Vicky Osterweil wrote a book, In Defense of Looting. Hailed as "A fresh argument for rioting and looting as our most powerful tools for dismantling white supremacy," the book serves as a an explanation as to why it's okay for people to riot and loot and pillage. On the cover page is a warning. "The scanning, uploading, and distribution of this book without permission is a theft of the author's intellectual property." It ends with "Thank you for your support of the author's rights." Nice double standard. "It's good and right to steal from and destroy others, but don't touch my stuff."
What's Right Is … Irrelevant
House Speaker Pelosi threatened to impeach Trump or Barr if the Senate sought to push through a Supreme Court nomination before Biden took office. It's the principle of the thing, you see. If we can't get what we want, we force it using any dirty trick at all. Oh, you may not recognize it; it's called "playing politics." And then there was Ruth Bader Ginsburg's last wish, "My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed." Trump called it a false story, but I'm wondering about how that was supposed to work. If Trump gets reelected, we should honor her wish and leave the seat vacant for four more years? I think it's clear the she was trying to restack the court along political lines, currently unnecessary given the fact too many "conservative judges" aren't very conservative anymore.
The New Justice System
We have to come up with some new phrases that accurately reflect "our truth." The original was "innocent until proven guilty" which was in distinction to most of the rest of the world's "guilty until proven innocent." Of course, that was then; this is now. So while we've headed more into the latter, "guilty until proven innocent," I think we've even moved beyond. There is "guilty even if proven innocent" (like the officers in the Rodney King case) and "guilty because we said so." It appears that for some the predisposition of "guilty beyond any exoneration" is applied to all white people and to all police officers of any color. All part of the new "Justice means exactly and only what we say." As demonstrated in Louisville.
Just Embrace Your New COVID Overlords
I'm still trying to figure this guy out. Anthony Fauci complained this week about the "divisive state" of U.S. society and how it is a roadblock to our pandemic response. What does he mean? He specified individuals who are "taking sides" on public health measures. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but if an individual listens to the government and agrees to wear a mask, abide by social distancing, etc., that person is by definition "taking sides." He or she is siding with the government. On the other hand, America is built on individualism and equality, so it would appear that Fauci is opposed to individualism and equality and would prefer sheep to individuals of equal value. "If we want America to be safe in this pandemic," he appears to say, "we will require unthinking, unreasoning, unquestioning followers … with me as the leader. What we need you to do is to exercise your individualism and equality by following what I say without having an opinion." (By the way, for an amusing little fact for those who "question the COVID reporting" -- you rotten devils, you -- on September 9 Arizona reported -2 deaths. Just saying.)
The Unavoidable Double Standard
In an acknowledged and blatant attempt to be obstructionist, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer invoked the "two-hour rule," a rule that says no Senate committee or subcommittee can meet after Senate has been in session for 2 hours or after 2PM. (Does that rule strike anyone else as completely arbitrary?) "The move," the report says, "was intended to retaliate against Republicans, who have agreed to vote on confirming President Trump's nominee to fill the Supreme Court vacancy." Schumer said, "We invoked the two-hour rule because we can't have business as usual when Republicans are destroying the institution." Schumer further obstructed proceedings on Tuesday by blocking a briefing by the official leading election security efforts after Schumer had long complained that they weren't having enough briefings about election security. But on Wednesday the Democrats revoked their own rule so they could hold their hearing on Trump's "missteps in responding to COVID-19." Simple obstructionism. And a pure double standard. "If the GOP does it, it's 'politics'. If we do it, it's 'principles'." Clearly, "We will not abide by our own rule if it doesn't suit us. We will have business as usual if the business is attempted to harm the president." Just like Pelosi above.
Not Sure What to Think
Wisconsin has declared a public health emergency due to a surge in COVID-19 among people ages 18-24. College age. They're going back to college. And, being the responsible young adults they are, they are partying and ignoring the rules. Now, the university I work for has mandated a 100% testing of all students, but I'm pretty sure that testing people who had no symptoms and hadn't been tested before wouldn't look like a surge, would it? And they tell us that it is the 55-and-older crowd that is in danger from COVID while the younger folks often go without symptoms. That can't be the case here, can it? I don't know. As we know, masks don't protect you from getting the virus, so everyone needs to wear it full time, including the governor apparently alone in the room in which he is making his announcement. You know, just in case a cameraman might have it and cough in his direction.
Cutting Edge
California Governor Newsom has decided that by 2035 you can no longer buy a gas-engine vehicle in California. The ramifications are staggering. The "gas station on every corner" industry will necessarily vanish along with all those jobs. I think it would be ironic if the major oil industry in California would continue to provide products for the rest of the country while the state sought to remove it from existence. It will be a major boost to the zero-emission car industry since it will force 36 million cars to be zero-emission. And currently California has neither the infrastructure or a plan to handle all those cars -- charging stations, hydrogen fuel, etc. No telling what the impact will be to tourism when tourists can't expect to drive into the state and get fuel. But, hey, it will certainly decrease California's emissions if a substantial number of Californians find they can no longer tolerate living there. Would that make Newsom's plan "cutting edge"? (Yes, that's a pun.) It does sound a lot like China's plans to be "carbon neutral" by 2060. The primary difference is Californians voted Newsom in.
Another Dissenter
Capitol Hill Baptist Church (Capitol Hill Baptist is Mark Dever's church.) in Washington, D.C. is suing the mayor. The mayor banned worship gatherings over 100 people "even if held outdoors and even if worshippers wear masks and practice appropriate social distancing." CHBC meets outdoors, practices social distancing, and requires masks. The church claims that gathering the entire congregation "is a religious conviction." Area businesses and organizations can meet without the same restrictions. (This is Washington; think "racial justice demonstrations," etc.) The suit is over the mayor's violation of the 1st and 5th Amendments and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Draw your own conclusions about the mayor's views since she appeared at a gathering of 10,000 protesters and praised them for showing up.
A Snapshot into Media Bias
The story in the Washington Post was about a Seattle police officer who rolled his bike over a protester's head and has been placed on leave. The story about the same mob from the Washington Times was about a Seattle police officer bashed in the head by a protester with a baseball bat. Looking over the headlines on a search page, which approach do you think got the most ink -- the battered officer (1) or the mean one (15)? The message is clear; it's okay to bash a police officer, but not to bounce a protester. (Note: I'd suggest neither is okay.)
Pointed Humor
Considering my "Unavoidable Double Standard" story above, perhaps the Babylon Bee aimed this headline at me: "Nation Surprised To Learn All Politicians Are Hypocrites." This one, on the other hand, is just funny: "Biden Forgets To Put On Clothes, Media Praises His Majestic Outfit."
Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
Vicky Osterweil wrote a book, In Defense of Looting. Hailed as "A fresh argument for rioting and looting as our most powerful tools for dismantling white supremacy," the book serves as a an explanation as to why it's okay for people to riot and loot and pillage. On the cover page is a warning. "The scanning, uploading, and distribution of this book without permission is a theft of the author's intellectual property." It ends with "Thank you for your support of the author's rights." Nice double standard. "It's good and right to steal from and destroy others, but don't touch my stuff."
What's Right Is … Irrelevant
House Speaker Pelosi threatened to impeach Trump or Barr if the Senate sought to push through a Supreme Court nomination before Biden took office. It's the principle of the thing, you see. If we can't get what we want, we force it using any dirty trick at all. Oh, you may not recognize it; it's called "playing politics." And then there was Ruth Bader Ginsburg's last wish, "My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed." Trump called it a false story, but I'm wondering about how that was supposed to work. If Trump gets reelected, we should honor her wish and leave the seat vacant for four more years? I think it's clear the she was trying to restack the court along political lines, currently unnecessary given the fact too many "conservative judges" aren't very conservative anymore.
The New Justice System
We have to come up with some new phrases that accurately reflect "our truth." The original was "innocent until proven guilty" which was in distinction to most of the rest of the world's "guilty until proven innocent." Of course, that was then; this is now. So while we've headed more into the latter, "guilty until proven innocent," I think we've even moved beyond. There is "guilty even if proven innocent" (like the officers in the Rodney King case) and "guilty because we said so." It appears that for some the predisposition of "guilty beyond any exoneration" is applied to all white people and to all police officers of any color. All part of the new "Justice means exactly and only what we say." As demonstrated in Louisville.
Just Embrace Your New COVID Overlords
I'm still trying to figure this guy out. Anthony Fauci complained this week about the "divisive state" of U.S. society and how it is a roadblock to our pandemic response. What does he mean? He specified individuals who are "taking sides" on public health measures. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but if an individual listens to the government and agrees to wear a mask, abide by social distancing, etc., that person is by definition "taking sides." He or she is siding with the government. On the other hand, America is built on individualism and equality, so it would appear that Fauci is opposed to individualism and equality and would prefer sheep to individuals of equal value. "If we want America to be safe in this pandemic," he appears to say, "we will require unthinking, unreasoning, unquestioning followers … with me as the leader. What we need you to do is to exercise your individualism and equality by following what I say without having an opinion." (By the way, for an amusing little fact for those who "question the COVID reporting" -- you rotten devils, you -- on September 9 Arizona reported -2 deaths. Just saying.)
The Unavoidable Double Standard
In an acknowledged and blatant attempt to be obstructionist, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer invoked the "two-hour rule," a rule that says no Senate committee or subcommittee can meet after Senate has been in session for 2 hours or after 2PM. (Does that rule strike anyone else as completely arbitrary?) "The move," the report says, "was intended to retaliate against Republicans, who have agreed to vote on confirming President Trump's nominee to fill the Supreme Court vacancy." Schumer said, "We invoked the two-hour rule because we can't have business as usual when Republicans are destroying the institution." Schumer further obstructed proceedings on Tuesday by blocking a briefing by the official leading election security efforts after Schumer had long complained that they weren't having enough briefings about election security. But on Wednesday the Democrats revoked their own rule so they could hold their hearing on Trump's "missteps in responding to COVID-19." Simple obstructionism. And a pure double standard. "If the GOP does it, it's 'politics'. If we do it, it's 'principles'." Clearly, "We will not abide by our own rule if it doesn't suit us. We will have business as usual if the business is attempted to harm the president." Just like Pelosi above.
Not Sure What to Think
Wisconsin has declared a public health emergency due to a surge in COVID-19 among people ages 18-24. College age. They're going back to college. And, being the responsible young adults they are, they are partying and ignoring the rules. Now, the university I work for has mandated a 100% testing of all students, but I'm pretty sure that testing people who had no symptoms and hadn't been tested before wouldn't look like a surge, would it? And they tell us that it is the 55-and-older crowd that is in danger from COVID while the younger folks often go without symptoms. That can't be the case here, can it? I don't know. As we know, masks don't protect you from getting the virus, so everyone needs to wear it full time, including the governor apparently alone in the room in which he is making his announcement. You know, just in case a cameraman might have it and cough in his direction.
Cutting Edge
California Governor Newsom has decided that by 2035 you can no longer buy a gas-engine vehicle in California. The ramifications are staggering. The "gas station on every corner" industry will necessarily vanish along with all those jobs. I think it would be ironic if the major oil industry in California would continue to provide products for the rest of the country while the state sought to remove it from existence. It will be a major boost to the zero-emission car industry since it will force 36 million cars to be zero-emission. And currently California has neither the infrastructure or a plan to handle all those cars -- charging stations, hydrogen fuel, etc. No telling what the impact will be to tourism when tourists can't expect to drive into the state and get fuel. But, hey, it will certainly decrease California's emissions if a substantial number of Californians find they can no longer tolerate living there. Would that make Newsom's plan "cutting edge"? (Yes, that's a pun.) It does sound a lot like China's plans to be "carbon neutral" by 2060. The primary difference is Californians voted Newsom in.
Another Dissenter
Capitol Hill Baptist Church (Capitol Hill Baptist is Mark Dever's church.) in Washington, D.C. is suing the mayor. The mayor banned worship gatherings over 100 people "even if held outdoors and even if worshippers wear masks and practice appropriate social distancing." CHBC meets outdoors, practices social distancing, and requires masks. The church claims that gathering the entire congregation "is a religious conviction." Area businesses and organizations can meet without the same restrictions. (This is Washington; think "racial justice demonstrations," etc.) The suit is over the mayor's violation of the 1st and 5th Amendments and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Draw your own conclusions about the mayor's views since she appeared at a gathering of 10,000 protesters and praised them for showing up.
A Snapshot into Media Bias
The story in the Washington Post was about a Seattle police officer who rolled his bike over a protester's head and has been placed on leave. The story about the same mob from the Washington Times was about a Seattle police officer bashed in the head by a protester with a baseball bat. Looking over the headlines on a search page, which approach do you think got the most ink -- the battered officer (1) or the mean one (15)? The message is clear; it's okay to bash a police officer, but not to bounce a protester. (Note: I'd suggest neither is okay.)
Pointed Humor
Considering my "Unavoidable Double Standard" story above, perhaps the Babylon Bee aimed this headline at me: "Nation Surprised To Learn All Politicians Are Hypocrites." This one, on the other hand, is just funny: "Biden Forgets To Put On Clothes, Media Praises His Majestic Outfit."
Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
Friday, September 25, 2020
What Does Assurance Look Like?
Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way that He opened for us through the curtain, that is, through His flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful. And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near. (Heb 10:19-25)Over and over in John's first epistle John repeats the phrase "By this we know." That is, assurance is possible. In this text from Hebrews, the author urges us to "drawn near with a true heart in full assurance of faith." On what is this assurance based? We have been "washed with pure water." What "pure water" is that? Well, that's a metaphor for what he already wrote. We have "confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way that He opened for us through the curtain, that is, through His flesh." The "pure water" is "the blood of Jesus" that cleanses us from sin. But you probably knew that.
Okay, so, what does that assurance look like? If we had that assurance, what would we do different?
Well, obviously, instead of retreating from God like the world does (Rom 8:7), we would draw near to God. That's what he said. But in what ways? The first thing listed is "Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering." Unwavering faith and hope. A confidence in what we believe. Not subject to constant doubts. Like James says, "The one who doubts is like the surf of the sea, driven and tossed by the wind. For that man ought not to expect that he will receive anything from the Lord." (James 1:6-7) Hold fast.
