Election Integrity
A study from a group called "the Election Integrity Project California" has found that nearly 400,000 ballots have been sent to people who moved or died ... reviving the old, "Vote early; vote often" for perhaps 400,000 Californians. I've dismissed Trump's concerns about mail-in voting because we in Arizona have done it for a long time, but I'm wondering about "election integrity" for some of these other states that are just doing it now.
Sworn In
It struck me how appropriate it seemed to read that Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed and "sworn in" this week because of the volume of swearing from the opposition. When Obama thought to replace a Supreme Court Justice at the end of his time in office, the shoe was on the other foot. The opposition was opposed (go figure) while the Democrats were certain that it was the right thing to do. It's not now, of course, but it was for "their" guy. As the Washington Post opines, it's bad to be "out of step with the national consensus" ... as if there is such a thing. Apparently the court and all Republican values are, by definition, "out of sync with the national consensus." It has been my belief for some time that any so-called "national consensus" is a product of the media (like the Washington Post) as opposed to an actual "national consensus." Rep. Ilhan Omar said they should expand the court to "have the court better represent the values of the American people." I don't mean to diminish the notions of our media and legislative branch, but the point of the Supreme Court is not and never has been to "represent the values of the American people" or align with some "national consensus." It is to verify equal justice under the Constitution. Politics have nothing to do with it.
Truth in a Post-Modern World
There is a lie going around the Internet (like that's new information) about Biden. "Biden said that if he had been President, not one person would have died from Covid-19." Lie, lie, lie. He never said it. Why do they fabricate this stuff? Well, mostly because what he did say was, "If the president had done his job, had done his job from the beginning, all the people would still be alive. All the people — I'm not making this up, just look at the data." The error in the Internet story? He didn't claim that if he was president; he just claimed that any president doing his job would have prevented all deaths. In fact, no world leader has successfully prevented all deaths. "'I think it's impossible to say every life could have been saved,' Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security told Politifact." So Biden's claim that he would follow the science is a lie and his claim that Trump should have saved everyone is a lie and we're now relieved to find that Biden is, indeed, a lying truth-teller. Only in a post-modern society.
Worser and Worser
The Girl Scouts aren't getting it. They tweeted a congratulations to Amy Coney Barrett for being the 5th woman appointed to the Supreme Court. And the crowd went wild. Social media outrage forced the organization to delete the tweet. They complained that the Girl Scouts were about female empowerment (because a woman being appointed to SCOTUS was not). Highlighting, once again, the granularity of feminism (as well as others of these groups). "Yes, we support women, but only the right kind of women."
Don't Shoot the Messenger
I know. It's inconvenient. It might affect outcomes of elections and things like that. But there it is. In the midst of a COVID crisis, a massive economic downturn, and a massiver (I made that word up) "We hate Trump" campaign, the nation's GDP has jumped 33.1% in the 3rd quarter. Embarrassing to all the doom-and-gloomers.
The Religion of Peace
France is on high alert. First there was the teacher who was beheaded by a member of the "religion of peace" for using a controversial image of Mohammad in a discussion on freedom of expression. Then another member of that same "peaceful religion" attacked and killed three women in a church in Nice. Now the Muslim world is angry. "'Macron is leading Islamophobia,' said Dhaka demonstrator Akramul Haq. 'He doesn't know the power of Islam.'" That, of course, isn't a threat. They're peaceful Muslims. Burning Macron in effigy, attacking a French consulate in Pakistan, or advancing on the residence of the French ambassador to Lebanon aren't threats. They're the religion of peace Just ask them ... if you dare.
You'd Better Bee-lieve It
The Babylon Bee had to make hay with this. One headline read, "Democrats Ask ACB To Recuse Herself From Any Cases Involving The Constitution." This one was funny, too: "We Were Warned: SCOTUS Rules 6-3 That Voting For Biden Is Unconstitutional." Not to be outdone, Genesius Times offered, "In first act as associate justice, Amy Barrett mandates every woman have 10 children."
Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
Saturday, October 31, 2020
Friday, October 30, 2020
Back Seat Drivers in the COVID Crisis
There seems to be no end of opinions in this Energizer-bunny COVID crisis -- it just keeps going and going. Why are there so many opinions? Why are there so many conspiracy theorists? I mean, look, there is little room to argue, "It just doesn't exist!" when we're at 44 million cases and 1.2 million deaths and counting. "It just doesn't exist!" ignores a rather large elephant in the room … called COVID. On the other hand, we're being told that Trump so badly handled this thing that it ought to be called "the Trump virus." "Biden, Biden, he's our man! He's the one who has a plan!" Well, I'm waiting. Oh, do the things we have been doing that aren't working? Good plan. And still it feels like we're all calling the shots, we're all trying to make the plays, we're all experts who need to be heard. Why is that?
Could it be that we cannot trust our experts? Could it be that we've gotten used to the "experts" telling us stuff that they now deny?
In late February the WHO issued guidance regarding the use of masks. Basically, the guidance was "Don't!" Leave it for healthcare workers. The U.S. Surgeon General tweeted, "STOP BUYING MASKS!" (All caps in the original). "They're not effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus." In March, Dr. Fauci told 60 Minutes, "There is no reason to be walking around with a mask." Healthy people didn't need masks. In fact, he warned that wearing a mask could have unintended consequences. Save the masks for the medical folks. Oh, and the vaccine will be ready for trial in the next two to three months.
Today if you tell people about this you can be in trouble. You're a hater, you're ignoring science, you're not listening to the experts. The experts, you know, whose views have reversed themselves more than once. Perhaps that's the problem. Perhaps it's that these experts -- people who really ought to be considered the ones to ask, the ones who should know -- present themselves as experts with expert knowledge and we must not question them ... even as they deny their own positions. If there was some sense of "We're not sure," if there had been some equivocation -- "to the best of our knowledge, understanding that we're learning as we're going" -- perhaps we would have said, "Oh, look, they really do know what they're talking about, even in their own recognition of their lack of omniscience."
Early on New York Mayor Bill de Blasio told New Yorkers to "go on with your lives + get out on the town and in less than a month New York City had more COVID deaths than 9/11 deaths. In mid-March when a model and business woman suggested that a lockdown and wearing masks might deter the virus, she was mocked by the medical expert. "Unless you have read every scientific paper … you cannot argue with me on that." In early March they told us that masks and lockdowns wouldn't help. When the White House suggested we all wear masks, the CDC said we should, but only because they were told to. In July our national expert, Dr. Fauci, recommended everyone wear goggles or eye shields, and you know he was serious because he never, ever appeared wearing one himself.
Here's the point. There are a lot of people who have contracted COVID (about 0.6% of the world population) and, because of the numbers that have contracted it, a lot who have died of it (about 2.7% of those who contracted it or around 0.015% of the world population). This is serious. WebMD reported that COVID is the 3rd leading cause of death in the U.S. in 2020 so far just behind heart disease and cancer. Don't let anyone tell you this isn't serious. And I'm not questioning science. The nature of that beast is "test, test, test to determine where you were wrong today and where you were wrong the day before." Always learning and never arriving at certainty. So it shouldn't be a surprise that everyday people might look around, consider the available information, and conclude, "I'm not sure I trust these so-called experts. They contradict themselves. Why should I trust them?" Our experts have done it to themselves. But we'll still have a certain crowd that demands that we "trust the experts" -- "If you don't wear a mask, you might just be a sociopath." -- even when the experts don't agree with each other … or their own positions.
Could it be that we cannot trust our experts? Could it be that we've gotten used to the "experts" telling us stuff that they now deny?
In late February the WHO issued guidance regarding the use of masks. Basically, the guidance was "Don't!" Leave it for healthcare workers. The U.S. Surgeon General tweeted, "STOP BUYING MASKS!" (All caps in the original). "They're not effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus." In March, Dr. Fauci told 60 Minutes, "There is no reason to be walking around with a mask." Healthy people didn't need masks. In fact, he warned that wearing a mask could have unintended consequences. Save the masks for the medical folks. Oh, and the vaccine will be ready for trial in the next two to three months.
Today if you tell people about this you can be in trouble. You're a hater, you're ignoring science, you're not listening to the experts. The experts, you know, whose views have reversed themselves more than once. Perhaps that's the problem. Perhaps it's that these experts -- people who really ought to be considered the ones to ask, the ones who should know -- present themselves as experts with expert knowledge and we must not question them ... even as they deny their own positions. If there was some sense of "We're not sure," if there had been some equivocation -- "to the best of our knowledge, understanding that we're learning as we're going" -- perhaps we would have said, "Oh, look, they really do know what they're talking about, even in their own recognition of their lack of omniscience."
Early on New York Mayor Bill de Blasio told New Yorkers to "go on with your lives + get out on the town and in less than a month New York City had more COVID deaths than 9/11 deaths. In mid-March when a model and business woman suggested that a lockdown and wearing masks might deter the virus, she was mocked by the medical expert. "Unless you have read every scientific paper … you cannot argue with me on that." In early March they told us that masks and lockdowns wouldn't help. When the White House suggested we all wear masks, the CDC said we should, but only because they were told to. In July our national expert, Dr. Fauci, recommended everyone wear goggles or eye shields, and you know he was serious because he never, ever appeared wearing one himself.
Here's the point. There are a lot of people who have contracted COVID (about 0.6% of the world population) and, because of the numbers that have contracted it, a lot who have died of it (about 2.7% of those who contracted it or around 0.015% of the world population). This is serious. WebMD reported that COVID is the 3rd leading cause of death in the U.S. in 2020 so far just behind heart disease and cancer. Don't let anyone tell you this isn't serious. And I'm not questioning science. The nature of that beast is "test, test, test to determine where you were wrong today and where you were wrong the day before." Always learning and never arriving at certainty. So it shouldn't be a surprise that everyday people might look around, consider the available information, and conclude, "I'm not sure I trust these so-called experts. They contradict themselves. Why should I trust them?" Our experts have done it to themselves. But we'll still have a certain crowd that demands that we "trust the experts" -- "If you don't wear a mask, you might just be a sociopath." -- even when the experts don't agree with each other … or their own positions.
Thursday, October 29, 2020
Dissatisfied
There is a lot of discussion about the cause of sin. Why do we have this sin problem? Why can't we stop? Some point to the world -- "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 2:16). Okay, but is that the root? Others latch onto that last one -- pride. And I've generally agreed for most of my life. Recently, however, I've come to another conclusion. I think that the root is dissatisfaction.
Look at the first sin. What did Eve fall for? Satan told her that God was holding out on her. "The serpent said to the woman, 'You surely will not die! For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.'" (Gen 3:4-5) The serpent argued that God was holding back on her, that there were better things available than what He offered. And she went for it. I think that's all of us. I think that's the root cause. We believe that God is holding out on us. Oh, we might not voice it. We may not even recognize it. But I think that's at the core of our problem.
Think about it. In the Garden, God walked with them in the evening -- the immediate presence of God surrounded by all of God's supply. To this day we consider the concept of "the Garden of Eden" as a metaphor for paradise. Idyllic living. Not enough. And so it went with every sin in the Bible. God promised Abraham an heir, but he couldn't wait, and the Middle East conflict 4,000 years later is still the result. God made Moses a leader to free His people, led him explicitly, spoke with him face to face, one of the absolutely closest Man-to-an-God relationships recorded in Scripture. But when he was told to speak to the rock, Moses considered it insufficient and struck the rock. Moses never entered the land of promise because of it. Over and over and over sin arose because God's promises and presence were not sufficient. Dissatisfaction.
I believe that if we would actually be satisfied with God's relationship and gifts and care for us, we would stop sinning. If we embraced Christ as enough, we'd have no need to look elsewhere for satisfaction. If we truly believed, "The LORD is my portion," (Lam 3:24), we would desire nothing more. And I think it is abundantly clear that all that Christ is and gives is more than enough. We're just too often too blind to see.
Look at the first sin. What did Eve fall for? Satan told her that God was holding out on her. "The serpent said to the woman, 'You surely will not die! For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.'" (Gen 3:4-5) The serpent argued that God was holding back on her, that there were better things available than what He offered. And she went for it. I think that's all of us. I think that's the root cause. We believe that God is holding out on us. Oh, we might not voice it. We may not even recognize it. But I think that's at the core of our problem.
Think about it. In the Garden, God walked with them in the evening -- the immediate presence of God surrounded by all of God's supply. To this day we consider the concept of "the Garden of Eden" as a metaphor for paradise. Idyllic living. Not enough. And so it went with every sin in the Bible. God promised Abraham an heir, but he couldn't wait, and the Middle East conflict 4,000 years later is still the result. God made Moses a leader to free His people, led him explicitly, spoke with him face to face, one of the absolutely closest Man-to-an-God relationships recorded in Scripture. But when he was told to speak to the rock, Moses considered it insufficient and struck the rock. Moses never entered the land of promise because of it. Over and over and over sin arose because God's promises and presence were not sufficient. Dissatisfaction.
I believe that if we would actually be satisfied with God's relationship and gifts and care for us, we would stop sinning. If we embraced Christ as enough, we'd have no need to look elsewhere for satisfaction. If we truly believed, "The LORD is my portion," (Lam 3:24), we would desire nothing more. And I think it is abundantly clear that all that Christ is and gives is more than enough. We're just too often too blind to see.
Wednesday, October 28, 2020
Trend Analysis
I'm detecting a trend.
"Salt is good, but if the salt has lost its saltiness, how will you make it salty again? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with one another." (Mark 9:50)
"If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet." (John 13:14)
"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)
"By this all people will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another." (John 13:35)
"This is My commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you." (John 15:12)
"These things I command you, so that you will love one another." (John 15:17)
Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor. (Rom 12:10)
Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be wise in your own sight. (Rom 12:16)
Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother. (Rom 14:13)
May the God of endurance and encouragement grant you to live in such harmony with one another, in accord with Christ Jesus, (Rom 15:5)
Therefore welcome one another as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God. (Rom 15:7)
I myself am satisfied about you, my brothers, that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge and able to instruct one another. (Rom 15:14)
To have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded? (1 Cor 6:7)
... that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. (1 Cor 12:25)
Finally, brothers, rejoice. Aim for restoration, comfort one another, agree with one another, live in peace; and the God of love and peace will be with you. (2 Cor 13:11)
For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. (Gal 5:13)
Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ. (Gal 6:2)
... bearing with one another in love, (Eph 4:2)
Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you. (Eph 4:32)
... addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart, (Eph 5:19)
... submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ. (Eph 5:21)
Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old self with its practices (Col 3:9)
... bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive. (Col 3:13)
Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God. (Col 3:16)
... and may the Lord make you increase and abound in love for one another and for all, as we do for you, (1 Thess 3:12)
Now concerning brotherly love you have no need for anyone to write to you, for you yourselves have been taught by God to love one another, (1 Thess 4:9)
Therefore encourage one another with these words. (1 Thess 4:18)
Therefore encourage one another and build one another up, just as you are doing. (1 Thess 5:11)
See that no one repays anyone evil for evil, but always seek to do good to one another and to everyone. (1 Thess 5:15)
But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called "today," that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. (Heb 3:13)
And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, (Heb 10:24)
... 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 10:25)
Do not speak evil against one another, brothers. The one who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. (James 4:11)
Do not grumble against one another, brothers, so that you may not be judged; behold, the Judge is standing at the door. (James 5:9)
Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working. (James 5:16)
Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth for a sincere brotherly love, love one another earnestly from a pure heart, (1 Peter 1:22)
Above all, keep loving one another earnestly, since love covers a multitude of sins. (1 Peter 4:8)
Show hospitality to one another without grumbling. (1 Peter 4:9)
As each has received a gift, use it to serve one another, as good stewards of God's varied grace (1 Peter 4:10)
Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for "God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble." (1 Peter 5:5)
But if we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. (1 John 1:7)
For this is the message that you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another. (1 John 3:11)
And this is his commandment, that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as He has commanded us. (1 John 3:23)
Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. (1 John 4:7)
Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. (1 John 4:11)
No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us. (1 John 4:12)
And now I ask you, dear lady—not as though I were writing you a new commandment, but the one we have had from the beginning—that we love one another. (2 John 1:5)
Now, how well am I doing that? (You'll have to answer that for yourself.)
"Salt is good, but if the salt has lost its saltiness, how will you make it salty again? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with one another." (Mark 9:50)
"If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet." (John 13:14)
"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)
"By this all people will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another." (John 13:35)
"This is My commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you." (John 15:12)
"These things I command you, so that you will love one another." (John 15:17)
Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor. (Rom 12:10)
Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be wise in your own sight. (Rom 12:16)
Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother. (Rom 14:13)
May the God of endurance and encouragement grant you to live in such harmony with one another, in accord with Christ Jesus, (Rom 15:5)
Therefore welcome one another as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God. (Rom 15:7)
I myself am satisfied about you, my brothers, that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge and able to instruct one another. (Rom 15:14)
To have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded? (1 Cor 6:7)
... that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. (1 Cor 12:25)
Finally, brothers, rejoice. Aim for restoration, comfort one another, agree with one another, live in peace; and the God of love and peace will be with you. (2 Cor 13:11)
For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. (Gal 5:13)
Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ. (Gal 6:2)
... bearing with one another in love, (Eph 4:2)
Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you. (Eph 4:32)
... addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart, (Eph 5:19)
... submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ. (Eph 5:21)
Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old self with its practices (Col 3:9)
... bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive. (Col 3:13)
Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God. (Col 3:16)
... and may the Lord make you increase and abound in love for one another and for all, as we do for you, (1 Thess 3:12)
Now concerning brotherly love you have no need for anyone to write to you, for you yourselves have been taught by God to love one another, (1 Thess 4:9)
Therefore encourage one another with these words. (1 Thess 4:18)
Therefore encourage one another and build one another up, just as you are doing. (1 Thess 5:11)
See that no one repays anyone evil for evil, but always seek to do good to one another and to everyone. (1 Thess 5:15)
But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called "today," that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. (Heb 3:13)
And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, (Heb 10:24)
... 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 10:25)
Do not speak evil against one another, brothers. The one who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. (James 4:11)
Do not grumble against one another, brothers, so that you may not be judged; behold, the Judge is standing at the door. (James 5:9)
Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working. (James 5:16)
Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth for a sincere brotherly love, love one another earnestly from a pure heart, (1 Peter 1:22)
Above all, keep loving one another earnestly, since love covers a multitude of sins. (1 Peter 4:8)
Show hospitality to one another without grumbling. (1 Peter 4:9)
As each has received a gift, use it to serve one another, as good stewards of God's varied grace (1 Peter 4:10)
Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for "God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble." (1 Peter 5:5)
But if we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. (1 John 1:7)
For this is the message that you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another. (1 John 3:11)
And this is his commandment, that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as He has commanded us. (1 John 3:23)
Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. (1 John 4:7)
Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. (1 John 4:11)
No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us. (1 John 4:12)
And now I ask you, dear lady—not as though I were writing you a new commandment, but the one we have had from the beginning—that we love one another. (2 John 1:5)
Now, how well am I doing that? (You'll have to answer that for yourself.)
Tuesday, October 27, 2020
Liberals and Conservatives
Yes, sure, this is a political season so, obviously, you could be excused for thinking that I'm about to talk about politics. I'm not. Let's go with religion instead.
In religion the "liberals" are the one that are ... liberal with their theology. They're not stuck in the standard stuff, remaining in the traditional views. No, they're blazing new trails. The conservatives are the ones who would say, "The old ways are the best ways." Of course, in politics that statement may or may not be true. In politics things change. But in religion should they? It seems as if a religion is valid and true, then it shouldn't really change much, should it? I mean, maybe in expression, but not in principle. Not if it's true.
Well, of course, the religious liberals have no problem pushing the barriers because they don't care if their religion is right or wrong. They care about perception. "That old view isn't very comfortable. Can we pick up a new one?" The religious conservatives may recognize that the older view may not always be the most popular, but they assume the religion is true, so the view is true.
All this to point to an interesting phenomenon. When you take any religion there will be the liberals and the conservatives. In Judaism you have the orthodox Jews and you have the reformed Jews. We can assign our labels easily here. The orthodox Jews are the conservatives and the reformed Jews are the liberals. And never the twain shall meet. So it's interesting when you get to, say, Islam and compare it to, say, Christianity. In Islam you have the "radicals," those folks who are quite certain that the right thing to do is kill infidels for the sake of their God. Says so right there in their Book. Then you have the more common variety of Muslims who aren't out to kill anyone and can't figure out what's wrong with those Muslims who do. Let's look again at our two labels. Which is which? As it turns out, the liberal Muslim is the one that is not interested in killing anyone and the conservative is the one who is carefully following the Book (because their Book is actually sacred) and is likely to be called a "radical." Of course, on the Christian side it is entirely the opposite. The liberal Christian isn't too concerned about what the Bible says and pretty much wing it while the conservative Christian is the one that wants to follow the Bible and do what it says.
So, at the end, you end up with two very different religions. The conservative Christians are commanded to love God and love their unbelieving neighbors and the conservative Muslims are commanded to love God and kill their unbelieving neighbors. And peoplel say all religions are the same.
In religion the "liberals" are the one that are ... liberal with their theology. They're not stuck in the standard stuff, remaining in the traditional views. No, they're blazing new trails. The conservatives are the ones who would say, "The old ways are the best ways." Of course, in politics that statement may or may not be true. In politics things change. But in religion should they? It seems as if a religion is valid and true, then it shouldn't really change much, should it? I mean, maybe in expression, but not in principle. Not if it's true.