What else? Consider how to stir one another to love and good works. Now, some of us might be thinking, "Yeah, right. I'm having a hard enough time keeping myself stimulated to love and good works." But the one who comes with full assurance of faith will do both -- love and good works which includes stirring others to love and good works. It's a natural outcome of full assurance.
And, of course, if you aim to stir "one another" to anything, you have to be around "one another." That's just plain logic. So the third natural outcome of full assurance of faith is that we don't neglect to meet together. The author of Hebrews says it is "the habit of some" and not in a good way. It has been the case, of course, and increasing as time goes by that more and more forsake assembling together. Some do so out of "superiority." "I don't need a church to feel close to God." Because they fail to grasp the "one another" aspect of the faith. And because they don't appear to know that hating the brethren is a sign of not being one of them (1 John 3:15). Others do it out of discouragement. "There aren't any good churches out there." And I get that. I really do. Except it would seem to me that the "one anothers" would drive you to gather with believers and the degraded church, although degraded, is still a place where you can gather with one another to do what Christians are supposed to do. What is that? Instead of forsaking fellowship, we are to be "encouraging one another." And where would that be more necessary than a degraded church?
It is interesting to note, at the end of this passage, the driving force at the backside of all this. "The Day is drawing near." Christ is soon to return. Every day He doesn't we are a day closer to His return. And when He returns, we can no longer practice the bearing of one anothers burdens or restoring one another or encouraging one another or so many other "one anothers" we are designed to do in this life as followers of Christ.
Assurance of faith is possible and commendable. If it is real, it should produce results in us. We would draw near to God. We would seek to stimulate others to love and good deeds. We would make a point of gathering with believers. (As a side note, I have to say that, while a streaming service or an online Bible study or even masked and socially-distanced services are better than nothing at all, they are not "gathering together" in this sense. They are restricted gatherings. It's not spiritually healthy or reasonable to "gather together" remotely for an extended period of time and expect these "one anothers" to continue.) Remember, Jesus is closer to His return today than He has ever been. Those who are His true followers have a special emphasis on loving fellow believers. That can't be done effectively at a distance. We need to be encouraging one another. Time is short.
Thursday, September 24, 2020
Making the Illegal Retroactively Legal
We here in Arizona are voting (again) on the question of whether or not to legalize recreational marijuana. Of course, medical marijuana was the gateway they legalized a few years back. Now they're hoping we'll just take the short step to the dark side. "Come on in; the water's fine."
Now, I don't get it. Colorado reported increases in DWI, emergency room visits, etc. -- the kinds of things you'd expect if you legalize a drug that modifies your brain. We all know it's not safe to drive while intoxicated, only now it is less problematic because, after all, we'll have legalized the substance, right?
But the part I really don't get is this clause that says they will "expunge law enforcement and court records relating to arrests, charges, adjudications, convictions, and sentences" for this stuff. I guess that means that when you were arrested, tried, and found guilty you really weren't and it's our mistake, right? I guess it means they didn't really break the law back when it was illegal, right?
Well, obviously that's not true. It was illegal, people were caught, tried, and legally convicted, all within the law. But truth is not at issue here. And I don't mean "here in Arizona." I mean "here in our world today."
But, look, I don't understand. If we can legalize something and, in the process, legalize its past, why not do it? This would be a great way to decrease prison crowding. Legalize other drugs. Poof! The drug war is over. And, hey, we get the added bonus of all those tax funds going into our coffers. Win-win, right? Legalize murder. Why not? It is already legal to kill the most vulnerable. Why stop there? In fact, if we dropped all those nasty ol' laws, we could drop all those nasty ol' police and it would be a bit of a paradise, right? Well, no, of course not. But people aren't interested in truth or logic or rules. They're only interested in being allowed to do what they want. Oh, not you. No. You don't get to do what you want. You only get to do what they want. Come on; try to keep up. Here, have a puff on this and let's make what was illegal legal retroactively. Why not? We've made people who were respected dishonorable retroactively.
Now, I don't get it. Colorado reported increases in DWI, emergency room visits, etc. -- the kinds of things you'd expect if you legalize a drug that modifies your brain. We all know it's not safe to drive while intoxicated, only now it is less problematic because, after all, we'll have legalized the substance, right?
But the part I really don't get is this clause that says they will "expunge law enforcement and court records relating to arrests, charges, adjudications, convictions, and sentences" for this stuff. I guess that means that when you were arrested, tried, and found guilty you really weren't and it's our mistake, right? I guess it means they didn't really break the law back when it was illegal, right?
Well, obviously that's not true. It was illegal, people were caught, tried, and legally convicted, all within the law. But truth is not at issue here. And I don't mean "here in Arizona." I mean "here in our world today."
But, look, I don't understand. If we can legalize something and, in the process, legalize its past, why not do it? This would be a great way to decrease prison crowding. Legalize other drugs. Poof! The drug war is over. And, hey, we get the added bonus of all those tax funds going into our coffers. Win-win, right? Legalize murder. Why not? It is already legal to kill the most vulnerable. Why stop there? In fact, if we dropped all those nasty ol' laws, we could drop all those nasty ol' police and it would be a bit of a paradise, right? Well, no, of course not. But people aren't interested in truth or logic or rules. They're only interested in being allowed to do what they want. Oh, not you. No. You don't get to do what you want. You only get to do what they want. Come on; try to keep up. Here, have a puff on this and let's make what was illegal legal retroactively. Why not? We've made people who were respected dishonorable retroactively.
Wednesday, September 23, 2020
Clear as Mud
I've come across this verse many times.
Let me just say that that's the wrong answer. "My experience" doesn't trump God's Word. We do that often and it's not reasonable to conclude that God must be wrong because it's not our experience. Before you complain too much, though, it is still true that the "does not sin" version is not correct. Why? Because it violates God's Word. Ah, now, that is a good reason. You see, John wrote, "If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us." (1 John 1:8) So we must not say we don't ever sin. Instead, John wrote, "Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not appeared as yet what we will be. We know that when He appears, we will be like Him, because we will see Him just as He is." (1 John 3:2) So it isn't until He appears that we will be completely without sin and not before. So the text has to mean something else.
That's why newer translations take the verb tense into account. That verb for "sin" in Greek is a present active participle -- an ongoing present tense. It's not past tense or even present, but present active. So the NASB and the ESV and others translate it in a present active tense with "make a practice of." It's not referring to an event; it's referring to a practice, a habit, a continuous direction. The one who is born of God has the Spirit of God in them and cannot make peace with sin, make sin a friend, be perfectly fine with sinning, just go on sinning as though no war needs to be made against it and nothing will come of it if we do. It's not referring to the "If we confess our sins" (1 John 1:9) category of sinning, but the one who indulges and enjoys and even defends sin.
Well, that clears that up. Or, does it? Not in my experience. Despite the clarity of the text, I cannot tell you the number of genuine, Bible-believing Christians who tell me that verse doesn't mean what it says. That verse specifies "cannot" when speaking in terms of the one born of God maintaining a practice of sin. No ability to do so. Doesn't happen. That's the word. They still tell me "Well, that can't be right." Why? At this point it is no longer a question of Scripture aligning with Scripture. It is not a contradiction of God's Word. So why do they still reject it?
Some do so out of ignorance. They never saw it before. It's a bit of a shock if it means what it says. Others do it for the same reason I rejected earlier -- experience. "I've known lots of Christians" (and often we're speaking of family members or dear friends) "who have been saved and lived in a practice of sin." Experience.
So we're at a crossroad here. We can say that this text does not mean what it seems to clearly and blatantly say that one who is born of God doesn't maintain an uninterrupted habit of sin because they cannot, or we can say that the text is wrong or, at least, means something else completely different. Of course, if we say it means something different, we pretty much strip off any hope of understanding most of God's Word since it is so clear and unequivocal and we're rejecting it. But, you understand, there is something important at stake. On one hand, if this text means exactly what it says, then we all know people we considered Christians who ended up in a lifestyle of habitual and even defended sin and we would have to consider the possibility that they were not born of God. On the other hand, if this text is considered obscure and unclear, I don't see how any other texts would be clearer so the entire concept of having an understandable and reliable Bible is in peril.
In the case of the former, I would caution against concluding anything about their final condition based on this text. It isn't written for you to examine others. It's for you to examine yourself. "Am I just fine with sinning? Do I make a practice of sin? Is that me?" Self-examination. Further, we don't know the final outcome until it's final. We don't know their heart, either. They may appear to be fine with sin while they're actually struggling with it. So let's not point fingers. In the case of the latter, I think we should let God speak and make adjustments to our perceptions rather than adjusting what God has to say to suit our preconceptions.
What baffles me, I have to say, is the number of genuine, Bible-believing, even long-time Christians who appear to have never seen this verse or ever struggled with it, who happily or defiantly reject it out of hand when it arises. Why is that?
No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. (1 John 3:9)On one hand, it seems abundantly clear. On the other, it seems extremely vague. Part of the confusion arises in that first claim: "No one who is born of God practices sin." It's problematic because some translations say something like "The one born of God does not sin." "Well," we counter, "that can't be right." Why? "Because we all sin."
Let me just say that that's the wrong answer. "My experience" doesn't trump God's Word. We do that often and it's not reasonable to conclude that God must be wrong because it's not our experience. Before you complain too much, though, it is still true that the "does not sin" version is not correct. Why? Because it violates God's Word. Ah, now, that is a good reason. You see, John wrote, "If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us." (1 John 1:8) So we must not say we don't ever sin. Instead, John wrote, "Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not appeared as yet what we will be. We know that when He appears, we will be like Him, because we will see Him just as He is." (1 John 3:2) So it isn't until He appears that we will be completely without sin and not before. So the text has to mean something else.
That's why newer translations take the verb tense into account. That verb for "sin" in Greek is a present active participle -- an ongoing present tense. It's not past tense or even present, but present active. So the NASB and the ESV and others translate it in a present active tense with "make a practice of." It's not referring to an event; it's referring to a practice, a habit, a continuous direction. The one who is born of God has the Spirit of God in them and cannot make peace with sin, make sin a friend, be perfectly fine with sinning, just go on sinning as though no war needs to be made against it and nothing will come of it if we do. It's not referring to the "If we confess our sins" (1 John 1:9) category of sinning, but the one who indulges and enjoys and even defends sin.
Well, that clears that up. Or, does it? Not in my experience. Despite the clarity of the text, I cannot tell you the number of genuine, Bible-believing Christians who tell me that verse doesn't mean what it says. That verse specifies "cannot" when speaking in terms of the one born of God maintaining a practice of sin. No ability to do so. Doesn't happen. That's the word. They still tell me "Well, that can't be right." Why? At this point it is no longer a question of Scripture aligning with Scripture. It is not a contradiction of God's Word. So why do they still reject it?
Some do so out of ignorance. They never saw it before. It's a bit of a shock if it means what it says. Others do it for the same reason I rejected earlier -- experience. "I've known lots of Christians" (and often we're speaking of family members or dear friends) "who have been saved and lived in a practice of sin." Experience.
So we're at a crossroad here. We can say that this text does not mean what it seems to clearly and blatantly say that one who is born of God doesn't maintain an uninterrupted habit of sin because they cannot, or we can say that the text is wrong or, at least, means something else completely different. Of course, if we say it means something different, we pretty much strip off any hope of understanding most of God's Word since it is so clear and unequivocal and we're rejecting it. But, you understand, there is something important at stake. On one hand, if this text means exactly what it says, then we all know people we considered Christians who ended up in a lifestyle of habitual and even defended sin and we would have to consider the possibility that they were not born of God. On the other hand, if this text is considered obscure and unclear, I don't see how any other texts would be clearer so the entire concept of having an understandable and reliable Bible is in peril.
In the case of the former, I would caution against concluding anything about their final condition based on this text. It isn't written for you to examine others. It's for you to examine yourself. "Am I just fine with sinning? Do I make a practice of sin? Is that me?" Self-examination. Further, we don't know the final outcome until it's final. We don't know their heart, either. They may appear to be fine with sin while they're actually struggling with it. So let's not point fingers. In the case of the latter, I think we should let God speak and make adjustments to our perceptions rather than adjusting what God has to say to suit our preconceptions.
What baffles me, I have to say, is the number of genuine, Bible-believing, even long-time Christians who appear to have never seen this verse or ever struggled with it, who happily or defiantly reject it out of hand when it arises. Why is that?
Tuesday, September 22, 2020
Christian Cognitive Dissonance
First, "cognitive dissonance" is when a person holds two contradictory views, one in each hand, and embraces them both. The resulting mental collision is called cognitive dissonance. Moving on, then.
Perhaps you've heard the rumbles about Netflix's new offering, Cuties. If not, I'll tell you that it's a story of an 11-year-old girl that rebels against her family's conservative values and joins a "free-spirited dance crew." It first caught some heat from the public in its initial advertisement that depicted sexualized preteen girls in skimpy clothing and sexy poses. Netflix apologized … for the ad, not the movie. It hasn't gotten better. People have been dropping Netflix over it. Christians and non-Christians alike are screaming, "Pedophilia!" Someone said that if it had been shot with a camcorder instead of a film crew it would have resulted in jail time. It's not good … not good at all.
I'm heartened that non-Christian voices are complaining. Too many these days have surrendered too much morality on sexual matters, so it's nice to know they still have lines. And, of course, Christian voices should be complaining, too, as is right and moral. But sometimes it seems a bit hypocritical from Christians when we see church youth groups doing dance performances in church with their pretty young girls using the exact same clothing and sexualized movements. It almost looks like, "It's not okay for them!!! Oh, but we can do it in church. That's okay."
We (the modern church) are so far from biblical sexual morality these days that we can barely see it through the covers of our closed (physically or mentally) Bibles. Isn't it odd, then, that both the secular and the sacred world can still see that that is wrong while we're embracing so much other sexual sin (and more) as acceptable? Does this hint at an underlying objective morality?