Well, of course, the religious liberals have no problem pushing the barriers because they don't care if their religion is right or wrong. They care about perception. "That old view isn't very comfortable. Can we pick up a new one?" The religious conservatives may recognize that the older view may not always be the most popular, but they assume the religion is true, so the view is true.
All this to point to an interesting phenomenon. When you take any religion there will be the liberals and the conservatives. In Judaism you have the orthodox Jews and you have the reformed Jews. We can assign our labels easily here. The orthodox Jews are the conservatives and the reformed Jews are the liberals. And never the twain shall meet. So it's interesting when you get to, say, Islam and compare it to, say, Christianity. In Islam you have the "radicals," those folks who are quite certain that the right thing to do is kill infidels for the sake of their God. Says so right there in their Book. Then you have the more common variety of Muslims who aren't out to kill anyone and can't figure out what's wrong with those Muslims who do. Let's look again at our two labels. Which is which? As it turns out, the liberal Muslim is the one that is not interested in killing anyone and the conservative is the one who is carefully following the Book (because their Book is actually sacred) and is likely to be called a "radical." Of course, on the Christian side it is entirely the opposite. The liberal Christian isn't too concerned about what the Bible says and pretty much wing it while the conservative Christian is the one that wants to follow the Bible and do what it says.
So, at the end, you end up with two very different religions. The conservative Christians are commanded to love God and love their unbelieving neighbors and the conservative Muslims are commanded to love God and kill their unbelieving neighbors. And peoplel say all religions are the same.
Monday, October 26, 2020
Intolerance
That's what we're all about these days -- tolerance. Oh, wait, which version? The dictionary says it is a "willingness to accept behaviour and beliefs that are different from your own, although you might not agree with or approve of them." The problem with the dictionary is that it changes its definition. So in deference to the "new tolerance" as I'll call it, Merriam-Webster now says that it is "sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own." A slight shift? Perhaps. In the original it was to allow something you disagree with; in the new it is to "sympathize with" something you disagree with. Or, in today's standard usage, it is to agree with and wholly embrace something you disagree with ... which, of course, makes no sense.
Okay, so we are in favor of tolerance in some form. Got it. But while the cry is for "tolerance" and bemoans those who don't "tolerate" what "we" do, there is an apparent double standard in that they won't tolerate those who don't tolerate what they demand must be tolerated. (The practice, to me, is as confusing as that sentence was.) "You must tolerate what we tell you to ... or we will not tolerate you." So, the problem I'm pointing out is not that they're "wrong," but that it's a double standard.
The premise, then, must be that we must tolerate what they say we must because what is not tolerated is that which is intolerable. See? Clear as mud. That there are things that should (versus "must") be tolerated and things that are not to be tolerated should be patently obvious. So what it comes down to is not the question of tolerance, but the question of what is intolerable.
Ah! Now we're getting down to the nitty gritty. Our current society will tolerate sexual immorality in most (not quite all) forms and unscientific concepts (like "you can choose your own gender" or "an unborn child is not an unborn child") as long as these things are popular. They will not tolerate the intolerable like the notion of the Bible as God's Word or the people who believe it is. By simple deduction, if God said those things, He is intolerable as well. Thus, by implication, all those who have gone before who believed such things are also intolerable. "Look," they are telling us, "we are happy to embrace those who have sex with the same sex regardless of what your Bible says about it and we're glad to honor those who think they're the opposite gender than what they were born despite what science might argue in that regard, but you people, your rotten old Bible, your lousy God, and your attempts to live by all that are intolerable and we will not put up with it."
Ah, tolerance. It's a lovely thing.
Okay, so we are in favor of tolerance in some form. Got it. But while the cry is for "tolerance" and bemoans those who don't "tolerate" what "we" do, there is an apparent double standard in that they won't tolerate those who don't tolerate what they demand must be tolerated. (The practice, to me, is as confusing as that sentence was.) "You must tolerate what we tell you to ... or we will not tolerate you." So, the problem I'm pointing out is not that they're "wrong," but that it's a double standard.
The premise, then, must be that we must tolerate what they say we must because what is not tolerated is that which is intolerable. See? Clear as mud. That there are things that should (versus "must") be tolerated and things that are not to be tolerated should be patently obvious. So what it comes down to is not the question of tolerance, but the question of what is intolerable.
Ah! Now we're getting down to the nitty gritty. Our current society will tolerate sexual immorality in most (not quite all) forms and unscientific concepts (like "you can choose your own gender" or "an unborn child is not an unborn child") as long as these things are popular. They will not tolerate the intolerable like the notion of the Bible as God's Word or the people who believe it is. By simple deduction, if God said those things, He is intolerable as well. Thus, by implication, all those who have gone before who believed such things are also intolerable. "Look," they are telling us, "we are happy to embrace those who have sex with the same sex regardless of what your Bible says about it and we're glad to honor those who think they're the opposite gender than what they were born despite what science might argue in that regard, but you people, your rotten old Bible, your lousy God, and your attempts to live by all that are intolerable and we will not put up with it."
Ah, tolerance. It's a lovely thing.
Sunday, October 25, 2020
Spiritual Maturity
Scripture says that a primary purpose of the church is to build mature believers (Eph 4:11-14). Sometimes, I think, churches forget that. But, what does it take to build mature believers? Well, clearly, it's a teaching process.
Is that true?
Jesus told His disciples, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age." (Matt 28:18-20) So, yes, "teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you" is part of that. Note, however, that Jesus did not say simply "Teaching them all that I have commanded you." The aim is "to observe" -- obedience, practice, performance. Not for salvation, but because of. Further, notice how He said that was done. "Make disciples." Not converts. Not notches on a spiritual gun. This is investing time and effort in lives, not checking off "Another Sinner's Prayer" done and moving on.
In Hebrews the author bemoans the readers' lack of maturity. "About this we have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food." (Heb 5:11-12) The problem? "Dull of hearing." So why do we assume "That can be remedied by teaching"? Not according to this passage. "But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil." (Heb 5:14) According to this, maturity is not a matter of more information; it's a matter of "constant practice." And that's not accomplished in a classroom. It's not predicated on a program. This is built by practicing obedience. It is a function of "walking in the truth" (2 John 1:4). In fact, John defines love this way. "And this is love, that we walk according to His commandments; this is the commandment, just as you have heard from the beginning, so that you should walk in it." (2 John 1:6) (Compare with 1 John 5:2-3.) So "constant practice" would be the continuous process of loving God and His children through obedience to God. Practice, practice, practice
On one hand, this is bad news. There is no 3-year course you can take to arrive at maturity. There is no educational program that will get you there. No 12-steps to spiritual maturity. On the other hand, it is good news. We do know how to arrive at spiritual maturity. It's not nebulous or murky. It's clear -- constant practice. Walking in truth. Good works that bring glory to God (Matt 5:16). The more you do, the more maturity you gain. The less you do … well, you can do the math. Oh, and one more piece of good news. While this will be hard work, "It is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure. (Php 2:13) We have work to do … enabled and empowered by God. So, let's get to it, okay?
Is that true?
Jesus told His disciples, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age." (Matt 28:18-20) So, yes, "teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you" is part of that. Note, however, that Jesus did not say simply "Teaching them all that I have commanded you." The aim is "to observe" -- obedience, practice, performance. Not for salvation, but because of. Further, notice how He said that was done. "Make disciples." Not converts. Not notches on a spiritual gun. This is investing time and effort in lives, not checking off "Another Sinner's Prayer" done and moving on.
In Hebrews the author bemoans the readers' lack of maturity. "About this we have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food." (Heb 5:11-12) The problem? "Dull of hearing." So why do we assume "That can be remedied by teaching"? Not according to this passage. "But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil." (Heb 5:14) According to this, maturity is not a matter of more information; it's a matter of "constant practice." And that's not accomplished in a classroom. It's not predicated on a program. This is built by practicing obedience. It is a function of "walking in the truth" (2 John 1:4). In fact, John defines love this way. "And this is love, that we walk according to His commandments; this is the commandment, just as you have heard from the beginning, so that you should walk in it." (2 John 1:6) (Compare with 1 John 5:2-3.) So "constant practice" would be the continuous process of loving God and His children through obedience to God. Practice, practice, practice
On one hand, this is bad news. There is no 3-year course you can take to arrive at maturity. There is no educational program that will get you there. No 12-steps to spiritual maturity. On the other hand, it is good news. We do know how to arrive at spiritual maturity. It's not nebulous or murky. It's clear -- constant practice. Walking in truth. Good works that bring glory to God (Matt 5:16). The more you do, the more maturity you gain. The less you do … well, you can do the math. Oh, and one more piece of good news. While this will be hard work, "It is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure. (Php 2:13) We have work to do … enabled and empowered by God. So, let's get to it, okay?
Saturday, October 24, 2020
News Weakly - 10/24/2020
Proper Identification
The Portland Police Bureau will now assign every officer a 3-digit number to be prominently displayed on their helmets during a protest (I understand the mayor's number is 666.) so that protesters can note the number and report anything they don't like. Protesters, on the other hand, will continue to wear masks and remain anonymous in their assaults, vandalism, and rioting in recognition of their constitutional right to privacy. Just to be clear, that is the 37th Amendment. (Just to be clearer, the Constitution only has 27 Amendments.)
Poverty Rising
Researchers report that 8 million Americans have slipped into poverty because of the pandemic. Blacks, Latinos, and children were hardest hit. The CDC, WHO, and Dr. Vauci are promising to make it up to them out of their own pockets. The media will kick in on that, too.
The Right Kind of Woman
Women gathered to march in protest of Amy Barrett's confirmation hearings. Wait ... what? Last time I checked Amy was a woman, right? Ah, yes, but not the right kind of woman, you see. You're not black if you don't vote for Biden, and you're not a woman if you care about unborn children.
Another Opinion
Did Evangelicals that supported Trump (and will again) get a bad deal?
Emperor Newsom
When will California secede from the Union? They only seem to care about being part of it when they can get aid from it. This week Governor Newsom assured Californians that they would not receive any COVID-19 vaccine until California approved it. "A panel of experts will review vaccines approved by the US Food and Drug Administration before they're distributed to Californians," he announced. Thank you, your highness. We bow to your greater wisdom.
COVID-Related Deaths
The coronavirus has exacerbated a succession of locust swarms that have plagued East Africa and the Red Sea region since 2019, annihilating crops and threatening food supplies and the livelihoods of millions. As people starve to death, we add up more COVID-related deaths. (Right?)
Got To Go
When the hearings for the confirmation of Amy Barrett ended, Sen. Dianne Feinstein did the unthinkable, the inexcusable. She hugged Lindsey Graham and said, "This has been one of the best set of hearings that I've participated in." Seriously? That kind of cordial interchange from a Democrat? Well, they just won't stand for it. They want her out. They want her out of her judiciary role. They want her out of her senator role. I guess if they're not assaulting the nearest Republican, they can't be in office. This is America! We'll have no common courtesy here, if you please.
Speaking of "got to go," there is another category. Actor Chris Pratt is in trouble. Why? Well, he belongs to a church that is "anti-LGBT" because they take a biblical view of it. And he doesn't hate Trump. He's openly Christian. "Chris Pratt," Twitter shouted, "has got to go." I find it interesting that people you wouldn't expect, like Robert Downey Jr. and Mark Ruffalo, neither Christian nor "Christian-sympathizers," have come to his defense. Downey Jr. referred to Pratt as "a real Christian who lives by principle." Mark Ruffalo said, "Look at how he lives his life."
Ex Cathedral
In Roman Catholicism, the pope can make statements ex cathedra meaning that his statement is with the full authority of the office and, therefore, infallible. Or, he might make a statement "ex cathedral". Of course, that's made up, but you get the idea -- a statement completely outside of Christian theology. Like Pope Francis did when he declared, "Homosexuals have a right to be part of the family." If he meant, "You might have family members who are homosexual and you should love them," I'm right there with him. If he meant, "Homosexuals are in the family of Christ," he's making a claim in direct contradiction to Scripture (1 Cor 6:9-10). Of course, in Roman Catholicism, Scripture isn't the authority it used to be, so ...
American Wimpy
Pat Chambers, the Penn State Men's basketball coach, has resigned his position because of "allegations of inappropriate conduct." "What conduct?" you ask. In a conversation with a former player who was leaving Penn State, he used the phrase, "I want to loosen the noose that's around your neck." Never, ever use the terms "noose" and "neck" in a conversation with a black person because it is "inappropriate conduct" worthy of center stage in the "cancel culture." In other news, lawmakers have finished their first draft of the 38th Amendment which guarantees a select group of Americans their right not to have their feelings hurt.
An Open Letter to Californians
Dear Californians,
We don't much care about your needs, your expenses, or your freedom. We will do our best to remove your cheaper Uber and Lyft access so we can protect their drivers even though neither the company nor the drivers want it. Oh, and all the rest, too. Your day workers, your stage hands, all the gig workers from Costco installation workers to tax professionals. And rest assured, if there is any way we can further cripple our economy or upset your lives, we'll hunt it down and incorporate it. You're welcome. --Governor Newsom
I Think the Babylon Bee is Following Me
First, noting my piece above about Chris Pratt, the Babylon Bee posted their own headline: "Hollywood Actor Outed as Conservative After Being a Decent Human Being." Then, in response to my story above about the pope, the Bee posted this headline: "Embarrassed Pope Suddenly Realizes He's Been Reading the Bible Upside Down the Whole Time." Kinda creepy the way they seem to be following me around, isn't it?
The Portland Police Bureau will now assign every officer a 3-digit number to be prominently displayed on their helmets during a protest (I understand the mayor's number is 666.) so that protesters can note the number and report anything they don't like. Protesters, on the other hand, will continue to wear masks and remain anonymous in their assaults, vandalism, and rioting in recognition of their constitutional right to privacy. Just to be clear, that is the 37th Amendment. (Just to be clearer, the Constitution only has 27 Amendments.)
Poverty Rising
Researchers report that 8 million Americans have slipped into poverty because of the pandemic. Blacks, Latinos, and children were hardest hit. The CDC, WHO, and Dr. Vauci are promising to make it up to them out of their own pockets. The media will kick in on that, too.
The Right Kind of Woman
Women gathered to march in protest of Amy Barrett's confirmation hearings. Wait ... what? Last time I checked Amy was a woman, right? Ah, yes, but not the right kind of woman, you see. You're not black if you don't vote for Biden, and you're not a woman if you care about unborn children.
Another Opinion
Did Evangelicals that supported Trump (and will again) get a bad deal?
Emperor Newsom
When will California secede from the Union? They only seem to care about being part of it when they can get aid from it. This week Governor Newsom assured Californians that they would not receive any COVID-19 vaccine until California approved it. "A panel of experts will review vaccines approved by the US Food and Drug Administration before they're distributed to Californians," he announced. Thank you, your highness. We bow to your greater wisdom.
COVID-Related Deaths
The coronavirus has exacerbated a succession of locust swarms that have plagued East Africa and the Red Sea region since 2019, annihilating crops and threatening food supplies and the livelihoods of millions. As people starve to death, we add up more COVID-related deaths. (Right?)
Got To Go
When the hearings for the confirmation of Amy Barrett ended, Sen. Dianne Feinstein did the unthinkable, the inexcusable. She hugged Lindsey Graham and said, "This has been one of the best set of hearings that I've participated in." Seriously? That kind of cordial interchange from a Democrat? Well, they just won't stand for it. They want her out. They want her out of her judiciary role. They want her out of her senator role. I guess if they're not assaulting the nearest Republican, they can't be in office. This is America! We'll have no common courtesy here, if you please.
Speaking of "got to go," there is another category. Actor Chris Pratt is in trouble. Why? Well, he belongs to a church that is "anti-LGBT" because they take a biblical view of it. And he doesn't hate Trump. He's openly Christian. "Chris Pratt," Twitter shouted, "has got to go." I find it interesting that people you wouldn't expect, like Robert Downey Jr. and Mark Ruffalo, neither Christian nor "Christian-sympathizers," have come to his defense. Downey Jr. referred to Pratt as "a real Christian who lives by principle." Mark Ruffalo said, "Look at how he lives his life."
Ex Cathedral
In Roman Catholicism, the pope can make statements ex cathedra meaning that his statement is with the full authority of the office and, therefore, infallible. Or, he might make a statement "ex cathedral". Of course, that's made up, but you get the idea -- a statement completely outside of Christian theology. Like Pope Francis did when he declared, "Homosexuals have a right to be part of the family." If he meant, "You might have family members who are homosexual and you should love them," I'm right there with him. If he meant, "Homosexuals are in the family of Christ," he's making a claim in direct contradiction to Scripture (1 Cor 6:9-10). Of course, in Roman Catholicism, Scripture isn't the authority it used to be, so ...
American Wimpy
Pat Chambers, the Penn State Men's basketball coach, has resigned his position because of "allegations of inappropriate conduct." "What conduct?" you ask. In a conversation with a former player who was leaving Penn State, he used the phrase, "I want to loosen the noose that's around your neck." Never, ever use the terms "noose" and "neck" in a conversation with a black person because it is "inappropriate conduct" worthy of center stage in the "cancel culture." In other news, lawmakers have finished their first draft of the 38th Amendment which guarantees a select group of Americans their right not to have their feelings hurt.
An Open Letter to Californians
Dear Californians,
We don't much care about your needs, your expenses, or your freedom. We will do our best to remove your cheaper Uber and Lyft access so we can protect their drivers even though neither the company nor the drivers want it. Oh, and all the rest, too. Your day workers, your stage hands, all the gig workers from Costco installation workers to tax professionals. And rest assured, if there is any way we can further cripple our economy or upset your lives, we'll hunt it down and incorporate it. You're welcome. --Governor Newsom
I Think the Babylon Bee is Following Me
First, noting my piece above about Chris Pratt, the Babylon Bee posted their own headline: "Hollywood Actor Outed as Conservative After Being a Decent Human Being." Then, in response to my story above about the pope, the Bee posted this headline: "Embarrassed Pope Suddenly Realizes He's Been Reading the Bible Upside Down the Whole Time." Kinda creepy the way they seem to be following me around, isn't it?
Friday, October 23, 2020
Social Justice: Modern Style or Biblical?
Social Justice is all the rage. It's what's driving the environmental movement and the BLM movement. It's largely behind Socialism. It is the current motivation for anti-racism and anti-sexism. It is the Democrats' way to make things right for the oppressed and underrepresented. It is even embraced in some Christian circles. The problem, of course, is that it's not biblical.
"Now, hang on," some will cry, "you know that helping the poor and defending the weak and all that is biblical! How can you say it's not biblical?" Why, thanks for asking that astute question. I'll try to answer that.
Scripture is clear that we are to love our neighbors. If any Bible-believing follower of Christ would like to deny it, they'd disqualify themselves from being Bible-believing. So we are supposed to "Open your mouth, judge righteously, defend the rights of the poor and needy." (Prov 31:9) We are told to "render true judgments, show kindness and mercy to one another, do not oppress the widow, the fatherless, the sojourner, or the poor, and let none of you devise evil against another in your heart." (Zech 7:9-10) John warns, "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 3:17) And on and on it goes.
"Okay, thanks for making my point. It is biblical." Doing that kind of good is indeed biblical. I didn't deny that. What I said was that today's "Social Justice" is not. So what's the difference? In today's version, "Social Justice" is defined by the masses and by the government and not by God. Indeed, God is specifically left out of it. Our version today doesn't take into account our responsibility to God. And our version today doesn't take into account our choices. Today's version is coercive. "We will decide what is and is not justice and we will make you do it." So they will define "Social Justice" in their own image and tax you and completely disregard your need to obey God rather than man. They will steal your stuff and your joy and your obedience to God so that you will comply with their definition of Social Justice ... which, by the way, is neither.
It's ironic, then, that Christians embrace modern Social Justice without paying attention to the fact that legal and moral coercion by the state or the society is neither social nor just and call it "Social Justice." We are to do many of the things modern Social Justice demands, but our call is to do it out of love for God and love for our neighbors, and that pleases God. Our society couldn't care less about your love for God or your neighbors; they just require you to submit, or else. That is not biblical social justice.
"Now, hang on," some will cry, "you know that helping the poor and defending the weak and all that is biblical! How can you say it's not biblical?" Why, thanks for asking that astute question. I'll try to answer that.
Scripture is clear that we are to love our neighbors. If any Bible-believing follower of Christ would like to deny it, they'd disqualify themselves from being Bible-believing. So we are supposed to "Open your mouth, judge righteously, defend the rights of the poor and needy." (Prov 31:9) We are told to "render true judgments, show kindness and mercy to one another, do not oppress the widow, the fatherless, the sojourner, or the poor, and let none of you devise evil against another in your heart." (Zech 7:9-10) John warns, "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 3:17) And on and on it goes.
"Okay, thanks for making my point. It is biblical." Doing that kind of good is indeed biblical. I didn't deny that. What I said was that today's "Social Justice" is not. So what's the difference? In today's version, "Social Justice" is defined by the masses and by the government and not by God. Indeed, God is specifically left out of it. Our version today doesn't take into account our responsibility to God. And our version today doesn't take into account our choices. Today's version is coercive. "We will decide what is and is not justice and we will make you do it." So they will define "Social Justice" in their own image and tax you and completely disregard your need to obey God rather than man. They will steal your stuff and your joy and your obedience to God so that you will comply with their definition of Social Justice ... which, by the way, is neither.
It's ironic, then, that Christians embrace modern Social Justice without paying attention to the fact that legal and moral coercion by the state or the society is neither social nor just and call it "Social Justice." We are to do many of the things modern Social Justice demands, but our call is to do it out of love for God and love for our neighbors, and that pleases God. Our society couldn't care less about your love for God or your neighbors; they just require you to submit, or else. That is not biblical social justice.