Perhaps you've heard the rumbles about Netflix's new offering, Cuties. If not, I'll tell you that it's a story of an 11-year-old girl that rebels against her family's conservative values and joins a "free-spirited dance crew." It first caught some heat from the public in its initial advertisement that depicted sexualized preteen girls in skimpy clothing and sexy poses. Netflix apologized … for the ad, not the movie. It hasn't gotten better. People have been dropping Netflix over it. Christians and non-Christians alike are screaming, "Pedophilia!" Someone said that if it had been shot with a camcorder instead of a film crew it would have resulted in jail time. It's not good … not good at all.
I'm heartened that non-Christian voices are complaining. Too many these days have surrendered too much morality on sexual matters, so it's nice to know they still have lines. And, of course, Christian voices should be complaining, too, as is right and moral. But sometimes it seems a bit hypocritical from Christians when we see church youth groups doing dance performances in church with their pretty young girls using the exact same clothing and sexualized movements. It almost looks like, "It's not okay for them!!! Oh, but we can do it in church. That's okay."
We (the modern church) are so far from biblical sexual morality these days that we can barely see it through the covers of our closed (physically or mentally) Bibles. Isn't it odd, then, that both the secular and the sacred world can still see that that is wrong while we're embracing so much other sexual sin (and more) as acceptable? Does this hint at an underlying objective morality?
Monday, September 21, 2020
Prosperity Gospel: the Prequel
You've heard of the prosperity gospel. "God loves you and wants to make you healthy and wealthy." Hopefully you've rejected it. It's just not biblical, no matter how you try. So we wisely shake our heads and reject a patently worldly approach to God as our butler instead of Lord.
As we put that stuff aside and pat ourselves on the back for seeing through this nonsense, I wonder. Do we pick up our own version? It seems like a lot of us do. "What? Not us!" Well, let's see.
The most common, perhaps most distressing assault on our faith is the problem of evil. How can a good God allow bad things to happen? How can a loving God allow children to suffer? How can an omnipotent God fail to keep me employed or my spouse from leaving me or … a wide array of difficulties we face? Why do bad things happen to good people? Common question, but most of us have trouble giving a coherent answer because, let's face it, we all suffer from questions like these ourselves sometimes.
Perhaps you don't recognize it, but isn't that just like the prosperity gospel? The prosperity gospel assures us that God wants to make us healthy and wealthy and happy. We believe, as indicated by these questions, that it's God's job to make us healthy, happy, and probably even wealthy. When He fails, we're going to have a problem with Him because He owes us. Things are supposed to be better than this. We're children of God; we're not supposed to suffer like this. "I deserve better!"
There really is no difference. We just see it as different because we're not declaring it out loud, because we try not to sound like those other guys, because "It's my belief and I'd like to keep it, thank you very much." The problem is it's not true. God doesn't owe us something. We don't deserve better. God is not in the business of making us healthy, wealthy, or happy. Now, out of His sublime generosity He has made arrangements for us to have an abundant life by knowing Him, but for too many of us that's just not up to par.
Imagine that! A living, breathing, saving relationship with the Almighty when we were rebels and sinners and doomed for sure, and that's just not up to par. "A relationship with my Creator? Yeah, sure, but can't I have some extra money instead?" Pitiful … really pitiful.
As we put that stuff aside and pat ourselves on the back for seeing through this nonsense, I wonder. Do we pick up our own version? It seems like a lot of us do. "What? Not us!" Well, let's see.
The most common, perhaps most distressing assault on our faith is the problem of evil. How can a good God allow bad things to happen? How can a loving God allow children to suffer? How can an omnipotent God fail to keep me employed or my spouse from leaving me or … a wide array of difficulties we face? Why do bad things happen to good people? Common question, but most of us have trouble giving a coherent answer because, let's face it, we all suffer from questions like these ourselves sometimes.
Perhaps you don't recognize it, but isn't that just like the prosperity gospel? The prosperity gospel assures us that God wants to make us healthy and wealthy and happy. We believe, as indicated by these questions, that it's God's job to make us healthy, happy, and probably even wealthy. When He fails, we're going to have a problem with Him because He owes us. Things are supposed to be better than this. We're children of God; we're not supposed to suffer like this. "I deserve better!"
There really is no difference. We just see it as different because we're not declaring it out loud, because we try not to sound like those other guys, because "It's my belief and I'd like to keep it, thank you very much." The problem is it's not true. God doesn't owe us something. We don't deserve better. God is not in the business of making us healthy, wealthy, or happy. Now, out of His sublime generosity He has made arrangements for us to have an abundant life by knowing Him, but for too many of us that's just not up to par.
Imagine that! A living, breathing, saving relationship with the Almighty when we were rebels and sinners and doomed for sure, and that's just not up to par. "A relationship with my Creator? Yeah, sure, but can't I have some extra money instead?" Pitiful … really pitiful.
Sunday, September 20, 2020
Love the Brethren
Christians are held to a particular standard to which non-Christians are not. Jesus was clear. "By this all people will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another." (John 13:35) That is, "This is not what people who are not My disciples do; it is what My disciples are expected to do." What? "Love one another." Who? Love fellow believers. John picked up on this well and wrote, "By this we know love, that He laid down His life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers. But if anyone has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him?" (1 John 3:16-17) So we have a requirement to especially love fellow believers.
So ... do we? We call ourselves Christians -- followers of Christ. Do we love fellow believers "in deed and in truth" (1 John 3:18)? We are told to love God and we are called to love our neighbors, so this is a subset of those instructions, but they are a clear subset, coming from the lips of our Lord and Savior. And we aren't just to love as the old "as you love yourself" standard. We're supposed to love as Christ loved, laying down His life (John 13:34). Do we do that? Or are we in the standard world's version where we primarily love in word or, perhaps, if we're really into it, in emotions?
Here's a helpful self-check you might peruse. In your interactions with fellow believers do you use the tools the world uses? Do you address fellow believers the way the world addresses each other? Do you have the same practices in your interactions that the world has in theirs? When a fellow believer says something you disagree with, are you outraged? Do you take up the "cancel culture" methods? Or do you seek to restore them in a spirit of gentleness (Gal 6:1)? When you are wronged by another Christian, do you terminate that relationship or do you forgive (Matt 6:14-15)?
Our culture is currently on a hair trigger. We've embraced the "burn them all" mentality (hopefully not literally) if we are "triggered" (our word) and it just doesn't take much. Everything is an offense. Nothing is redeemable. You're either with us or you're to be spurned … or burned. Obviously this is hyperbole, but this is our current society. If we are believers -- if we are followers of Christ marked as such by love for fellow believers that is active and restorative and forgiving and not self-centered -- then the operations of our current culture must not be reflected in our interactions with each other. If hate marks our interactions, Scripture has bad things to say about us (1 John 2:9-11; 1 John 3:15, 17).
So ... do we? We call ourselves Christians -- followers of Christ. Do we love fellow believers "in deed and in truth" (1 John 3:18)? We are told to love God and we are called to love our neighbors, so this is a subset of those instructions, but they are a clear subset, coming from the lips of our Lord and Savior. And we aren't just to love as the old "as you love yourself" standard. We're supposed to love as Christ loved, laying down His life (John 13:34). Do we do that? Or are we in the standard world's version where we primarily love in word or, perhaps, if we're really into it, in emotions?
Here's a helpful self-check you might peruse. In your interactions with fellow believers do you use the tools the world uses? Do you address fellow believers the way the world addresses each other? Do you have the same practices in your interactions that the world has in theirs? When a fellow believer says something you disagree with, are you outraged? Do you take up the "cancel culture" methods? Or do you seek to restore them in a spirit of gentleness (Gal 6:1)? When you are wronged by another Christian, do you terminate that relationship or do you forgive (Matt 6:14-15)?
Our culture is currently on a hair trigger. We've embraced the "burn them all" mentality (hopefully not literally) if we are "triggered" (our word) and it just doesn't take much. Everything is an offense. Nothing is redeemable. You're either with us or you're to be spurned … or burned. Obviously this is hyperbole, but this is our current society. If we are believers -- if we are followers of Christ marked as such by love for fellow believers that is active and restorative and forgiving and not self-centered -- then the operations of our current culture must not be reflected in our interactions with each other. If hate marks our interactions, Scripture has bad things to say about us (1 John 2:9-11; 1 John 3:15, 17).
Saturday, September 19, 2020
News Weakly - 9/19/20*
Because We All Know It
The story reads, "Brazilian surfer Maya Gabeira is officially the Guinness World Record holder for the largest wave surfed – unlimited, for a female." Congratulations, Maya. But, of course, the modifier, "for a female," is meaningless, right? I mean, we all know that gender is a social construct. We all know that there is no difference, for instance, between the top male contender in a sport and the top female contender, right? We all know that transgender is real because, at its core, there is no difference between male and female ... right? So why do we keep separate records for men and women?
And Why Not?
People were castigated, censured, and even fired for expressing "Blue lives matter." So why would we not expect that when two Los Angeles County sheriff officers are ambushed and shot that protesters would show up at the hospital shouting, "We hope they die"? Interestingly, the claim is "When black lives don't matter, no lives matter." I guess that only applies to black lives? They don't realize that "Blue lives don't matter" will logically result in "Neither does yours."
Land of the Free
Some of us -- generally the more traditional Americans, I suspect -- complain about the COVID restrictions in a supposedly "free country." I say, "Relax, folks. It could be worse." Like in Indonesia where 8 men who opposed wearing masks were forced to dig graves for COVID-19 victims. Like in the UK with a new COVID restriction they call "the rule of six." Home Secretary Priti Patel explained that if two families of 4 stopped to chat on the way to the park, they would be in violation of the rule, she would report them to the police, and they could face fines up to £3,200 ($4,100). Oh, yeah. That's why we cut ourselves loose from Great Britain. Of course, to be fair, Connecticut will be fining folks who don't wear masks, folks who organize large gatherings, and folks who attend them. Maybe "Land of the free" isn't a thing anymore.
Scientific Evidence
For the first time in 175 years Scientific American has endorsed a presidential candidate, proving scientifically that modern science is less about facts and more about politics.
Trigger Point
J.K. Rowling is in trouble … again. She has written a fictional book about a private investigator looking into the case of a serial killer who disguises himself as a woman. "Transphobia!" they cry. "She's a hater." Now, as it happens, I just watched an old episode of Murder She Wrote where the killer disguised herself as a man to throw off suspicions and no one complained about that one. The key phrase being "disguised" as opposed to "became" or "believed herself to be" (or "himself"). Which, by the way, is precisely the phrase used in the linked story: "... the murderer disguises himself as a woman in order to abduct his victim." Are we supposed to understand that "transgender" and "cross-dresser" are synonymous? Am I supposed to conclude that cross-dressing is actually a disguise -- an "attempt to conceal one's identity"? Or should I just understand that people are way too sensitive, assuming up front "transphobia" without proof?
Intentionally Obtuse or Just Ignorant?
The media is keen to report that "A pastor in Idaho who called himself a 'no-masker' during a service and repeatedly questioned the veracity of coronavirus case reporting is in the ICU after contracting Covid-19." I'm not sure if this is just stupidity or ignorance on the part of the media or simply being inflammatory. For the record, according to the CDC, "The mask is meant to protect other people in case you are infected." So maybe the media folk are the folks you see alone in cars wearing masks? This pastor didn't get COVID because he didn't wear a mask. He didn't get COVID because he doubted the accuracy of reporting. Pardon me, mass media, but your bias is showing.
Don't Follow Me
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told the Catholic archbishop of San Francisco to stop criticizing the COVID-related restrictions. He should "follow science" instead of his faith. Of course, Pelosi herself ignores science in, say, the murder of the unborn or the fact that people are born male or female and not "however I feel." That's science. So, I take her to mean, "Don't follow me. I only follow science when it agrees with me. And in this case, science says you can't have your First Amendment rights." Except, of course, Pelosi herself violated the rules when she got her hair done and even attended an in-person service to receive communion. "So, do as I say, not as I do."
And now for some real fake news
With what appears to be a mass exodus from the leftist state of California, this headline was humorous: "D'oh! Last Guy Left In California Gets Stuck Paying The $140 Billion Tax Bill." This one was a little appalling: "State That Just Voted To Reduce Penalties For Pedophiles Not Sure Why God Keeps Lighting Them On Fire." And this one was funny as long as you've read George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four and remember the mind-controlling "two minutes hate," especially the scene from the movie version (from which the picture is taken): "DNC replaces 2020 convention with 5 minutes of loud, sustained yelling at images of Trump."
Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
The story reads, "Brazilian surfer Maya Gabeira is officially the Guinness World Record holder for the largest wave surfed – unlimited, for a female." Congratulations, Maya. But, of course, the modifier, "for a female," is meaningless, right? I mean, we all know that gender is a social construct. We all know that there is no difference, for instance, between the top male contender in a sport and the top female contender, right? We all know that transgender is real because, at its core, there is no difference between male and female ... right? So why do we keep separate records for men and women?
And Why Not?
People were castigated, censured, and even fired for expressing "Blue lives matter." So why would we not expect that when two Los Angeles County sheriff officers are ambushed and shot that protesters would show up at the hospital shouting, "We hope they die"? Interestingly, the claim is "When black lives don't matter, no lives matter." I guess that only applies to black lives? They don't realize that "Blue lives don't matter" will logically result in "Neither does yours."
Land of the Free
Some of us -- generally the more traditional Americans, I suspect -- complain about the COVID restrictions in a supposedly "free country." I say, "Relax, folks. It could be worse." Like in Indonesia where 8 men who opposed wearing masks were forced to dig graves for COVID-19 victims. Like in the UK with a new COVID restriction they call "the rule of six." Home Secretary Priti Patel explained that if two families of 4 stopped to chat on the way to the park, they would be in violation of the rule, she would report them to the police, and they could face fines up to £3,200 ($4,100). Oh, yeah. That's why we cut ourselves loose from Great Britain. Of course, to be fair, Connecticut will be fining folks who don't wear masks, folks who organize large gatherings, and folks who attend them. Maybe "Land of the free" isn't a thing anymore.
Scientific Evidence
For the first time in 175 years Scientific American has endorsed a presidential candidate, proving scientifically that modern science is less about facts and more about politics.
Trigger Point
J.K. Rowling is in trouble … again. She has written a fictional book about a private investigator looking into the case of a serial killer who disguises himself as a woman. "Transphobia!" they cry. "She's a hater." Now, as it happens, I just watched an old episode of Murder She Wrote where the killer disguised herself as a man to throw off suspicions and no one complained about that one. The key phrase being "disguised" as opposed to "became" or "believed herself to be" (or "himself"). Which, by the way, is precisely the phrase used in the linked story: "... the murderer disguises himself as a woman in order to abduct his victim." Are we supposed to understand that "transgender" and "cross-dresser" are synonymous? Am I supposed to conclude that cross-dressing is actually a disguise -- an "attempt to conceal one's identity"? Or should I just understand that people are way too sensitive, assuming up front "transphobia" without proof?
Intentionally Obtuse or Just Ignorant?
The media is keen to report that "A pastor in Idaho who called himself a 'no-masker' during a service and repeatedly questioned the veracity of coronavirus case reporting is in the ICU after contracting Covid-19." I'm not sure if this is just stupidity or ignorance on the part of the media or simply being inflammatory. For the record, according to the CDC, "The mask is meant to protect other people in case you are infected." So maybe the media folk are the folks you see alone in cars wearing masks? This pastor didn't get COVID because he didn't wear a mask. He didn't get COVID because he doubted the accuracy of reporting. Pardon me, mass media, but your bias is showing.
Don't Follow Me
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told the Catholic archbishop of San Francisco to stop criticizing the COVID-related restrictions. He should "follow science" instead of his faith. Of course, Pelosi herself ignores science in, say, the murder of the unborn or the fact that people are born male or female and not "however I feel." That's science. So, I take her to mean, "Don't follow me. I only follow science when it agrees with me. And in this case, science says you can't have your First Amendment rights." Except, of course, Pelosi herself violated the rules when she got her hair done and even attended an in-person service to receive communion. "So, do as I say, not as I do."
And now for some real fake news
With what appears to be a mass exodus from the leftist state of California, this headline was humorous: "D'oh! Last Guy Left In California Gets Stuck Paying The $140 Billion Tax Bill." This one was a little appalling: "State That Just Voted To Reduce Penalties For Pedophiles Not Sure Why God Keeps Lighting Them On Fire." And this one was funny as long as you've read George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four and remember the mind-controlling "two minutes hate," especially the scene from the movie version (from which the picture is taken): "DNC replaces 2020 convention with 5 minutes of loud, sustained yelling at images of Trump."
Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
Friday, September 18, 2020
Ditch the Dictionary
When Webster compiled his dictionary, it was considered prescriptive. It was considered ... get this ... defining. "This word means" meant "This is how you're supposed to mean it." Of course, not in our day. Dictionaries are no longer definitive; they're descriptive. "What do people mean by that word? Write that down." The epitome of this kind of dictionary is the Urban Dictionary. No, don't look it up. It's entirely user-driven, primarily about slang terms, and very often offensive. Because "That's how I use it" becomes the definition rather than a definition that tells you what the word means.
So, here we are. Post-modernism gave us the Humpty-Dumpty world where words mean exactly what you choose them to mean. In a glaring example in recent years, a Christian writer argued that our relationship with God should be sexual. When taken to task by other Christians, she answered, "Even Jonathan Edwards believed this. He often wrote about intercourse with God." Sigh. Not what he meant. So, today we've shortened "sexual intercourse" (which has its own specific meaning) to "intercourse" (originally "connection," "interaction," or "exchange") and eliminated every other normal definition of the word. No, dear lady. Not the same thing. But that's how it works. Take a term, redefine it at will, then reinsert it where it used to be and see what fun/damage you can cause.
So we take "love," respin it to "warm feelings" and, frankly "sex," and reapply it to "love God" and "love your neighbor" and now it's something different. We grab "justice," add our nuanced "as we see it," and hand it back ... to God and everyone else. "No justice, no peace" changes entirely to "If you don't do what I want, expect war." That includes God.
So, we become our own dictionaries -- each an individual one -- where we define words as we see fit. Maybe there is some agreement, maybe there isn't, but we rarely even think about it. "I used the word and you used the word, so clearly we agree it means what I meant." A modern Babel. We become the standard for our own language and then require everyone else to submit to it. Like when we eliminate God as the standard, substitute our own, and then require everyone else to submit to it. Not effective. Not even helpful.
So, here we are. Post-modernism gave us the Humpty-Dumpty world where words mean exactly what you choose them to mean. In a glaring example in recent years, a Christian writer argued that our relationship with God should be sexual. When taken to task by other Christians, she answered, "Even Jonathan Edwards believed this. He often wrote about intercourse with God." Sigh. Not what he meant. So, today we've shortened "sexual intercourse" (which has its own specific meaning) to "intercourse" (originally "connection," "interaction," or "exchange") and eliminated every other normal definition of the word. No, dear lady. Not the same thing. But that's how it works. Take a term, redefine it at will, then reinsert it where it used to be and see what fun/damage you can cause.
So we take "love," respin it to "warm feelings" and, frankly "sex," and reapply it to "love God" and "love your neighbor" and now it's something different. We grab "justice," add our nuanced "as we see it," and hand it back ... to God and everyone else. "No justice, no peace" changes entirely to "If you don't do what I want, expect war." That includes God.
So, we become our own dictionaries -- each an individual one -- where we define words as we see fit. Maybe there is some agreement, maybe there isn't, but we rarely even think about it. "I used the word and you used the word, so clearly we agree it means what I meant." A modern Babel. We become the standard for our own language and then require everyone else to submit to it. Like when we eliminate God as the standard, substitute our own, and then require everyone else to submit to it. Not effective. Not even helpful.
Thursday, September 17, 2020
Blessed Assurance
The epistle of 1 John was written primarily on the topic of assurance.
So what is John talking about when he speaks of loving the brothers? First, we need to be clear (in this world of gender confusion) that the text is not referring to brothers -- those male family members. This reference is to fellow believers. In fact, John draws this from the Lord's teaching to His disciples, "By this all people will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another." (John 13:35) So these "brothers" are the family of believers. Second, this "love" is also not the standard love our world (and most Christians) think. It's not a "warm affection." Again, Jesus's instruction to His disciples was, "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another." (John 13:34) That "love one another" is not a new commandment, but "as I have loved you" is. This is the love John has in mind. In fact, he specifies this. "By this we know love, that He laid down His life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers." (1 John 3:16) The love we're supposed to know -- the love we're supposed to be practicing toward fellow believers -- is the love that lays down our lives in favor of our fellow believers ... as Christ did.
So, what does that look like? John doesn't leave it to our imagination. This love, this specific, assurance-level love, this love-like-Christ-loved love is "in deed and in truth" and not merely "in word or talk" (1 John 3:18). This love sees a brother (fellow believer, remember) in need and contributes "the world's goods" -- what we have on hand to meet the need (1 John 3:17). It is indeed laying down your life for others. This love is an action word and functions in truth with a sense of sacrifice as a good thing. At this point, "warm affection" comes across as fairly weak, doesn't it?
There is one more aspect to this. John says that our prayers are answered if "we keep His commandments and do what pleases Him." (1 John 3:22) This is our full assurance. But what does he mean by "keep His commandments"? Not "be good." John has two specific commands in mind -- "believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another." (1 John 3:23) That isn't merely "believe in Jesus," but an active dedication to His character and His authority ("name"). And that is something outside of the capability of those who are not born of God. That is a product of abiding in Him and Him in us by the Spirit (1 John 3:24).
Assurance of your salvation is indeed possible. Even advisable. But not some cheap assurance. "I said the Sinner's Prayer. I'm in!" This one, as it turns out, requires the impossible. At least, the humanly impossible. If you find that you are living a life dedicated to the character and authority of Christ and loving your fellow believers in deed and truth by sacrificially and intentionally seeing and meeting their needs, you can be confident that you are in Him, not because you're doing okay, but because you're doing what can't be done humanly. That's much more sure assurance.
I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life. (1 John 5:13)So it makes sense when John writes things like "We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brothers. Whoever does not love abides in death." (1 John 3:14) However, one must ask, "What does he mean by 'love the brothers'?" because it looks pretty simplified. I mean, who doesn't love love their brothers? So we should probably examine that just a little bit closer. I mean, assurance is great, but you want it to be accurate, right? You don't want false assurance.
So what is John talking about when he speaks of loving the brothers? First, we need to be clear (in this world of gender confusion) that the text is not referring to brothers -- those male family members. This reference is to fellow believers. In fact, John draws this from the Lord's teaching to His disciples, "By this all people will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another." (John 13:35) So these "brothers" are the family of believers. Second, this "love" is also not the standard love our world (and most Christians) think. It's not a "warm affection." Again, Jesus's instruction to His disciples was, "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another." (John 13:34) That "love one another" is not a new commandment, but "as I have loved you" is. This is the love John has in mind. In fact, he specifies this. "By this we know love, that He laid down His life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers." (1 John 3:16) The love we're supposed to know -- the love we're supposed to be practicing toward fellow believers -- is the love that lays down our lives in favor of our fellow believers ... as Christ did.
So, what does that look like? John doesn't leave it to our imagination. This love, this specific, assurance-level love, this love-like-Christ-loved love is "in deed and in truth" and not merely "in word or talk" (1 John 3:18). This love sees a brother (fellow believer, remember) in need and contributes "the world's goods" -- what we have on hand to meet the need (1 John 3:17). It is indeed laying down your life for others. This love is an action word and functions in truth with a sense of sacrifice as a good thing. At this point, "warm affection" comes across as fairly weak, doesn't it?
There is one more aspect to this. John says that our prayers are answered if "we keep His commandments and do what pleases Him." (1 John 3:22) This is our full assurance. But what does he mean by "keep His commandments"? Not "be good." John has two specific commands in mind -- "believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another." (1 John 3:23) That isn't merely "believe in Jesus," but an active dedication to His character and His authority ("name"). And that is something outside of the capability of those who are not born of God. That is a product of abiding in Him and Him in us by the Spirit (1 John 3:24).
Assurance of your salvation is indeed possible. Even advisable. But not some cheap assurance. "I said the Sinner's Prayer. I'm in!" This one, as it turns out, requires the impossible. At least, the humanly impossible. If you find that you are living a life dedicated to the character and authority of Christ and loving your fellow believers in deed and truth by sacrificially and intentionally seeing and meeting their needs, you can be confident that you are in Him, not because you're doing okay, but because you're doing what can't be done humanly. That's much more sure assurance.
Wednesday, September 16, 2020
When Good Seems Bad
In John's first epistle he writes, "Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world." (1 John 2:15-16) "All that is in the world," he says, "is not from the Father."
Oddly enough, the instruction, "Do not love the world nor the things in the world" seem to many believers to be wrong. "We're supposed to love the world," they assure us. This text, then, illustrates the problem: sometimes what is good appears to some (even believers) to be bad.
I'm sure you can come up with your own examples, but let me offer a few. Scripture says that wives must submit to their husbands and Christians assure us that's bad and outdated. Scripture instructs that women aren't supposed to teach or rule over men in the church and Christians are outraged at such a suggestion. The Bible repeatedly refers to marriage as between a man and a woman and Christians will classify that as "hate." Keep going. I'm sure you see what I'm talking about.
So, if we start with "God is good ... all the time" (as we are fond of saying) and "All Scripture is breathed out by God" (2 Tim 3:16), we would likely conclude that God and His Word are good even if our world (remember what John said about the world) is opposed to it. And if we conclude that this principle is true, it becomes pretty easy to figure out what to do when we find ourselves saying, "No, the Bible is wrong on this point." What to do? Change our thinking, not God's. Realize that we are loving the world over the Father -- embracing what is in the world which is not from the Father. We need to change how we think because our goal is to love the Father, not that which is opposed to the Father.
We should expect that what God calls good will not always coincide with what our world calls good and vice versa. The decision at that point is not "Which is good?" but "Which will I love -- the world or the Father?" It's not always an easy choice, but it is generally a clear one. Keep in mind, though, that according to John your general decision on that point will tell you whether you're really a child of God or not (1 John 2:15, 29).
Oddly enough, the instruction, "Do not love the world nor the things in the world" seem to many believers to be wrong. "We're supposed to love the world," they assure us. This text, then, illustrates the problem: sometimes what is good appears to some (even believers) to be bad.
I'm sure you can come up with your own examples, but let me offer a few. Scripture says that wives must submit to their husbands and Christians assure us that's bad and outdated. Scripture instructs that women aren't supposed to teach or rule over men in the church and Christians are outraged at such a suggestion. The Bible repeatedly refers to marriage as between a man and a woman and Christians will classify that as "hate." Keep going. I'm sure you see what I'm talking about.
So, if we start with "God is good ... all the time" (as we are fond of saying) and "All Scripture is breathed out by God" (2 Tim 3:16), we would likely conclude that God and His Word are good even if our world (remember what John said about the world) is opposed to it. And if we conclude that this principle is true, it becomes pretty easy to figure out what to do when we find ourselves saying, "No, the Bible is wrong on this point." What to do? Change our thinking, not God's. Realize that we are loving the world over the Father -- embracing what is in the world which is not from the Father. We need to change how we think because our goal is to love the Father, not that which is opposed to the Father.
We should expect that what God calls good will not always coincide with what our world calls good and vice versa. The decision at that point is not "Which is good?" but "Which will I love -- the world or the Father?" It's not always an easy choice, but it is generally a clear one. Keep in mind, though, that according to John your general decision on that point will tell you whether you're really a child of God or not (1 John 2:15, 29).
Tuesday, September 15, 2020
Female Leadership
In the last presidential voting cycle we had a female candidate from the Democrats that, among other things, brought out the Christians who argued that women weren't supposed to be in leadership. I questioned that, but it's not a question today; there are no female candidates for president this time.
Still, it begs the question. What about female leadership? Well, my argument then was the same as now. Biblically Scripture speaks in terms of female-led marriages and female-led churches, not females in society. In fact, even in Scripture there were occasional females in charge of governmental functions. (It may not be condoned or "the best option," but neither is it banned.) So I'm not at all convinced about female leadership in human government.