Thursday, October 22, 2020
Not Getting It
If you watch just about anything out of Hollywood that includes almost anything with a Christian presence, you will likely note that it is almost always wrong -- just plain wrong. It's not a Hollywood problem, though.
My grandfather heard the Gospel from my family for as long as I lived and he lived. When he would visit, he might go to church or a Billy Graham event or read things like Josh McDowell's Evidence That Demands a Verdict (both volumes) and the like along with constant conversations with his believing daughter (my mom) and family. One day when I was in my 50's and he was visiting, we were sitting around the table discussing, you guessed it, the Gospel. I don't remember what was said, but he suddenly blurted out, "Wait a minute! Are you saying that all you have to do to be saved is to believe??! That's it??" The discussion, of course, continued, but I was stunned. All that input over all those years and he never got it. Not once. Decades of truth and he never heard it.
What's the malfunction? Why don't Hollywood, my grandfather, or the millions of everyday folk who hear it get it? Why the grand disconnect?
If you think about it, it isn't really a surprise. The real question might be "Why do I get it?" I'm not smarter, wiser, more "in tune," more spiritual. In fact, according to Scripture, although it is patently present and true and reasonable, we miss it. It's not a failure of logic or facts or evidence. It's that it is not human, so to speak. Jesus said, "Unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." (John 3:3) That is, without this alteration, "born again," we lack the ability to connect with "the kingdom of God." We don't have the right eyes or ears or senses. Paul says we are "dead in sin" (Eph 2:1). Jesus said, "People love the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds are evil." (John 3:19) Jesus said, "No one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father." (John 6:65) Paul wrote, "The mind set on the flesh is hostile to God." (Rom 8:7) All this to say that we cannot "see" it. We cannot connect with it. It runs counter to our sin nature and we are not going to understand it unless it is granted -- unless we are born again.
Sometimes when we share the Gospel we think that if we provide sufficient data points, enough reasoning, adequate logic, irrefutable evidence -- all that -- then we can win them over. It doesn't work that way. That is, that approach does not take into account the human problem -- "dead in sin." And I'm sure you've seen this sort of problem elsewhere. You know. You try to explain to someone why your political view or moral view is correct and all you get is stonewalling. It all makes sense to you, but they're just not getting it. Why? Because there are other things in the way that simple logic and evidence don't penetrate. Because when you bring up Christ -- and the world hates Christ (John 15:18-19) -- you're not going to get through that hate to provide your logic.
It sounds difficult, but the fact that some do get it tells us something critical. We're not in this alone. We're not smarter or better, but we do have the Holy Spirit at work. We do have Jesus to give. God opens hearts to respond (Acts 16:14). So while it is wise to give the best arguments, the best evidence, the best testimony, the truest information, and even the best delivery you can, in the end it is God who is at work, and "He does whatever He pleases." (Psa 115:3)
My grandfather heard the Gospel from my family for as long as I lived and he lived. When he would visit, he might go to church or a Billy Graham event or read things like Josh McDowell's Evidence That Demands a Verdict (both volumes) and the like along with constant conversations with his believing daughter (my mom) and family. One day when I was in my 50's and he was visiting, we were sitting around the table discussing, you guessed it, the Gospel. I don't remember what was said, but he suddenly blurted out, "Wait a minute! Are you saying that all you have to do to be saved is to believe??! That's it??" The discussion, of course, continued, but I was stunned. All that input over all those years and he never got it. Not once. Decades of truth and he never heard it.
What's the malfunction? Why don't Hollywood, my grandfather, or the millions of everyday folk who hear it get it? Why the grand disconnect?
If you think about it, it isn't really a surprise. The real question might be "Why do I get it?" I'm not smarter, wiser, more "in tune," more spiritual. In fact, according to Scripture, although it is patently present and true and reasonable, we miss it. It's not a failure of logic or facts or evidence. It's that it is not human, so to speak. Jesus said, "Unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." (John 3:3) That is, without this alteration, "born again," we lack the ability to connect with "the kingdom of God." We don't have the right eyes or ears or senses. Paul says we are "dead in sin" (Eph 2:1). Jesus said, "People love the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds are evil." (John 3:19) Jesus said, "No one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father." (John 6:65) Paul wrote, "The mind set on the flesh is hostile to God." (Rom 8:7) All this to say that we cannot "see" it. We cannot connect with it. It runs counter to our sin nature and we are not going to understand it unless it is granted -- unless we are born again.
Sometimes when we share the Gospel we think that if we provide sufficient data points, enough reasoning, adequate logic, irrefutable evidence -- all that -- then we can win them over. It doesn't work that way. That is, that approach does not take into account the human problem -- "dead in sin." And I'm sure you've seen this sort of problem elsewhere. You know. You try to explain to someone why your political view or moral view is correct and all you get is stonewalling. It all makes sense to you, but they're just not getting it. Why? Because there are other things in the way that simple logic and evidence don't penetrate. Because when you bring up Christ -- and the world hates Christ (John 15:18-19) -- you're not going to get through that hate to provide your logic.
It sounds difficult, but the fact that some do get it tells us something critical. We're not in this alone. We're not smarter or better, but we do have the Holy Spirit at work. We do have Jesus to give. God opens hearts to respond (Acts 16:14). So while it is wise to give the best arguments, the best evidence, the best testimony, the truest information, and even the best delivery you can, in the end it is God who is at work, and "He does whatever He pleases." (Psa 115:3)
Wednesday, October 21, 2020
Everyone
The Bible makes some huge sweeping statements. Like, "No one does good, not even one." (Psa 14:3; Rom 3:12) Wow, really? No one? That's the claim. Or "All have sinned" (Rom 3:23).That's 100%. No exceptions. Certainly not you and absolutely not me. Jesus claimed, "No one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father." (John 6:65) That's a "no one" coupled with a "can" -- no human being has the ability. Really big.
I came across this one recently. "Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of Him." (1 John 5:1) Any time you see an "all" or a "no one" or, in this case, and "everyone," you need to pay attention because it's big. So what do we see in these "everyones"?
First, we have "everyone who believes." What do we know about them -- by definition, all of them? They have all been born of God. That is, you cannot "believe" if you are not born of Him and you can't be born of Him if you don't believe. The two are irrevocably linked. They can't be separated.
Second, there is an "and" followed by another "everyone." In this "everyone" we have the condition, "loves the Father." What follows can be confusing. You figure to see something like "Everyone who loves the Father loves the Son" or something like it, but that's not what it says. This one says that everyone -- each and every without exception -- who loves the Father loves His children. Who are His children? The rest of the "everyone" in the first "everyone" who are born of God -- those who receive Christ (John 1:12). This is saying that there are no exceptions. If you love the Father, you will love His children, your fellow believers, your fellow saints. Now this is consistent with what John had written earlier. "If anyone says, 'I love God,' and hates his brother, he is a liar." (1 John 4:20) And earlier, "Whoever hates his brother is in the darkness and walks in the darkness, and does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes." (1 John 2:11) And, of course, all of this is just keying off Jesus's own words, "By this all people will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another." (John 13:35)
Third, the structure of the sentence with its "and" in the middle requires that the first "everyone" -- those who believe -- is the same as the second "everyone" -- those who love the Father. So these two "everyones" are the same people. Everyone who believes = everyone who has been born of God = everyone who loves the Father = everyone who loves His children. Perhaps you can begin to see how sweeping this is. If I say I believe in Christ but am not "born of God" or I don't "love His children," I'm deceiving myself. If I say I love God but not His people, it's a lie. These are all universally linked. Apparently when we believe -- when we are "born of God," beause these two cannot be uncoupled -- we are changed. We love God because of a new nature (2 Cor 5:17) and we love His people because of a new nature and, while we might slip from time to time or suppress it on occasion, it is part of who we are as believers, born of God. If that is not so for any individual, then that individual should be very concerned that there is no relationship with God at all.
That's a big "everyone."
I came across this one recently. "Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of Him." (1 John 5:1) Any time you see an "all" or a "no one" or, in this case, and "everyone," you need to pay attention because it's big. So what do we see in these "everyones"?
First, we have "everyone who believes." What do we know about them -- by definition, all of them? They have all been born of God. That is, you cannot "believe" if you are not born of Him and you can't be born of Him if you don't believe. The two are irrevocably linked. They can't be separated.
Second, there is an "and" followed by another "everyone." In this "everyone" we have the condition, "loves the Father." What follows can be confusing. You figure to see something like "Everyone who loves the Father loves the Son" or something like it, but that's not what it says. This one says that everyone -- each and every without exception -- who loves the Father loves His children. Who are His children? The rest of the "everyone" in the first "everyone" who are born of God -- those who receive Christ (John 1:12). This is saying that there are no exceptions. If you love the Father, you will love His children, your fellow believers, your fellow saints. Now this is consistent with what John had written earlier. "If anyone says, 'I love God,' and hates his brother, he is a liar." (1 John 4:20) And earlier, "Whoever hates his brother is in the darkness and walks in the darkness, and does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes." (1 John 2:11) And, of course, all of this is just keying off Jesus's own words, "By this all people will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another." (John 13:35)
Third, the structure of the sentence with its "and" in the middle requires that the first "everyone" -- those who believe -- is the same as the second "everyone" -- those who love the Father. So these two "everyones" are the same people. Everyone who believes = everyone who has been born of God = everyone who loves the Father = everyone who loves His children. Perhaps you can begin to see how sweeping this is. If I say I believe in Christ but am not "born of God" or I don't "love His children," I'm deceiving myself. If I say I love God but not His people, it's a lie. These are all universally linked. Apparently when we believe -- when we are "born of God," beause these two cannot be uncoupled -- we are changed. We love God because of a new nature (2 Cor 5:17) and we love His people because of a new nature and, while we might slip from time to time or suppress it on occasion, it is part of who we are as believers, born of God. If that is not so for any individual, then that individual should be very concerned that there is no relationship with God at all.
That's a big "everyone."
Tuesday, October 20, 2020
Sojourners and Exiles?
In 1 Peter 2:11 Peter refers to us as "sojourners and exiles." That shouldn't come as a shock, really. Paul hints at this when he refers to us as "ambassadors for Christ" (2 Cor 5:20), but declares clearly that "Our citizenship is in heaven." (Php 3:20) The author of Hebrews says that those who died in faith "confessed that they were strangers and exiles on the earth." (Heb 11:13) Jesus said, "You are not of the world." (John 15:19)
So why are we expecting to be central here? Why are we bemoaning the fact that Christianity is no longer the major influence that it was when the nation began? Why are we surprised that faith is moved out of politics, out of the public square? Why does it befuddle us that we are being marginalized, sidelined, shunted out? Well, that seems to be because we don't see ourselves as Scripture describes us. Hebrews says "Here we have no lasting city, but we seek the city that is to come" (Heb 13:14), and most of us are thinking, "No, this is where we belong and we need to make our voices heard!"