What I am convinced of is the church question (1 Tim 2:12-14). And then there is marriage. Paul declared clearly "I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God." (1 Cor 11:3) No ambiguity. Wives are commanded to submit to husbands (Eph 5:22-24; 1 Peter 5:1-2). No ambiguity. And, equally, the desire of wives to rule their husbands is expected (Gen 3:16). So it is a command and a problem. Husbands are commanded to love their wives (Eph 5:25-27) and understand and honor them (1 Peter 3:7). All quite clear.
So, why is it not so? I know of very few Christian married couples who live that way. I know of very few wives who intentionally submit to their husbands as to the Lord. Oh, some submit, but most of those do so out of fear or a general, submissive demeanor and not out of obedience to Christ. Others submit out of abuse -- husbands that force it. Removing from consideration the wives who lead and the wives who submit out of fear or because they're just timid in character, I find very few who submit out of obedience. Why is that? When it's so clear, why is it so absent?
It would be a mistake to think I'm pointing fingers at Christian women (alone). I can equally state that the other side is equally true. Very few marriages are husband-led. In most cases the husbands just submit. Others are on the other end of the spectrum -- overbearing, dominating, cruel, abusive. That's not part of the calling for Christian husbands. As hard as it is to find a wife who submits to her husband as to the Christ, it is just as difficult to find a husband who loves his wife as Christ loved the church, a husband who lives with his wife in an understanding way, who honors her as a fellow heir. Husbands aren't doing any better than wives at following their instructions from God. And our failure in that regard only encourages our wives to fail, too.
Now, it is a given. We all sin. We all stumble in many ways (James 3:2). In fact, if we deny it, "we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." (1 John 1:8) It's not the commission of the sin that I'm concerned about. It's the embrace of it. It's the wives that defy God to tell them to submit and the husbands who refuse to love sacrificially. It's those who claim, "No, it's not good to do what Scripture commands here." This is the real problem.
I don't want to be "that guy." I don't want to deny Christ or shortchange my wife by failing to love her as I'm commanded, by failing to understand her and honor her as I've been instructed. I don't want to be overbearing or dominating ("Love her as Christ loved the church" doesn't fit either characteristic.), but neither do I want to be submissive to her in a way that causes her to stumble. I don't think these commands are incorrect or ambiguous, but neither do I think they're easy. It should probably be higher on my list of priorities than it is now. You can examine the question for yourself -- husband or wife. Are you the spouse God commands?
Still, it begs the question. What about female leadership? Well, my argument then was the same as now. Biblically Scripture speaks in terms of female-led marriages and female-led churches, not females in society. In fact, even in Scripture there were occasional females in charge of governmental functions. (It may not be condoned or "the best option," but neither is it banned.) So I'm not at all convinced about female leadership in human government.
What I am convinced of is the church question (1 Tim 2:12-14). And then there is marriage. Paul declared clearly "I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God." (1 Cor 11:3) No ambiguity. Wives are commanded to submit to husbands (Eph 5:22-24; 1 Peter 5:1-2). No ambiguity. And, equally, the desire of wives to rule their husbands is expected (Gen 3:16). So it is a command and a problem. Husbands are commanded to love their wives (Eph 5:25-27) and understand and honor them (1 Peter 3:7). All quite clear.
So, why is it not so? I know of very few Christian married couples who live that way. I know of very few wives who intentionally submit to their husbands as to the Lord. Oh, some submit, but most of those do so out of fear or a general, submissive demeanor and not out of obedience to Christ. Others submit out of abuse -- husbands that force it. Removing from consideration the wives who lead and the wives who submit out of fear or because they're just timid in character, I find very few who submit out of obedience. Why is that? When it's so clear, why is it so absent?
It would be a mistake to think I'm pointing fingers at Christian women (alone). I can equally state that the other side is equally true. Very few marriages are husband-led. In most cases the husbands just submit. Others are on the other end of the spectrum -- overbearing, dominating, cruel, abusive. That's not part of the calling for Christian husbands. As hard as it is to find a wife who submits to her husband as to the Christ, it is just as difficult to find a husband who loves his wife as Christ loved the church, a husband who lives with his wife in an understanding way, who honors her as a fellow heir. Husbands aren't doing any better than wives at following their instructions from God. And our failure in that regard only encourages our wives to fail, too.
Now, it is a given. We all sin. We all stumble in many ways (James 3:2). In fact, if we deny it, "we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." (1 John 1:8) It's not the commission of the sin that I'm concerned about. It's the embrace of it. It's the wives that defy God to tell them to submit and the husbands who refuse to love sacrificially. It's those who claim, "No, it's not good to do what Scripture commands here." This is the real problem.
I don't want to be "that guy." I don't want to deny Christ or shortchange my wife by failing to love her as I'm commanded, by failing to understand her and honor her as I've been instructed. I don't want to be overbearing or dominating ("Love her as Christ loved the church" doesn't fit either characteristic.), but neither do I want to be submissive to her in a way that causes her to stumble. I don't think these commands are incorrect or ambiguous, but neither do I think they're easy. It should probably be higher on my list of priorities than it is now. You can examine the question for yourself -- husband or wife. Are you the spouse God commands?
Monday, September 14, 2020
A New Normal
In 2008 Californians voted a second time to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. The first time they merely voted it as a law. The court struck it down and mandated "gay marriage." So Californians took the next step and made it part of the state constitution. The court struck it down again afterwards, but, right or wrong, in less than 10 years California and the nation went from a clear understanding of marriage in the longstanding, traditional sense (specifically what the court said) to considering that view as "hate." What happened? Well, some determined people worked really hard to normalize "gay marriage." Put it out there. Talk about it in large, loud forums. Take it to courts. Dress it up to look pretty. Make it a matter of "rights" and "identity" and "equality." Why shouldn't we be allowed to marry the one we love?" (Hint: No one has that right and we all know it. In fact, they know it. To this day they still oppose incest and polygamy, for instance. "Oh, no, you can't marry more than one just because you love them.") It's what I call selective normal. And in an incredibly short time it became "normal" and opposition to it became "hate."
Of course, that kind of sea change cannot pass quietly. That size of a change has to bring other stuff with it. So, for instance, while the right complains that the left is trying to "normalize pedophilia" (as an example) and the left vehemently denies it, it only stands to reason that this change would be part of that change. The argument from the LGBT is that it is a "sexual orientation" and this is precisely the language from the pedophile side. The argument from the LGBT is that "we love each other" and the pedophile side argues the same. The LGBT moved from "outside" to "normal" by altering the language -- "gay," "sexual orientation," identity, etc. -- and the pedophile side is going with "minor-attracted person" and "man-boy love" kind of language. In a TEDx talk the speaker described pedophilia as a condition that you're born with. What can you do? The LGBT moved their sexual bent from a crime to a disorder to normal. Pedophiles are attempting the same maneuver.
Deny it all they want; the news appears to say that, yes, there is a move to normalize pedophilia. And why wouldn't there be? It's the same language, the same thinking, the same arguments as we've swallowed from others. In this age of COVID coupled with BLM, many are starting to wonder about the "new normal." Expect this. It doesn't yet have the ground-swell that LGBT does, but the sheer logic of it, given what we bought from them, is unavoidable. At some point the LGBT "alphabet soup" will need to include a P because it is riding on their arguments and we'll consider it "normal," taking clear perversion to a new level. Of course, pedophilia won't be the only one.
Of course, that kind of sea change cannot pass quietly. That size of a change has to bring other stuff with it. So, for instance, while the right complains that the left is trying to "normalize pedophilia" (as an example) and the left vehemently denies it, it only stands to reason that this change would be part of that change. The argument from the LGBT is that it is a "sexual orientation" and this is precisely the language from the pedophile side. The argument from the LGBT is that "we love each other" and the pedophile side argues the same. The LGBT moved from "outside" to "normal" by altering the language -- "gay," "sexual orientation," identity, etc. -- and the pedophile side is going with "minor-attracted person" and "man-boy love" kind of language. In a TEDx talk the speaker described pedophilia as a condition that you're born with. What can you do? The LGBT moved their sexual bent from a crime to a disorder to normal. Pedophiles are attempting the same maneuver.
Deny it all they want; the news appears to say that, yes, there is a move to normalize pedophilia. And why wouldn't there be? It's the same language, the same thinking, the same arguments as we've swallowed from others. In this age of COVID coupled with BLM, many are starting to wonder about the "new normal." Expect this. It doesn't yet have the ground-swell that LGBT does, but the sheer logic of it, given what we bought from them, is unavoidable. At some point the LGBT "alphabet soup" will need to include a P because it is riding on their arguments and we'll consider it "normal," taking clear perversion to a new level. Of course, pedophilia won't be the only one.
Sunday, September 13, 2020
He Is For Us
It's from a song, but it expresses a very common theme. "God loves you just as you are." "He's not against you; He's for you." While there is a lot of truth in this, there is also an element that is easily confused and, therefore, confusing.
First, is it true? Does God love you "just as you are"? We know that John 3:16 speaks of God loving the world, so it must be true, right? Except for the fact that the text doesn't speak of God loving the world "just as it is." The word, "so," there is a modifier. The intent is "in this way." "God loves the world in this way" as opposed to "generally and without reservation or condition." What caveat does Jesus put on it? God sent His Son. The condition? "Whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life." It is conditional. God's special love is applied to those out of the world that believe. God's general love is applied to everyone in that the offer is to all.
So the texts are there, but there is potential confusion. The confusion doesn't rise from the texts, but from the perceptions. Coming from today's perceptions, to "love you just as you are" means "Don't ever change." Couple "loves you just as you are" with "He's not against you" and anyone from our time would conclude that you don't ever need to change at all. Any sense you have of inadequacy or shame is a false one because He loves you just as you are and He's for you. Scripture, on the other hand, is abundantly clear that change is necessary and certain for the believer.
Here's where I have my biggest concern. The glorious truth of Scripture is that, for believers, "God is for us." (Rom 8:31) (That "us" is not "everyone," but God's people.) But what does it mean to be "for us"? For that matter, what does it mean to "love us"? Our perception these days is "Let them be. Encourage them in whatever they do. Try not to bring them down, to judge." And, yet, it makes no sense from our perspective. If a boy is learning baseball and a dad just "lets him be" because "I'm for you, son," that's negligence, not love. Love requires intervention, encouragement, direction, training, exhortation, all sorts of things that our current society considers "opposed," "unloving," and even "hate."
It's not hate for God to recognize our sin condition, supply the remedy, and offer it to us. It's not hate for God to love us and work to change us. It is hate to see a loved one engaging in self-destructive choices and saying, "Don't worry; I love you. I'm not against you; I'm for you" and nothing more. It is true, then, that God loves us and is for us, but that "for us" might sometimes look like carefully administered pain (Heb 12:5-6). Of course, the difference is that it is lovingly applied for our benefit with His support and comfort to conform us to the image of His Son (Rom 8:28-29). So, perhaps, not entirely "just as you are." He is for us, just not as the world does it. He is for us, but better than you would imagine.
First, is it true? Does God love you "just as you are"? We know that John 3:16 speaks of God loving the world, so it must be true, right? Except for the fact that the text doesn't speak of God loving the world "just as it is." The word, "so," there is a modifier. The intent is "in this way." "God loves the world in this way" as opposed to "generally and without reservation or condition." What caveat does Jesus put on it? God sent His Son. The condition? "Whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life." It is conditional. God's special love is applied to those out of the world that believe. God's general love is applied to everyone in that the offer is to all.
So the texts are there, but there is potential confusion. The confusion doesn't rise from the texts, but from the perceptions. Coming from today's perceptions, to "love you just as you are" means "Don't ever change." Couple "loves you just as you are" with "He's not against you" and anyone from our time would conclude that you don't ever need to change at all. Any sense you have of inadequacy or shame is a false one because He loves you just as you are and He's for you. Scripture, on the other hand, is abundantly clear that change is necessary and certain for the believer.
Here's where I have my biggest concern. The glorious truth of Scripture is that, for believers, "God is for us." (Rom 8:31) (That "us" is not "everyone," but God's people.) But what does it mean to be "for us"? For that matter, what does it mean to "love us"? Our perception these days is "Let them be. Encourage them in whatever they do. Try not to bring them down, to judge." And, yet, it makes no sense from our perspective. If a boy is learning baseball and a dad just "lets him be" because "I'm for you, son," that's negligence, not love. Love requires intervention, encouragement, direction, training, exhortation, all sorts of things that our current society considers "opposed," "unloving," and even "hate."
It's not hate for God to recognize our sin condition, supply the remedy, and offer it to us. It's not hate for God to love us and work to change us. It is hate to see a loved one engaging in self-destructive choices and saying, "Don't worry; I love you. I'm not against you; I'm for you" and nothing more. It is true, then, that God loves us and is for us, but that "for us" might sometimes look like carefully administered pain (Heb 12:5-6). Of course, the difference is that it is lovingly applied for our benefit with His support and comfort to conform us to the image of His Son (Rom 8:28-29). So, perhaps, not entirely "just as you are." He is for us, just not as the world does it. He is for us, but better than you would imagine.
Saturday, September 12, 2020
News Weakly - 9/12/20
A New Record
According to a report from the Pew Research Center, we've arrived at a new high. We now have the largest ever proportion of 18-to-29-year-olds living with their parents. One major contributor, of course, is this COVID thing, but that alone is insufficient to explain this trend. For those under 25, the percentage is 71%. It was 63% in February. A major factor is economics, too, of course, but since the economy (prior to COVID) has been pretty good, the only real explanation is that, in terms of responsibility (rather than age), the younger generation doesn't achieve adulthood until until much later in life than earlier generations. And that, I would submit, is a parenting problem as much as the kids' problem.
Take That!
Recently Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, California, stood up and said, "We're not doing this anymore." They stood up and said that Christ, not Caesar, is the head of the church. "Close communion," they said, "is commanded in Scripture and you can't do it under the current restrictions." So they reopened. And they were ordered to stop. And the court sided with the church. So, the county, realizing that the were wrong and the law sided with Grace Community Church, apologized and backed off. Oh, no, that's not right. They played a card from the bottom of the deck. "Well, the church has leased a large portion of their parking lot from the county since 1973. We're terminating that lease." And they issued an eviction notice effective October 1. "If you won't give up your God-given, court-approved rights, then we'll just take our property and go home." Because that's the way this game is played. "Whether we're right or wrong, you must do what we say or suffer the consequences. If we want to restrict your constitutional right to the free exercise of your religion, you will have to violate the constitution with us or pay." I am not siding (or not siding) with Grace Community Church. I'm simply pointing out that the County of Los Angeles, a bastion of Democratic tolerance and love, is not very tolerant or loving ... or even fair.
The State of Theology
Ligonier has commissioned another survey to sample the state of theology in America today. Some surprises, some just sad, but some positives. Among the general populace, they're agreed that Jesus was not God (52%) -- no surprise -- but 30% of evangelicals agreed -- very sad. While 96% of evangelicals affirm the traditional definition of the Trinity, 65% also affirm that Jesus is the first and greatest being created by God. Confusing and disappointing. (Make that fit with John 1:3 if you can.) Since the first survey in 2014, belief that the Bible is not literally true has gone from 41% to 48% in the general public. Interestingly, in 2016 54% of evangelicals believed that people are basically good and that has dropped to 46%. Among evangelicals, "saved by faith apart from works" has declined (91% in 2018 to 84% in 2020) but so has the notion that God accepts the worship of all religions (51% in 2018 to 42% in 2020). Oddly, the belief that gender identity is a matter of choice has also declined (32% in 2016 to 22% in 2020). Is it possible that COVID has caused some to reconsider? Is it remotely possible that God is using a pandemic to weed His church and sharpen His people (1 John 2:19)?
Not Getting It
This story from Baptistpress.com expresses it. Some churches are looking at this pandemic and considering a long-term change. Since online viewership has skyrocketed while attendance has plummeted, perhaps a permanent online church ministry is necessary with an online pastor and online membership. Because, after all, who needs to be with God's people when you can get a remote service in the comfort of your own home? (Hint: Everyone.)
Irony Defined
The often-controversial pastor, Douglas Wilson, made a documentary entitled "The Free Speech Apocalypse." It is centered around a 2012 event where a group of students "went to war" against his appearance at their college because his traditional views on marriage and morality constituted "hate speech." The movie warns about the decline of free speech in America. So, of course, Amazon has opted to drop it from their offerings ... making the point.
Politics and Pandemics
The joke that keeps going around is that this pandemic will end right after the election. Me? I'm not buying this "political conspiracy" line. Makes no sense to me. Then I read about researchers who predicted there would be 200,000 deaths by Election Day and they give me pause. Still ... no. Now Yahoo is reporting on the Sturgis Motorcycle Rally being a "superspreader." The story said, "The rally itself had no political orientation" and then went on to explain all the Trump connections. It is not possible to avoid the view from Yahoo that this is all Trump's fault that motorcyclists went to Sturgis without masks. With Pelosi calling it the "Trump virus" and Gov. Cuomo (who ordered over 6,000 elderly COVID patients into nursing homes against the wishes of the staff) blaming Trump for "actively trying to kill New York City" and with Yahoo blatantly blaming Sturgis on Trump, I feel my resolve to avoid the "political conspiracy" theory is starting to wear thin.
Changing the Focus
The news item is that a Catholic school in Indiana fired a teacher in a same-sex marriage on the basis of the 1st Amendment -- the free exercise of religion. Of course, we can't discuss the merits of the case -- do we, or do we not have a 1st Amendment? -- because the headline reads, "Trump admin backs Catholic school that fired gay teacher." So the media has insured that we cannot discuss the free exercise of religion because now we must first deal with Trump-hate and other emotions apart from facts or reason, and that's not happening any time soon. Nice dodge.
If taken to its logical conclusion
The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has taken a "bold" step. They've made a new rule that requires "percentages or numbers of actors, production staff, marketing staff and internships on a movie that must be filled by people of color, women, people with disabilities or people from the LGBTQ community." The new standards cover diversity representation in areas like subject matter, staff, apprenticeships, and marketing. Now, if these rules were applied across the board, our world would be radically altered. First questions on applications and interviews would be about race, gender, disabilities, and sexual orientation. Sports would change radically -- "I'm sorry; you're the best at what you do, but we've already got more black people than white." Jobs would be filled on minority status over experience, ability, or quality. Think of the housing market. "We'd love to sell you this house, but there is already too many white people here." Just try to apply these kinds of rules with reason and pragmatism.
Your Most Trusted Site for Fake News
The Babylon Bee did a piece about California's Governor Newsom claiming that their rolling blackouts are to show support for BLM and I laughed because we all know that's just fun -- satire -- but after these "14 beautiful shots" of California cities at night, I'm starting to wonder.
Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
According to a report from the Pew Research Center, we've arrived at a new high. We now have the largest ever proportion of 18-to-29-year-olds living with their parents. One major contributor, of course, is this COVID thing, but that alone is insufficient to explain this trend. For those under 25, the percentage is 71%. It was 63% in February. A major factor is economics, too, of course, but since the economy (prior to COVID) has been pretty good, the only real explanation is that, in terms of responsibility (rather than age), the younger generation doesn't achieve adulthood until until much later in life than earlier generations. And that, I would submit, is a parenting problem as much as the kids' problem.
Take That!
Recently Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, California, stood up and said, "We're not doing this anymore." They stood up and said that Christ, not Caesar, is the head of the church. "Close communion," they said, "is commanded in Scripture and you can't do it under the current restrictions." So they reopened. And they were ordered to stop. And the court sided with the church. So, the county, realizing that the were wrong and the law sided with Grace Community Church, apologized and backed off. Oh, no, that's not right. They played a card from the bottom of the deck. "Well, the church has leased a large portion of their parking lot from the county since 1973. We're terminating that lease." And they issued an eviction notice effective October 1. "If you won't give up your God-given, court-approved rights, then we'll just take our property and go home." Because that's the way this game is played. "Whether we're right or wrong, you must do what we say or suffer the consequences. If we want to restrict your constitutional right to the free exercise of your religion, you will have to violate the constitution with us or pay." I am not siding (or not siding) with Grace Community Church. I'm simply pointing out that the County of Los Angeles, a bastion of Democratic tolerance and love, is not very tolerant or loving ... or even fair.
The State of Theology
Ligonier has commissioned another survey to sample the state of theology in America today. Some surprises, some just sad, but some positives. Among the general populace, they're agreed that Jesus was not God (52%) -- no surprise -- but 30% of evangelicals agreed -- very sad. While 96% of evangelicals affirm the traditional definition of the Trinity, 65% also affirm that Jesus is the first and greatest being created by God. Confusing and disappointing. (Make that fit with John 1:3 if you can.) Since the first survey in 2014, belief that the Bible is not literally true has gone from 41% to 48% in the general public. Interestingly, in 2016 54% of evangelicals believed that people are basically good and that has dropped to 46%. Among evangelicals, "saved by faith apart from works" has declined (91% in 2018 to 84% in 2020) but so has the notion that God accepts the worship of all religions (51% in 2018 to 42% in 2020). Oddly, the belief that gender identity is a matter of choice has also declined (32% in 2016 to 22% in 2020). Is it possible that COVID has caused some to reconsider? Is it remotely possible that God is using a pandemic to weed His church and sharpen His people (1 John 2:19)?
Not Getting It
This story from Baptistpress.com expresses it. Some churches are looking at this pandemic and considering a long-term change. Since online viewership has skyrocketed while attendance has plummeted, perhaps a permanent online church ministry is necessary with an online pastor and online membership. Because, after all, who needs to be with God's people when you can get a remote service in the comfort of your own home? (Hint: Everyone.)
Irony Defined
The often-controversial pastor, Douglas Wilson, made a documentary entitled "The Free Speech Apocalypse." It is centered around a 2012 event where a group of students "went to war" against his appearance at their college because his traditional views on marriage and morality constituted "hate speech." The movie warns about the decline of free speech in America. So, of course, Amazon has opted to drop it from their offerings ... making the point.
Politics and Pandemics
The joke that keeps going around is that this pandemic will end right after the election. Me? I'm not buying this "political conspiracy" line. Makes no sense to me. Then I read about researchers who predicted there would be 200,000 deaths by Election Day and they give me pause. Still ... no. Now Yahoo is reporting on the Sturgis Motorcycle Rally being a "superspreader." The story said, "The rally itself had no political orientation" and then went on to explain all the Trump connections. It is not possible to avoid the view from Yahoo that this is all Trump's fault that motorcyclists went to Sturgis without masks. With Pelosi calling it the "Trump virus" and Gov. Cuomo (who ordered over 6,000 elderly COVID patients into nursing homes against the wishes of the staff) blaming Trump for "actively trying to kill New York City" and with Yahoo blatantly blaming Sturgis on Trump, I feel my resolve to avoid the "political conspiracy" theory is starting to wear thin.
Changing the Focus
The news item is that a Catholic school in Indiana fired a teacher in a same-sex marriage on the basis of the 1st Amendment -- the free exercise of religion. Of course, we can't discuss the merits of the case -- do we, or do we not have a 1st Amendment? -- because the headline reads, "Trump admin backs Catholic school that fired gay teacher." So the media has insured that we cannot discuss the free exercise of religion because now we must first deal with Trump-hate and other emotions apart from facts or reason, and that's not happening any time soon. Nice dodge.
If taken to its logical conclusion
The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has taken a "bold" step. They've made a new rule that requires "percentages or numbers of actors, production staff, marketing staff and internships on a movie that must be filled by people of color, women, people with disabilities or people from the LGBTQ community." The new standards cover diversity representation in areas like subject matter, staff, apprenticeships, and marketing. Now, if these rules were applied across the board, our world would be radically altered. First questions on applications and interviews would be about race, gender, disabilities, and sexual orientation. Sports would change radically -- "I'm sorry; you're the best at what you do, but we've already got more black people than white." Jobs would be filled on minority status over experience, ability, or quality. Think of the housing market. "We'd love to sell you this house, but there is already too many white people here." Just try to apply these kinds of rules with reason and pragmatism.
Your Most Trusted Site for Fake News
The Babylon Bee did a piece about California's Governor Newsom claiming that their rolling blackouts are to show support for BLM and I laughed because we all know that's just fun -- satire -- but after these "14 beautiful shots" of California cities at night, I'm starting to wonder.
Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
Friday, September 11, 2020
What's It Worth?
As we've been informed for quite some time now, America is not a Christian nation. I happen to think that's true, since "Christian" is basically defined as "one who has placed his faith in the Lord Jesus Christ" and no nation can do that. But the shift from acceptance of a God to ambivalence to a God to rejection of a God is ongoing.
HBO has introduced a new series, Raised by Wolves, a science fiction tale in which two androids are tasked with raising human children on some remote and mysterious planet. The premise for this scenario is that the Earth has been destroyed by a religious war, so the androids are specifically tasked, among other things, to raise them as atheists. Presented as a sci-fi Little House on the Prairie, a story of family and pioneers and restarting human civilization, it's a "family show" ... except that underlying and driving the story is the certainty that religion is the ultimate evil and will, if left alone, kill us all. A line in the trailer has the android "mother" telling her wards, "It was belief in the unreal that destroyed the Earth." It isn't simply entertainment; it's advertisement for a worldview that demonizes God in general and Christianity in particular. (Yes, "demonizes" is irony.)
So, I have to ask. What is a human life worth? We have people literally rioting in the streets to express outrage that there are some among us who are not receiving the valuation they should. "Black lives matter!" they say ... no, shout ... and if I agree because "All lives matter," I've just made them angrier. The movement is sourced in Marxism which includes as a fundamental tenet of atheism. ("Religion is the opiate of the masses.") So, tell me, how do we evaluate the worth of a human life without God? If rights are not "endowed by their Creator," where do they come from? We generally (not universally) believe that humans have a worth, a dignity, a special value that obligates us not to kill them, to be concerned for their well-being, and to treat them as we would like to be treated. Why?
The arguments here are varied, but generally the same. We recognize that we can't simply say we're "animals" and animals have value because, well, it's perfectly moral to wipe out a colony of ants who have invaded your kitchen, but not so moral to snuff out the life of a teenager that is irritating you. There is something different. So we go about trying to figure out what that "different" is and say, "That's it! That's what makes us valuable." You can find many arguments along this line, but what none of them do is tell us why being different in that way confers value. "We are self-aware" or "We can reason" or "We are emotional beings" or even "All of the above" don't say why "self-aware," "reasoning," "emotions," or a conglomeration of them are of value. That is, whatever gives us value must itself be of value, and no one goes there.
It is, therefore, ironic that our world is moving away from God while running strongly toward self-esteem, rights, and justice -- all things that cannot exist in the absence of God. Because only in God can there be justice or human value. I think the phrase is "cutting off your nose to spite your face." We make a rude gesture to God and assure Him we're just fine without Him, not realizing we removed all footing for being fine.
HBO has introduced a new series, Raised by Wolves, a science fiction tale in which two androids are tasked with raising human children on some remote and mysterious planet. The premise for this scenario is that the Earth has been destroyed by a religious war, so the androids are specifically tasked, among other things, to raise them as atheists. Presented as a sci-fi Little House on the Prairie, a story of family and pioneers and restarting human civilization, it's a "family show" ... except that underlying and driving the story is the certainty that religion is the ultimate evil and will, if left alone, kill us all. A line in the trailer has the android "mother" telling her wards, "It was belief in the unreal that destroyed the Earth." It isn't simply entertainment; it's advertisement for a worldview that demonizes God in general and Christianity in particular. (Yes, "demonizes" is irony.)
So, I have to ask. What is a human life worth? We have people literally rioting in the streets to express outrage that there are some among us who are not receiving the valuation they should. "Black lives matter!" they say ... no, shout ... and if I agree because "All lives matter," I've just made them angrier. The movement is sourced in Marxism which includes as a fundamental tenet of atheism. ("Religion is the opiate of the masses.") So, tell me, how do we evaluate the worth of a human life without God? If rights are not "endowed by their Creator," where do they come from? We generally (not universally) believe that humans have a worth, a dignity, a special value that obligates us not to kill them, to be concerned for their well-being, and to treat them as we would like to be treated. Why?