What would it look like if we viewed life in America as if we were aliens, visitors, outsiders? Or wherever you find yourself. Much of our approach to politics or church or interpersonal interactions is based on the sense that we're "in," part of the group. In fact, we're an important part of the group. What if we saw ourselves as strangers and exiles, sojourners just here temporarily? How would we approach life differently? How would we approach evangelism differently? How would it change our work ethic? How would it change our daily choices? We'd certainly be less concerned about creature comforts or political control. I think we'd be less strident. I know in human terms I'm miffed when, say, Canadians tell me how bad our country is. "Hey, you're visitors! Show some respect!" Well, we're outsiders here, but we sure don't act like it.
So what about us? Are we residents or visitors? Are we ensconced or just passing through? Do we hold a superior position -- "This is my home!" -- or a respectful one -- "I know this is your place, but I wanted to share some things with you."? Maybe I'm just seeing things askew, but having read all that about "sojourners" and "ambassadors" and looking at how we approach the people around us, it sure doesn't look like we believe that bit in the Bible about "Not of this world." I'm trying to imagine how different it would look if we did. Since I don't have a clear idea of what that would look like, I've clearly put in my roots too deep in this temporary land, haven't I?
So why are we expecting to be central here? Why are we bemoaning the fact that Christianity is no longer the major influence that it was when the nation began? Why are we surprised that faith is moved out of politics, out of the public square? Why does it befuddle us that we are being marginalized, sidelined, shunted out? Well, that seems to be because we don't see ourselves as Scripture describes us. Hebrews says "Here we have no lasting city, but we seek the city that is to come" (Heb 13:14), and most of us are thinking, "No, this is where we belong and we need to make our voices heard!"
What would it look like if we viewed life in America as if we were aliens, visitors, outsiders? Or wherever you find yourself. Much of our approach to politics or church or interpersonal interactions is based on the sense that we're "in," part of the group. In fact, we're an important part of the group. What if we saw ourselves as strangers and exiles, sojourners just here temporarily? How would we approach life differently? How would we approach evangelism differently? How would it change our work ethic? How would it change our daily choices? We'd certainly be less concerned about creature comforts or political control. I think we'd be less strident. I know in human terms I'm miffed when, say, Canadians tell me how bad our country is. "Hey, you're visitors! Show some respect!" Well, we're outsiders here, but we sure don't act like it.
So what about us? Are we residents or visitors? Are we ensconced or just passing through? Do we hold a superior position -- "This is my home!" -- or a respectful one -- "I know this is your place, but I wanted to share some things with you."? Maybe I'm just seeing things askew, but having read all that about "sojourners" and "ambassadors" and looking at how we approach the people around us, it sure doesn't look like we believe that bit in the Bible about "Not of this world." I'm trying to imagine how different it would look if we did. Since I don't have a clear idea of what that would look like, I've clearly put in my roots too deep in this temporary land, haven't I?
Monday, October 19, 2020
Just One of the Fine Gifts God Gives
We like gifts. And we have a Good God. A Powerful God. A Loving God. So when we understand that we are His children when we receive Christ (John 1:12), we should really expect some fantastic gifts from the hands of that marvelous God. And we won't be disappointed. There is, first and foremost, salvation. No small deal given our original "dead in sin" (Eph 2:1), "hostile to God" (Rom 8:7), "enemies of God" (Rom 5:10) position. We are His adopted children (Rom 8:29). We have the Holy Spirit -- the Spirit of God living within us, teaching us (1 John 2:27) and empowering and enabling us (Php 2:13). And gifts! Individual gifts. Special gifts from the Spirit who "gives to each one individually as He wills." (1 Cor 12:11) He gives faith (Rom 12:3). Imagine that! God keeps giving and giving. Oh, and I know one of our favorites -- suffering! Oh, we love that!
Wait ... no? So, which part? "God doesn't give us suffering." Okay, let's look at that. Paul wrote to the Philippian Christians, "For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in Him but also suffer for His sake." (Php 1:29) See that? "Granted." A gift. (Note that "believe in Him" is granted here, too, just as Christ said (John 6:65).) The language is clearly about God granting the gift of suffering for His sake. Peter offers a similar concept when he writes, "It is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God's will, than for doing evil." (1 Peter 3:17) And "Let those who suffer according to God's will entrust their souls to a faithful Creator while doing good." (1 Peter 4:19) And Jesus said we are blessed when we suffer for Him (Matt 5:10-12). While all of humanity considers suffering a really bad thing, Scripture understands that, in the hands of a good and wise and loving God, it can be a very good gift.
"And we don't like it." So why don't we? Why don't we see it as a gift? Why don't we "rejoice in our sufferings" (Rom 5:3-5)? Why don't we "count it all joy" (James 1:2-4) when trials occur? Why, when God gives us these gifts, do we turn up our noses and question the goodness of God? Well, it's clearly because we're confused, deceived, short-sighted. We don't know, apparently, that "suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not put us to shame, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us." (Rom 5:3-5) We aren't aware that "the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing." (James 1:3-4) We think we know better than God and this can't be a good thing. But it is.
It's not natural and it's not normal, but it is right. When we face various troubles, we are benefited (Rom 8:28) and God is glorified (1 Peter 4:13). When we are weak, His power is made perfect (2 Cor 12:9). So it's not God's gift of suffering that needs to be modified; it's our thinking about that gift. The proper response (the right, the accurate, the reasonable, the correct response) is to rejoice in it. I suspect we all have a bit of adjustment required in our perceptions to align that that mode of thinking. ("A bit of adjustment" -- is that an understatement?)
Wait ... no? So, which part? "God doesn't give us suffering." Okay, let's look at that. Paul wrote to the Philippian Christians, "For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in Him but also suffer for His sake." (Php 1:29) See that? "Granted." A gift. (Note that "believe in Him" is granted here, too, just as Christ said (John 6:65).) The language is clearly about God granting the gift of suffering for His sake. Peter offers a similar concept when he writes, "It is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God's will, than for doing evil." (1 Peter 3:17) And "Let those who suffer according to God's will entrust their souls to a faithful Creator while doing good." (1 Peter 4:19) And Jesus said we are blessed when we suffer for Him (Matt 5:10-12). While all of humanity considers suffering a really bad thing, Scripture understands that, in the hands of a good and wise and loving God, it can be a very good gift.
"And we don't like it." So why don't we? Why don't we see it as a gift? Why don't we "rejoice in our sufferings" (Rom 5:3-5)? Why don't we "count it all joy" (James 1:2-4) when trials occur? Why, when God gives us these gifts, do we turn up our noses and question the goodness of God? Well, it's clearly because we're confused, deceived, short-sighted. We don't know, apparently, that "suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not put us to shame, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us." (Rom 5:3-5) We aren't aware that "the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing." (James 1:3-4) We think we know better than God and this can't be a good thing. But it is.
It's not natural and it's not normal, but it is right. When we face various troubles, we are benefited (Rom 8:28) and God is glorified (1 Peter 4:13). When we are weak, His power is made perfect (2 Cor 12:9). So it's not God's gift of suffering that needs to be modified; it's our thinking about that gift. The proper response (the right, the accurate, the reasonable, the correct response) is to rejoice in it. I suspect we all have a bit of adjustment required in our perceptions to align that that mode of thinking. ("A bit of adjustment" -- is that an understatement?)
Sunday, October 18, 2020
Diversity and Inclusiveness
Here's something I hadn't thought about before. We are currently in a huge "diversity" and "inclusivity" uproar. California has mandated that every publicly held corporation in the state would have at least one board member from an underrepresented community by 2021 … with more to come. Starbucks has declared that they will have 30% BIPOC (black, indigenous, people of color) by 2025. In Hollywood requirements are falling all around about inclusion of more of the underrepresented. Why all this furor? Well, because ... they're underrepresented. It appears that opportunity is not equally available for all.
Then there's this. I heard the other day, "God doesn't have grandchildren." What did they mean? They meant that every single person that comes to Christ comes on his or her own. No one gets in because they're white or rich or born in the right place with the right parents or anything like it. Christ died so that "whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:16) Paul wrote,
The real amazing thing, then, would be the stunning realization that you and I are in that group out of the sheer grace and mercy of God. "This is not your own doing; it is the gift of God." (Eph 2:8) I think we often miss the most diverse and inclusive group in the world -- God's people.
Then there's this. I heard the other day, "God doesn't have grandchildren." What did they mean? They meant that every single person that comes to Christ comes on his or her own. No one gets in because they're white or rich or born in the right place with the right parents or anything like it. Christ died so that "whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:16) Paul wrote,
In Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Gal 3:26-28)Talk about inclusivity. Talk about diversity. In Revelation "they sang a new song, saying, 'Worthy are You to take the scroll and to open its seals, for You were slain, and by Your blood You ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation,' and You have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth." (Rev 5:9-10) That's "every tribe and language and people and nation." True diversity. True inclusivity.
The real amazing thing, then, would be the stunning realization that you and I are in that group out of the sheer grace and mercy of God. "This is not your own doing; it is the gift of God." (Eph 2:8) I think we often miss the most diverse and inclusive group in the world -- God's people.
Saturday, October 17, 2020
News Weakly - 10/17/2020
The Hateful Truth
According to the Washington State Department of Health, it is legal in that state to have your sex designation changed on your birth certificate to reflect your gender identity. So when Seahawks radio host Dori Monson tweeted about Washington governor discussing the state's adherence to science in a state where changing your birth certificate to reflect a different birth sex, the crowd went wild. The Seahawks suspended him. Seattle Pride demanded he be fired. This kind of "mockery" and "transphobic hate" will not be tolerated. It's actually true, but that doesn't matter. In this case it's hateful to recognize what's true. Monson was ridiculing a governor who "adheres to science" while ignoring biology, and that's hate. Besides, he made some comments critical of the BLM movement, so that was just career suicide. Note: When we can define "stating the truth" as "hate," we are proving my point about redefining words and then shoving them back down our throats.
A Good Example
Capitol Hill Baptist Church got its ruling. They had been meeting outdoors, wearing masks, and maintaining social distancing, but were refused a waiver from the city to be allowed to continue meeting. On the basis of the mayor's refusal to allow the church to meet while observing proper procedures, yet personally attending massive gatherings without any safeguards, the church asked the court to extend them the same First Amendment rights. The court agreed. And the church did it well. Of course, the city might appeal -- it may not be over -- but it was refreshing to see a church trying to do everything right while maintaining biblical integrity.
When Preference is Offensive
On the hot seat in front of the Senate, Amy Barrett (Why is everyone using her complete name?) was asked about whether she would roll back freedoms and protections for the LGBT community. She answered, "I have no agenda. I do want to be clear that I have never discriminated on the basis of sexual preference and would not discriminate on the basis of sexual preference." And the crowd goes wild. An MSNBC producer tweeted that the term is "offensive and outdated." Senator Hirono took her to task for it. Keep in mind, Biden and Ginsburg and Feinstein and Durbin and even the Huffington Post and The Atlantic have used it all recently, but now it's offensive. So Merriam-Webster changed their definition (compared with this earlier one) to align with this brand new offense. Because, you see, if we can establish that there is choice involved -- any kind of choice at all -- then we can continue the discussion of the morality of it, and that will never do.