The arguments here are varied, but generally the same. We recognize that we can't simply say we're "animals" and animals have value because, well, it's perfectly moral to wipe out a colony of ants who have invaded your kitchen, but not so moral to snuff out the life of a teenager that is irritating you. There is something different. So we go about trying to figure out what that "different" is and say, "That's it! That's what makes us valuable." You can find many arguments along this line, but what none of them do is tell us why being different in that way confers value. "We are self-aware" or "We can reason" or "We are emotional beings" or even "All of the above" don't say why "self-aware," "reasoning," "emotions," or a conglomeration of them are of value. That is, whatever gives us value must itself be of value, and no one goes there.
It is, therefore, ironic that our world is moving away from God while running strongly toward self-esteem, rights, and justice -- all things that cannot exist in the absence of God. Because only in God can there be justice or human value. I think the phrase is "cutting off your nose to spite your face." We make a rude gesture to God and assure Him we're just fine without Him, not realizing we removed all footing for being fine.
Thursday, September 10, 2020
Make Up My Mind
Look for yourself. Go to an online dictionary and look up "themself." Mind you, the word is irrational on its own. "Them" is a plural pronoun, so while "himself" and "herself" are reasonable ("him" and "her" are singular pronouns), the "self" version of "them" would need to be "themselves" to be coherent. But there it is, right in your dictionary, boldly stating that "themself" is a pronoun referring to a "person of unspecified sex." And why "them" instead of some of the other new pronouns ("it" or "ze" come to mind)? Well, clearly "it" is depersonalizing and "ze" is ... wait, what's wrong with "ze"? In truth, it is because "them" captures the essence. We're talking about gender fluidity. It is "them" because it can be more than one. Now, if we were to talk about "mental fluidity" in that sense, we'd call it a "personality disorder." "No, there are not more than one of you. You will need treatment and medication and ..." But we buy this "gender fluidity" thing without batting an eye because, well, they said so.
Of course, I'm not telling you anything new. By that I mean you've heard the argument and you've either accepted it or discarded it. So the point here is not to try to convince someone one way or the other. The point here is that this world is at work trying to convince you one way or another. This is how it works: control the language. If you have to use their version of pronouns (and in some places you have to) and accept only their position and use only their language, well, then, you'll come to accept it as normal. You'll stop thinking for yourself and think the way they want. If you substitute "gay" ("cheerful, happy, festive") for "homosexual" (as the dictionary is doing now), it sounds much better. Make "lust" a matter of "love" and it sounds so much better. That sort of thing. Then you flood the media. Put it on the news and in the movies and on the television. Insist that they show transgender and same-sex relationships as normal and acceptable and perfectly suitable. You know, I hope, that in 2008 California (yes, the hard "left coast") voted not once, but twice to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Today it's unthinkable in California. That was barely over a decade ago. How? Flood the market, control the language, manipulate the media, and, above all else, make sure no one thinks different from what you want them to.
But we're primarily sheeple, we humans. In the Middle Ages we took serfdom in stride. In China the billion inhabitants aren't too upset by their Communist overlords or their own poverty. And we Americans exhibit the same thinking. We claim to be "freethinkers" while carefully and intentionally being shepherded into the thinking they allow and not the thinking they don't. Sheeple.
Let me give you a little hint. If the total LGBT population in the U.S. is 3.8% (Wikipedia) with the total transgender population at 0.58%, there are a lot of things you can say about it, but you cannot say it is "normal." "Normal" is center spectrum, the middle of the bell curve, the highest numbers. Setting aside religious views or moral questions, you can call it what you want, but it's not "normal" and no amount of "normalization" will make it so. But, of course, give them some time and they'll redefine "normal" for us ... and probably "normalization" for good measure. Philip K. Dick wrote, "The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them." Have no doubt; we are being manipulated. They're trying to make up your mind.
Of course, I'm not telling you anything new. By that I mean you've heard the argument and you've either accepted it or discarded it. So the point here is not to try to convince someone one way or the other. The point here is that this world is at work trying to convince you one way or another. This is how it works: control the language. If you have to use their version of pronouns (and in some places you have to) and accept only their position and use only their language, well, then, you'll come to accept it as normal. You'll stop thinking for yourself and think the way they want. If you substitute "gay" ("cheerful, happy, festive") for "homosexual" (as the dictionary is doing now), it sounds much better. Make "lust" a matter of "love" and it sounds so much better. That sort of thing. Then you flood the media. Put it on the news and in the movies and on the television. Insist that they show transgender and same-sex relationships as normal and acceptable and perfectly suitable. You know, I hope, that in 2008 California (yes, the hard "left coast") voted not once, but twice to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Today it's unthinkable in California. That was barely over a decade ago. How? Flood the market, control the language, manipulate the media, and, above all else, make sure no one thinks different from what you want them to.
But we're primarily sheeple, we humans. In the Middle Ages we took serfdom in stride. In China the billion inhabitants aren't too upset by their Communist overlords or their own poverty. And we Americans exhibit the same thinking. We claim to be "freethinkers" while carefully and intentionally being shepherded into the thinking they allow and not the thinking they don't. Sheeple.
Let me give you a little hint. If the total LGBT population in the U.S. is 3.8% (Wikipedia) with the total transgender population at 0.58%, there are a lot of things you can say about it, but you cannot say it is "normal." "Normal" is center spectrum, the middle of the bell curve, the highest numbers. Setting aside religious views or moral questions, you can call it what you want, but it's not "normal" and no amount of "normalization" will make it so. But, of course, give them some time and they'll redefine "normal" for us ... and probably "normalization" for good measure. Philip K. Dick wrote, "The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them." Have no doubt; we are being manipulated. They're trying to make up your mind.
Wednesday, September 09, 2020
Vote
I know this will come as a surprise, but it turns out 2020 is a presidential election year. Who knew, right? Kidding, of course. You can't escape it. So we now have two people we get to choose from -- Biden or Trump -- and you get to make your choice. Oh, that's called "vote." But just what is a "vote"?
According to the dictionary, a "vote" is "a formal expression of opinion or choice, either positive or negative, made by an individual or body of individuals." So, I don't plan to elect ... anyone. I plan to make a formal expression of my opinion or choice. For those who say, "My vote doesn't count," I suggest you are saying, "It just doesn't matter what I think." Maybe it's true, but if it is, you need to move. Find some island somewhere so you don't have to be a citizen of any country and "render to Caesar what is Caesar's" because that kind of thinking is neither biblical nor helpful.
So, let me lay down a few basics. First, there is no perfect candidate. Not one. Anyone that expects to find one is deceiving themselves. I don't. Not the point. Let it go. Second, no politician does everything right and no politician does everything wrong. As the saying goes, "a stopped clock is right twice a day." Similar to "no perfect candidate," then, it's important to note that everyone does something right and something wrong. Third -- and this is just me -- I do not have a representative government. By that I mean that there is no one currently in office or running for office that represents me. It's not there and I don't expect it. That's because a biblical worldview is not electable. Jesus said so (John 15:19). I'm not complaining and I'm not discouraged; it is what it is. No one represents me. Well, maybe a Mike Pence, but he didn't actually get elected, did he? He rode in on Trump's coat tails. I can't imagine the United States electing a Mike Pence for president, for instance. And, truthfully, doing politics changes you. It's hard to be there and maintain a Christian worldview and get anything done. In summary, then, I don't expect a perfect candidate and I don't expect a perfect performance and I don't expect someone who sees things as I do. None of the above. Ain't gonna happen.
So ... why can't I vote for Trump? He's imperfect. He hasn't performed perfectly the past four years. He doesn't represent me. Doesn't that qualify him? No, of course not, and that just my attempt to be humorous.
So, first, we need to be careful. We live in a loud "Trump-hate" world. For instance, the claim that "All living former presidents have publicly denounced Trump" is simply a lie. Bush didn't. (He has remained silent.) That leaves three Democratic presidents who, you would expect, would not endorse or defend the current Republican president. No surprise there. Further, despite claims to the contrary, the media is mostly left. Therefore, the political opinions expressed in those sources will, by definition, be opposed to anything right. Sources, then, are critical in the sense that they tend to be critical and critical in the sense that you need to be very careful about your sources.
There is the question of character. Trump was recorded in 2005 saying that he liked to grab women by a body part for which I won't use his word. That's not a left-wing smear campaign; that's Trump on Trump. The court ordered Trump to pay Stormy Daniels for his battle over hush money he paid. Oh, he paid it; he was just fighting that it was wrong for her not to hush up when he paid her to. No one really doubts that over his lifetime Trump has been an adulterer. There are lots of other questions of morality. It looks a lot like nepotism. It looks a lot like inappropriate relationships with family. It looks a lot like favoritism and cronyism. But we can debate that stuff. We can discuss the reasons, but it is undeniable that Trump's administration has been a "revolving door." They come and they go. Some leave out of disgust. Some leave out of disagreement (on one side or the other). Some even appear to leave from Trump's vindictiveness. It's disturbing the number of "pro-Trump" people who have come out of his orbit with a grudge. Trump's reputation from before his election was characterized in two words: "You're fired." It appears to not be a line from a reality show, but a character point. "Agree with me or face my wrath." And then there's Twitter. The worst place to look for Trump's positives is Trump's Twitter feed. Don't go there. Even the pro-Trump folk cringe from much of what he says there. The right mocks Biden for his verbal slip ups and, perhaps, rightly so, but it often is out of misdirection. "Don't look at what Trump said about drinking bleach; look at what Biden said about smelling women's hair." Not favorable.
Then there is his record. Pro-Trump folk claim, for instance, that "Trump has done the most to oppose LGBT issues." Really? According to USA Today, "LGBT Americans belong in Donald Trump's Republican Party." The author says, "Trump's agenda has been a boon to the gay community." The Federalist, a right-wing source, says, "Trump has been one of the greatest presidents for LGBTQ Americans in history." On his work for religious freedom, again, there is major disagreement. He's done some good and some harm. "'Far from protecting religious freedom, he's undermining it at every turn,' said Maggie Garrett, the vice president for public policy for Americans United for Separation of Church and State." The Frank Report lists "One-Hundred-Twenty-Five Amazing Accomplishments of President Donald J. Trump" including things like making animal abuse a federal offense and ordering his openly gay ambassador to Germany to lead a global initiative to decriminalize homosexual behavior across the globe. No president does everything right and no president does everything wrong, but raving about how wonderful Trump has been is more likely a "never Biden" call rather than a "he's our guy!" shout.
So, I'm going to vote. I'm going to express my opinion. I am going to deny that not voting for Trump is a vote for Biden because no one ever says, "Not voting for Biden is a vote for Trump" and because that is a fundamental denial of both "a vote is an expression of my opinion" and "Your vote counts." I'm going to deny it because it also assumes that God can't work without my vote in His favor. So I will vote. I will be disappointed in who wins. I will be castigated for failing to do what's right ... by people "on my side." I will be chastized by believers for trusting God on this. I get all that. I'm not upset; it's just the way it is. But my opinion still matters and I will express it. I will vote my conscience even if it doesn't agree with yours.
According to the dictionary, a "vote" is "a formal expression of opinion or choice, either positive or negative, made by an individual or body of individuals." So, I don't plan to elect ... anyone. I plan to make a formal expression of my opinion or choice. For those who say, "My vote doesn't count," I suggest you are saying, "It just doesn't matter what I think." Maybe it's true, but if it is, you need to move. Find some island somewhere so you don't have to be a citizen of any country and "render to Caesar what is Caesar's" because that kind of thinking is neither biblical nor helpful.
So, let me lay down a few basics. First, there is no perfect candidate. Not one. Anyone that expects to find one is deceiving themselves. I don't. Not the point. Let it go. Second, no politician does everything right and no politician does everything wrong. As the saying goes, "a stopped clock is right twice a day." Similar to "no perfect candidate," then, it's important to note that everyone does something right and something wrong. Third -- and this is just me -- I do not have a representative government. By that I mean that there is no one currently in office or running for office that represents me. It's not there and I don't expect it. That's because a biblical worldview is not electable. Jesus said so (John 15:19). I'm not complaining and I'm not discouraged; it is what it is. No one represents me. Well, maybe a Mike Pence, but he didn't actually get elected, did he? He rode in on Trump's coat tails. I can't imagine the United States electing a Mike Pence for president, for instance. And, truthfully, doing politics changes you. It's hard to be there and maintain a Christian worldview and get anything done. In summary, then, I don't expect a perfect candidate and I don't expect a perfect performance and I don't expect someone who sees things as I do. None of the above. Ain't gonna happen.
So ... why can't I vote for Trump? He's imperfect. He hasn't performed perfectly the past four years. He doesn't represent me. Doesn't that qualify him? No, of course not, and that just my attempt to be humorous.
So, first, we need to be careful. We live in a loud "Trump-hate" world. For instance, the claim that "All living former presidents have publicly denounced Trump" is simply a lie. Bush didn't. (He has remained silent.) That leaves three Democratic presidents who, you would expect, would not endorse or defend the current Republican president. No surprise there. Further, despite claims to the contrary, the media is mostly left. Therefore, the political opinions expressed in those sources will, by definition, be opposed to anything right. Sources, then, are critical in the sense that they tend to be critical and critical in the sense that you need to be very careful about your sources.
There is the question of character. Trump was recorded in 2005 saying that he liked to grab women by a body part for which I won't use his word. That's not a left-wing smear campaign; that's Trump on Trump. The court ordered Trump to pay Stormy Daniels for his battle over hush money he paid. Oh, he paid it; he was just fighting that it was wrong for her not to hush up when he paid her to. No one really doubts that over his lifetime Trump has been an adulterer. There are lots of other questions of morality. It looks a lot like nepotism. It looks a lot like inappropriate relationships with family. It looks a lot like favoritism and cronyism. But we can debate that stuff. We can discuss the reasons, but it is undeniable that Trump's administration has been a "revolving door." They come and they go. Some leave out of disgust. Some leave out of disagreement (on one side or the other). Some even appear to leave from Trump's vindictiveness. It's disturbing the number of "pro-Trump" people who have come out of his orbit with a grudge. Trump's reputation from before his election was characterized in two words: "You're fired." It appears to not be a line from a reality show, but a character point. "Agree with me or face my wrath." And then there's Twitter. The worst place to look for Trump's positives is Trump's Twitter feed. Don't go there. Even the pro-Trump folk cringe from much of what he says there. The right mocks Biden for his verbal slip ups and, perhaps, rightly so, but it often is out of misdirection. "Don't look at what Trump said about drinking bleach; look at what Biden said about smelling women's hair." Not favorable.