Monument Elite
The news has been filled for months with monuments being dismembered, toppled, and removed around the country. Racist, all. We will not tolerate it. Unless, of course, if it's Disney. Classic Disney films have been classified as "racist." You might think immediately of The Song of the South, but that's just the tip of the iceberg. Disney itself has included films such as Dumbo, Peter Pan, and Jungle Book. They put a warning on them about "negative depictions and/or mistreatment of people or cultures." But, unlike the many monuments around, they have not removed them. They added, "we want to acknowledge its harmful impact, learn from it and spark conversation to create a more inclusive future together." Because with their money-making ability, they're valuable, while those stinkin' ol' statues are not. That kind of income must be tolerated.
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
This week ABC hosted Biden's town hall where he "laid out his vision" while NBC faced backlash for hosting Trump's town hall in a "combative" event. There were calls to boycott NBC because Trump had tested positive for COVID early in the month even though Dr. Anthony Fauci and NIH clinical director Dr. Clifford Lane reviewed his most recent test and agreed that he was "not shedding infectious virus." Hosting Trump was "indefensible" because, well, it's Trump and he's bad and Biden is good. I think the whole thing speaks to the ugliness of most of today's media and the American public's inability or simple refusal to see it.
What We Have Here is a Failure to Get It
Former governor Chris Christie told Good Morning America that he regretted not wearing a mask to the White House. "It was a mistake," he said. "I was led to believe that all the people I was interacting with at the White House had been tested, and it gave you a false sense of security." Dear Mr. Christie, your mask, had you worn it, was never intended to prevent you from being exposed to the virus. Your mask was intended to protect others from you according to the CDC. People just don't seem to get that.
Dirty Underwear
C-SPAN's Steve Scully who was supposed to moderate a debate between Trump and Biden got in trouble after asking Antony Scaramucci if he should respond to Trump's accusation that Scully was a "Never Trumper." Scaramucci, if you recall, was a White House Director of Communications for 10 days in 2017 and is now opposed to Trump. Scully got in trouble because he was caught and then lied that he had been hacked, leaving the media's underwear -- anti-Trump bias -- exposed for all to see.
Shocked, I Tell You, Just Shocked
We've had a horrible year economically thanks to Trump. No, you know that's not accurate. Thanks to COVID and the draconian actions we've had to take to slow it down before it killed us all. But they'll blame it on Trump because I've already heard it. "He mishandled this crisis and we have massive unemployment" which, by the way, we would have had if you had been running it. Currently unemployment is at 7.9%, up from 3.6% in January but down from 14.7% in April. The news item Friday was that the U.S. budget gap tripled to a record $3.1 trillion. Yikes! Oh, wait ... that number seems familiar. Where did I ... oh, yeah, the $3 trillion the government gave out for COVID relief. So, you're telling me that because the government gave out $3 trillion in relief, we're $3 trillion in debt? I am shocked, I tell you, just shocked! Of course, if the Democrats had their way, that number would have already doubled. I'm not at all sure how Medicare and Social Security and all those other things will survive, but we shouldn't be surprised.
Unusual Babylon Bee Story
The Bee is mocking a news item of the week in this headline, "You Should Absolutely NOT Read The Disgusting, Totally False Story About Joe Biden's Son That We've Linked To In This Article." They're mocking the outrage against the "false" story that is well documented and that Twitter cut off the Trump campaign for repeating it. Their story is unusual for the Bee because they actually link to the story. Watch it, Babylon Bee. You might be accused of real news. But, then, it might be necessary this time since most of the MSM (mainstream media) seems to be skipping it themselves.
According to the Washington State Department of Health, it is legal in that state to have your sex designation changed on your birth certificate to reflect your gender identity. So when Seahawks radio host Dori Monson tweeted about Washington governor discussing the state's adherence to science in a state where changing your birth certificate to reflect a different birth sex, the crowd went wild. The Seahawks suspended him. Seattle Pride demanded he be fired. This kind of "mockery" and "transphobic hate" will not be tolerated. It's actually true, but that doesn't matter. In this case it's hateful to recognize what's true. Monson was ridiculing a governor who "adheres to science" while ignoring biology, and that's hate. Besides, he made some comments critical of the BLM movement, so that was just career suicide. Note: When we can define "stating the truth" as "hate," we are proving my point about redefining words and then shoving them back down our throats.
A Good Example
Capitol Hill Baptist Church got its ruling. They had been meeting outdoors, wearing masks, and maintaining social distancing, but were refused a waiver from the city to be allowed to continue meeting. On the basis of the mayor's refusal to allow the church to meet while observing proper procedures, yet personally attending massive gatherings without any safeguards, the church asked the court to extend them the same First Amendment rights. The court agreed. And the church did it well. Of course, the city might appeal -- it may not be over -- but it was refreshing to see a church trying to do everything right while maintaining biblical integrity.
When Preference is Offensive
On the hot seat in front of the Senate, Amy Barrett (Why is everyone using her complete name?) was asked about whether she would roll back freedoms and protections for the LGBT community. She answered, "I have no agenda. I do want to be clear that I have never discriminated on the basis of sexual preference and would not discriminate on the basis of sexual preference." And the crowd goes wild. An MSNBC producer tweeted that the term is "offensive and outdated." Senator Hirono took her to task for it. Keep in mind, Biden and Ginsburg and Feinstein and Durbin and even the Huffington Post and The Atlantic have used it all recently, but now it's offensive. So Merriam-Webster changed their definition (compared with this earlier one) to align with this brand new offense. Because, you see, if we can establish that there is choice involved -- any kind of choice at all -- then we can continue the discussion of the morality of it, and that will never do.
Monument Elite
The news has been filled for months with monuments being dismembered, toppled, and removed around the country. Racist, all. We will not tolerate it. Unless, of course, if it's Disney. Classic Disney films have been classified as "racist." You might think immediately of The Song of the South, but that's just the tip of the iceberg. Disney itself has included films such as Dumbo, Peter Pan, and Jungle Book. They put a warning on them about "negative depictions and/or mistreatment of people or cultures." But, unlike the many monuments around, they have not removed them. They added, "we want to acknowledge its harmful impact, learn from it and spark conversation to create a more inclusive future together." Because with their money-making ability, they're valuable, while those stinkin' ol' statues are not. That kind of income must be tolerated.
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
This week ABC hosted Biden's town hall where he "laid out his vision" while NBC faced backlash for hosting Trump's town hall in a "combative" event. There were calls to boycott NBC because Trump had tested positive for COVID early in the month even though Dr. Anthony Fauci and NIH clinical director Dr. Clifford Lane reviewed his most recent test and agreed that he was "not shedding infectious virus." Hosting Trump was "indefensible" because, well, it's Trump and he's bad and Biden is good. I think the whole thing speaks to the ugliness of most of today's media and the American public's inability or simple refusal to see it.
What We Have Here is a Failure to Get It
Former governor Chris Christie told Good Morning America that he regretted not wearing a mask to the White House. "It was a mistake," he said. "I was led to believe that all the people I was interacting with at the White House had been tested, and it gave you a false sense of security." Dear Mr. Christie, your mask, had you worn it, was never intended to prevent you from being exposed to the virus. Your mask was intended to protect others from you according to the CDC. People just don't seem to get that.
Dirty Underwear
C-SPAN's Steve Scully who was supposed to moderate a debate between Trump and Biden got in trouble after asking Antony Scaramucci if he should respond to Trump's accusation that Scully was a "Never Trumper." Scaramucci, if you recall, was a White House Director of Communications for 10 days in 2017 and is now opposed to Trump. Scully got in trouble because he was caught and then lied that he had been hacked, leaving the media's underwear -- anti-Trump bias -- exposed for all to see.
Shocked, I Tell You, Just Shocked
We've had a horrible year economically thanks to Trump. No, you know that's not accurate. Thanks to COVID and the draconian actions we've had to take to slow it down before it killed us all. But they'll blame it on Trump because I've already heard it. "He mishandled this crisis and we have massive unemployment" which, by the way, we would have had if you had been running it. Currently unemployment is at 7.9%, up from 3.6% in January but down from 14.7% in April. The news item Friday was that the U.S. budget gap tripled to a record $3.1 trillion. Yikes! Oh, wait ... that number seems familiar. Where did I ... oh, yeah, the $3 trillion the government gave out for COVID relief. So, you're telling me that because the government gave out $3 trillion in relief, we're $3 trillion in debt? I am shocked, I tell you, just shocked! Of course, if the Democrats had their way, that number would have already doubled. I'm not at all sure how Medicare and Social Security and all those other things will survive, but we shouldn't be surprised.
Unusual Babylon Bee Story
The Bee is mocking a news item of the week in this headline, "You Should Absolutely NOT Read The Disgusting, Totally False Story About Joe Biden's Son That We've Linked To In This Article." They're mocking the outrage against the "false" story that is well documented and that Twitter cut off the Trump campaign for repeating it. Their story is unusual for the Bee because they actually link to the story. Watch it, Babylon Bee. You might be accused of real news. But, then, it might be necessary this time since most of the MSM (mainstream media) seems to be skipping it themselves.
Friday, October 16, 2020
Totalitolerance
That's a fun word, isn't it? No? Okay, fine. So, what is it? Well, you take "totalitarianism" and "tolerance" and mush them together and get "totalitolerance." And what is that? It is the absolute demand that "Thou shalt be tolerant ... or else." Now, I'm not sure if you're paying attention, but that demand in itself is intolerant. Further, "tolerant" isn't an act so much as a thought process, so the command for tolerance is a thought command. And we are so close to a totalitolerant society.
Take the current gender climate. In 2018 a Virginia teacher says he was fired for refusing to use male pronouns for a biological girl that identified as a guy. In 2015 New York City decided that you can be fined up to $250,000 for refusing to use the pronoun of choice on the basis of gender identity or expression. Not to be outdone, in 2017 the governor of California outlawed it for the state. The only difference is that in California it is aimed at "hospitals, retirement homes, and assisted living facilities" and it could result in a fine of up to $1000 or a year in jail. These stories speak not of a passionate, "Can't we all just get along?" plea, but a thought control government.
How about the multiple stories of "haters" who have sought to appropriate their First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion and run afoul of the law? We have all heard of the Colorado baker who asked the same-sex couple to use another baker for their wedding cake. House Democrats stood against him before the Supreme Court. Kim Davis is the fairly well-known name of the woman who refused to issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples in Kentucky and was sued. The ACLU got her jailed and fined. We all know about Arlene's Flowers that was forced out of business because the owner opted not to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding. We are all aware of a flood of these cases. These stories speak not of a passionate, "Can't we all just get along?" plea, but a thought control government.