Then there is his record. Pro-Trump folk claim, for instance, that "Trump has done the most to oppose LGBT issues." Really? According to USA Today, "LGBT Americans belong in Donald Trump's Republican Party." The author says, "Trump's agenda has been a boon to the gay community." The Federalist, a right-wing source, says, "Trump has been one of the greatest presidents for LGBTQ Americans in history." On his work for religious freedom, again, there is major disagreement. He's done some good and some harm. "'Far from protecting religious freedom, he's undermining it at every turn,' said Maggie Garrett, the vice president for public policy for Americans United for Separation of Church and State." The Frank Report lists "One-Hundred-Twenty-Five Amazing Accomplishments of President Donald J. Trump" including things like making animal abuse a federal offense and ordering his openly gay ambassador to Germany to lead a global initiative to decriminalize homosexual behavior across the globe. No president does everything right and no president does everything wrong, but raving about how wonderful Trump has been is more likely a "never Biden" call rather than a "he's our guy!" shout.
So, I'm going to vote. I'm going to express my opinion. I am going to deny that not voting for Trump is a vote for Biden because no one ever says, "Not voting for Biden is a vote for Trump" and because that is a fundamental denial of both "a vote is an expression of my opinion" and "Your vote counts." I'm going to deny it because it also assumes that God can't work without my vote in His favor. So I will vote. I will be disappointed in who wins. I will be castigated for failing to do what's right ... by people "on my side." I will be chastized by believers for trusting God on this. I get all that. I'm not upset; it's just the way it is. But my opinion still matters and I will express it. I will vote my conscience even if it doesn't agree with yours.
Tuesday, September 08, 2020
Love Letters
"Writing about you gives birth to a star. These stars sit inside me where there was once darkness." ― Kamand Kojouri
"Without the wetness of your love, the fragrance of your water, or the trickling sounds of your voice ― I shall always feel thirsty." ― Suzy Kassem
"Like two stars in the depths of the sky, this gravity is just irresistible We spin around each other, you and I when I fell for you, I fell into your orbit." ― Justin Wetch
"I have hunger for your mouth, for your voice, for your hair." ― Pablo Neruda
"She is the sensitivity of the dew drops. She is the innocence of the blooming Lily. She is the calm of the sylvan lake. She is the beautiful light of the candle flame. She is the wildness of the Kadupul flower. She is the magic of the full moon night!" ― Avijeet Das
Quotes from various love poetry. They're vivid, descriptive, moving. I can see two possible approaches for interpreting them.
One approach looks at the content and tries to figure out what's wrong with it. The other expects the best from the content and enjoys it for what it is. One side says, "I don't care what they're trying to express. Writing doesn't give birth to a star. Love is not wet. You can't be hungry for a mouth. Love and dew drops don't go together. It's all nonsense. We all know better. It is outdated and incoherent." The other says, "Such an expression of love. It's poetic. It's romantic. It speaks to me."
I like to think of Scripture as God's love letter to His people. Perhaps Christ's love letter to His Bride. I see the same two options for the Bible. Some will reject it because its contents seem odd, misshapen, not in line with their thinking. They see it as if something is wrong, so they'll reject it. Some will embrace it as a personal love letter, as "God speaking His heart to me." It makes sense to the loved one. It's beautiful to the one for whom it was intended.
Jesus said, "You do not believe because you are not of My sheep. My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me." (John 10:26-27)
God's Word is God's love letter to God's people. Skeptics will always try to explain it away as outlandish and unable to be understood -- outdated and incoherent. To that I'd say, "That's what you get for reading someone else's mail."
"Without the wetness of your love, the fragrance of your water, or the trickling sounds of your voice ― I shall always feel thirsty." ― Suzy Kassem
"Like two stars in the depths of the sky, this gravity is just irresistible We spin around each other, you and I when I fell for you, I fell into your orbit." ― Justin Wetch
"I have hunger for your mouth, for your voice, for your hair." ― Pablo Neruda
"She is the sensitivity of the dew drops. She is the innocence of the blooming Lily. She is the calm of the sylvan lake. She is the beautiful light of the candle flame. She is the wildness of the Kadupul flower. She is the magic of the full moon night!" ― Avijeet Das
Quotes from various love poetry. They're vivid, descriptive, moving. I can see two possible approaches for interpreting them.
One approach looks at the content and tries to figure out what's wrong with it. The other expects the best from the content and enjoys it for what it is. One side says, "I don't care what they're trying to express. Writing doesn't give birth to a star. Love is not wet. You can't be hungry for a mouth. Love and dew drops don't go together. It's all nonsense. We all know better. It is outdated and incoherent." The other says, "Such an expression of love. It's poetic. It's romantic. It speaks to me."
I like to think of Scripture as God's love letter to His people. Perhaps Christ's love letter to His Bride. I see the same two options for the Bible. Some will reject it because its contents seem odd, misshapen, not in line with their thinking. They see it as if something is wrong, so they'll reject it. Some will embrace it as a personal love letter, as "God speaking His heart to me." It makes sense to the loved one. It's beautiful to the one for whom it was intended.
Jesus said, "You do not believe because you are not of My sheep. My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me." (John 10:26-27)
God's Word is God's love letter to God's people. Skeptics will always try to explain it away as outlandish and unable to be understood -- outdated and incoherent. To that I'd say, "That's what you get for reading someone else's mail."
Monday, September 07, 2020
One Step Beyond
In John's first epistle he talks about a mysterious old/new commandment. "Beloved, I am not writing a new commandment to you, but an old commandment which you have had from the beginning; the old commandment is the word which you have heard. On the other hand, I am writing a new commandment to you, which is true in Him and in you, because the darkness is passing away and the true Light is already shining." (1 John 2:7-8) What was this new command that was old? I think the text and context tell us pretty clear that it was the same new commandment that Jesus gave His disciples in John 13.
Jesus wasn't done. He had more to say.
The comparison shows up somewhere else in Scripture.
We're aware of layers of love, of varieties of love as it were. We can love pizza and we can love a pet, but you'd better not love them in the same way or you'll end up eating your pet. You can love your job and you can love your family, but it's not the same thing. So when a husband loves his wife, is it closer to pizza or closer to the sacrificial love that Christ had? The latter is the standard we're supposed to meet. And just imagine what that looks like. Where is there room for self? Where is there space for "me first"? Where can we wedge in "me time" when we're aiming for sacrifice?
I think we too often think more highly of ourselves than we ought. I doubt there's a single husband that doesn't do just that when thinking about how well he loves his wife. But if we're serious -- if we really do want to "walk in the same way in which he walked" (1 John 2:6) -- perhaps we ought to think again. "Love as Christ loved" is a long way from "Love as you love yourself" and "Love your wife" is fine until you add "as Christ loved the church." That is at least one step beyond what most of us expect.
"A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another ..." (John 13:34a)Now, hang on, Jesus. That's not new. It's about as old as they come. We know the top two commandments are to love God with all our being and to love others as love ourselves. Not new.
Jesus wasn't done. He had more to say.
"... even as I have loved you, that you also love one another." (John 13:34b)Ah, you see? The "love one another" isn't new, but that twist at the end is certainly new. No longer is it "as you love yourself." Now it's "as I have loved you." How is that? The command was given at the end of Jesus's life, on the very night, in fact, when He was arrested and on the day before He laid down His life for His friends. "Like that," Jesus essentially was saying, "Love one another like that."
The comparison shows up somewhere else in Scripture.
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her. (Eph 5:25)Now, I suspect that most husbands know that they're expected to love their wives. It is my firm belief, in fact, that most husbands think they do that okay. Oh, maybe not perfectly, but not bad. From the nice husband to the abusive husband, I think most of us think we're reasonably good husbands. Our mistake, of course, is that we're comparing ourselves to the wrong standard. Am I loving my wife as well as my neighbor loves his? Probably. Am I loving my wife to the level of sacrifice that Christ loved the church?? Oh, no; not even close.
We're aware of layers of love, of varieties of love as it were. We can love pizza and we can love a pet, but you'd better not love them in the same way or you'll end up eating your pet. You can love your job and you can love your family, but it's not the same thing. So when a husband loves his wife, is it closer to pizza or closer to the sacrificial love that Christ had? The latter is the standard we're supposed to meet. And just imagine what that looks like. Where is there room for self? Where is there space for "me first"? Where can we wedge in "me time" when we're aiming for sacrifice?
I think we too often think more highly of ourselves than we ought. I doubt there's a single husband that doesn't do just that when thinking about how well he loves his wife. But if we're serious -- if we really do want to "walk in the same way in which he walked" (1 John 2:6) -- perhaps we ought to think again. "Love as Christ loved" is a long way from "Love as you love yourself" and "Love your wife" is fine until you add "as Christ loved the church." That is at least one step beyond what most of us expect.
Sunday, September 06, 2020
Electronic Church
It has been around for some time, obviously, but not like this. For a long time you could find some sort of online service for people like shut-ins or on a Sunday when the family was sick or something. It's not new. But, in a way, it is. It is in the age of COVID. It's new in the sense of "normal" where it was once "outside of normal." More and more people have been forced to experience online services rather than in-person services because, well, social distancing and all that. I mean, you don't want to kill someone, do you? Besides, the government deemed your First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion as nonessential, so there was no choice.
Things are starting to open up again. Our church has restarted. Well, sort of. You need to schedule a service because seating is limited. You need to wear a mask because the government says so. No hugging your church family now. Stay 6' apart. Sort of open. They still offer the online service and some of the groups also offer a Zoom option, but it's sort of open. What it is not is "the same." It wasn't the same when it was remote; it's not the same with its current limitations in person. It is different enough that some have come back, sampled the "new normal," and decided it wasn't for them. "We'll wait until the old normal returns," they say.
How many will that be? Worse, how many will not return? How many are finding advantages in the online version? "You know, it's kind of nice not to have to dress for church. It's kind of nice to able to have Sundays free and pick another time to catch the service. It's kind of nice to be able to mute the pastor at times or the songs we don't particularly enjoy. When they're praying, I get the chance to slip out and get some coffee without disturbing anyone." And so it goes. Predictions say that upwards of a third of regular churchgoers may cease to be churchgoers. Why? Because churchgoers are thinking like consumers and not like "the body of Christ."
I've written in the past about the "one anothers." Christianity is very much about others, starting, at its core, with "love God and love one another." The Bible says we are gifted by the Spirit "for the common good." (1 Cor 12:7) That is, 1) every believer has a gift (or more) and 2) the purpose of all gifts is "the common good." The church isn't designed for bringing people to Christ (although that can happen in a church) or a social club (although it should be sociable for believers especially); the design is "for building up the body of Christ until we all attain to the unity of the faith ..." (Eph 4:12-13). This cannot happen in the electronic church.
I start to wonder. There are lots of issues we see in today's church. There is a lack of biblical depth. There is often an absence of the practice of spiritual gifts. There are false teachers and wolves in sheep's clothing and personal conflicts that should never be part of a church. And these aren't new. They were present in biblical days. But they were addressed then while today many consider them normal. We live in a time when church is a commodity. Like some smorgasbord, we look around for what we like and see if we can get fed. We go to get, not to give. We are often not particularly dedicated or invested in a local body. It's just ... something we do. "I'm not too keen on the music at this church. Can we find something more entertaining?"
As it turns out, then, this COVID problem appears to be unearthing a church problem, because if we can be happy with a remote church experience, we don't really know what church is about. If we can be happy with no church experience, we really don't know what Christianity is all about. I'm starting to think that a pandemic is not really a good thing, but if it reveals some real problems that we can see and address, I guess a pandemic isn't all bad, is it?
Things are starting to open up again. Our church has restarted. Well, sort of. You need to schedule a service because seating is limited. You need to wear a mask because the government says so. No hugging your church family now. Stay 6' apart. Sort of open. They still offer the online service and some of the groups also offer a Zoom option, but it's sort of open. What it is not is "the same." It wasn't the same when it was remote; it's not the same with its current limitations in person. It is different enough that some have come back, sampled the "new normal," and decided it wasn't for them. "We'll wait until the old normal returns," they say.
How many will that be? Worse, how many will not return? How many are finding advantages in the online version? "You know, it's kind of nice not to have to dress for church. It's kind of nice to able to have Sundays free and pick another time to catch the service. It's kind of nice to be able to mute the pastor at times or the songs we don't particularly enjoy. When they're praying, I get the chance to slip out and get some coffee without disturbing anyone." And so it goes. Predictions say that upwards of a third of regular churchgoers may cease to be churchgoers. Why? Because churchgoers are thinking like consumers and not like "the body of Christ."
I've written in the past about the "one anothers." Christianity is very much about others, starting, at its core, with "love God and love one another." The Bible says we are gifted by the Spirit "for the common good." (1 Cor 12:7) That is, 1) every believer has a gift (or more) and 2) the purpose of all gifts is "the common good." The church isn't designed for bringing people to Christ (although that can happen in a church) or a social club (although it should be sociable for believers especially); the design is "for building up the body of Christ until we all attain to the unity of the faith ..." (Eph 4:12-13). This cannot happen in the electronic church.
I start to wonder. There are lots of issues we see in today's church. There is a lack of biblical depth. There is often an absence of the practice of spiritual gifts. There are false teachers and wolves in sheep's clothing and personal conflicts that should never be part of a church. And these aren't new. They were present in biblical days. But they were addressed then while today many consider them normal. We live in a time when church is a commodity. Like some smorgasbord, we look around for what we like and see if we can get fed. We go to get, not to give. We are often not particularly dedicated or invested in a local body. It's just ... something we do. "I'm not too keen on the music at this church. Can we find something more entertaining?"
As it turns out, then, this COVID problem appears to be unearthing a church problem, because if we can be happy with a remote church experience, we don't really know what church is about. If we can be happy with no church experience, we really don't know what Christianity is all about. I'm starting to think that a pandemic is not really a good thing, but if it reveals some real problems that we can see and address, I guess a pandemic isn't all bad, is it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)