Then there was the Obergefell ruling. In 2015 the Supreme Court manufactured, out of thin air, a new right for some Americans -- to marry someone of the same sex. It wasn't found in the Constitution or its Amendments. It did collide with the First Amendment right of religious liberty. But by judicial fiat SCOTUS ordered a new law of the land, and the principle of precedent demands that, right or wrong, those with their newly invented sexual liberty must be allowed to keep it and those who thought they had religious liberty can't. That's not tolerance. That's totalitolerance. If you're thinking wrong -- like "I am protected by the First Amendment" or "I believe what the Bible says" -- you're in for a rude and perhaps costly awakening.
Just a few examples of totalitolerance in America in our time. "Alarmist!" I can hear it. "You're just exaggerating!" I'm sure some think so. But we are currently in a climate that embraces both "tolerance" and the antilogical, "You have no place here if you don't agree" intolerance. Totalitolerance is a thing. Where our culture cries out for "tolerance" while denying the definition -- the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with -- it is not tolerance they cry for; it is totalitolerance. Our culture will tolerate anything except for those who believe in absolute moral values. It may or may not be governmental. It is certainly cultural right now. (Think "cancel culture.") It is aiming at thought control, and it is not tolerant.
Thursday, October 15, 2020
Offense
That title is "offense" as in being offensive, not "offense" as having the football. Just in case you football fans were unclear.
There are people who get a kick out of being offensive. They probably call it something more like "edgy" or some other euphemism -- "It's all in fun" -- but it's really the shock and dismay they cause that thrills them. On the Internet they call them "trolls," but you know them in real life, too, I'm sure. Me? I don't like to offend people if I don't have to. Mind you, sometimes it's necessary, but I see what Paul wrote and take it seriously.
There are certainly times when we offend people unnecessarily. On the other hand, sometimes we have no choice. Scripture is abundantly clear. To the world the cross in offensive (Rom 9:33; Gal 5:11; 1 Peter 2:8; 1 Cor 1:18-24). We know that the world hates Christ (John 15:18). So when I claim that Jesus is the only way to God, I will likely offend, but to do otherwise would be to deny Christ (John 14:6). When I declare that the Bible is the God-breathed truth (2 Tim 3:16), it certainly upsets some, but to do otherwise is to deny God. As Peter said when told to stop preaching the gospel, "Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge, for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard." (Acts 4:19-20)
Paul said, "All things are lawful for me" (1 Cor 6:12), but went on to say, "If food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble." (1 Cor 8:13) I would hope that we -- the followers of Christ -- would take a similar approach. We will offend with the truth of God's Word, but we should avoid offending for something less important. It's a part of loving our neighbor, of considering others as more important than ourselves (Php 2:3). It's just biblical.
There are people who get a kick out of being offensive. They probably call it something more like "edgy" or some other euphemism -- "It's all in fun" -- but it's really the shock and dismay they cause that thrills them. On the Internet they call them "trolls," but you know them in real life, too, I'm sure. Me? I don't like to offend people if I don't have to. Mind you, sometimes it's necessary, but I see what Paul wrote and take it seriously.
Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God, just as I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved. (1 Cor 10:32-33)So I try, so far as it depends on me, to be at peace with all (Rom 12:18). There are, of course, times when that can't happen. But how many times do we opt to "be offensive" when we don't have to? How many times do we decide "I will be myself!" or "I gotta be me!" or "Who cares what anyone else thinks? I'm just gonna do it"? Or say it? We often don't consider who we offend when we do what we do or how we do it.
There are certainly times when we offend people unnecessarily. On the other hand, sometimes we have no choice. Scripture is abundantly clear. To the world the cross in offensive (Rom 9:33; Gal 5:11; 1 Peter 2:8; 1 Cor 1:18-24). We know that the world hates Christ (John 15:18). So when I claim that Jesus is the only way to God, I will likely offend, but to do otherwise would be to deny Christ (John 14:6). When I declare that the Bible is the God-breathed truth (2 Tim 3:16), it certainly upsets some, but to do otherwise is to deny God. As Peter said when told to stop preaching the gospel, "Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge, for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard." (Acts 4:19-20)
Paul said, "All things are lawful for me" (1 Cor 6:12), but went on to say, "If food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble." (1 Cor 8:13) I would hope that we -- the followers of Christ -- would take a similar approach. We will offend with the truth of God's Word, but we should avoid offending for something less important. It's a part of loving our neighbor, of considering others as more important than ourselves (Php 2:3). It's just biblical.
Wednesday, October 14, 2020
The Bible and Progressives
I like to joke about Ecclesiastes on politics. "A wise man's heart inclines him to the right, but a fool's heart to the left." (Eccl 10:2) Clear enough, right? Well, mostly.
I've written a lot lately from 1 John because that's where we've been studying. Well, obviously, if we were in 1 John before, 2 John must be next. So I came across this gem.
Now, note, John doesn't say that going on ahead was wrong. He didn't say that we mustn't do that. What he warns about is being progressive and leaving Christ's teaching.
It's okay to look for new and interesting. It's fine to examine things, figure out new approaches, update language, use new methods, all that kind of stuff. "Progressive" in this language is not evil. Leaving Christ's teaching is. Departing from the Logos -- from the Word -- is a problem.
How much of a problem? If that's what they're doing -- moving ahead and departing from the teachings of Scripture -- then they don't have God. What is the sure test to see if you have God? Abide in the teaching. And what are we supposed to do? This is harsh, but it's Scripture. "If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works." (2 John 1:10-11)
There is, then, apparently good "progressive" and bad "progressive." Moving ahead isn't necessarily wrong. What is critical is remaining in the teaching of Christ. If we have the Father, we have the Son and we will remain. (Oh, wait, that's what John wrote over in 1 John 2:18-19, isn't it? Nice. Continuity.) And we aren't supposed to receive or even greet those who, in the name of Christ, don't keep His teachings. I'm not sure how many of us are keeping that command.
I've written a lot lately from 1 John because that's where we've been studying. Well, obviously, if we were in 1 John before, 2 John must be next. So I came across this gem.
Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. (2 John 1:9)What an interesting phrase. He speaks of those who "go on ahead." The NASB goes with "goes too far," but adds, "Lit. runs ahead" in the margin. The word is προάγων -- proagōn. The verb is present participle active -- an ongoing action. It might be "leads forward" or "to go further." Try as I might, I can't help but see "progressive" in this word.
Now, note, John doesn't say that going on ahead was wrong. He didn't say that we mustn't do that. What he warns about is being progressive and leaving Christ's teaching.
It's okay to look for new and interesting. It's fine to examine things, figure out new approaches, update language, use new methods, all that kind of stuff. "Progressive" in this language is not evil. Leaving Christ's teaching is. Departing from the Logos -- from the Word -- is a problem.
How much of a problem? If that's what they're doing -- moving ahead and departing from the teachings of Scripture -- then they don't have God. What is the sure test to see if you have God? Abide in the teaching. And what are we supposed to do? This is harsh, but it's Scripture. "If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works." (2 John 1:10-11)
There is, then, apparently good "progressive" and bad "progressive." Moving ahead isn't necessarily wrong. What is critical is remaining in the teaching of Christ. If we have the Father, we have the Son and we will remain. (Oh, wait, that's what John wrote over in 1 John 2:18-19, isn't it? Nice. Continuity.) And we aren't supposed to receive or even greet those who, in the name of Christ, don't keep His teachings. I'm not sure how many of us are keeping that command.
Tuesday, October 13, 2020
Bye, Bye, My Ol' Eskimo Pie
Meet the Eskimo. You'd better do it fast because it is now considered derogatory. Why? Let's look.
"Eskimo," according to the dictionary, refers to Native Americans (and more) who live up toward the Arctic Circle. They include the Yupik, the Inupiat, the Inuvialuit, the Nunavut, the Kalaallit, the Nunavik, and the Nunatsiavut. Think of it like "Asians" which includes all the "tribes" and countries of the Asian continent. It's just a group term pointing toward the Arctic Circle indicating "those people there." A rumor circulated for some time that the word meant "eaters of raw meat." Oh, now that's derogatory, right? Really, I don't know why, if you happen to eat raw meat. But most scholars now agree that the word comes from an Innu-aimun word, ayas̆kimew, which means "a person who laces a snowshoe." So it is a reference to wearing snowshoes or, far less likely, what they eat.
"Maybe, but it is a term applied by someone other than the people who bear it. That makes it derogatory." I find that interesting as well. We use "Asian" for people from Asia and "European" for people from Europe. We refer to Germans as "Germans." Turns out that the Germans use "Deutsch" for themselves and, oddly, aren't offended that we call them "Germans," the term we applied to them. And so on with Asians and Europeans and so on and so on. Conversely, I've met many people from China who have requested a new name when they come here. "You won't be able to pronounce my name, so give me one you can pronounce." That's what they told me. Now, I've always tried my best to pronounce their names, but one young lady from India told me to stop. "Please just go with the shortened version." So "Milly" it is, only vaguely connected to her real name. Because the term that is applied isn't as important as the relationship.
"But, some people have used the term in a derogatory manner." Likely true. Most haven't. And if we decide that "using the term in a derogatory manner" means "stop using the term," I suspect before long we'll run out of terms because we have a lot of derogatory people who are delighted to take any term at all and spit it out like it's a curse and -- poof! -- we've lost another term because of a small number of idiots. I mean, I heard a kid refer to another with the term "a cute little boy" and meant it to be cruel. So we eliminate it because of a bully? I don't think that's reasonable.
So we continue to dismantle reality. No longer can I buy an Eskimo Pie because misuse of an Innu-aimun word has led to disaster. I suspect that the disaster is really because a white person used the term and our culture today thinks that anything white people do is cruel. Or it's like the term "retarded." Long ago they used to refer to someone who was mentally challenged as a "moron" because "moron" meant someone who was mentally challenged. Then "moron" became offensive, ostensibly because it was derogatory but, I believe, actually because it denoted a difference between this person and most everybody else. So they changed it. "All we're saying is he's not as fast mentally. He's a bit slower than others. He's retarded." That was a grand change … until again it was viewed as derogatory and, again, I'm pretty sure only because it pointed to a difference. How long before the current "intellectual disability" dies the same death? "Eskimo" is like that. And the euphemism treadmill goes round and round.
Monday, October 12, 2020
The Trouble with Touch
I'm sure you've all heard of the concept of "unintended consequences." It's when you make a good plan -- let's call it "Plan A" -- only to discover that the plan, when implemented, produces unforeseen side effects. "Whoa! Did not see that coming!" So we have to scramble and come up with a "Plan B" to remedy the side effects that wouldn't have been there if we hadn't executed this "excellent plan."
Our response to COVID has, I think we all agree, been extreme. That's not necessarily a bad thing. I mean, an extreme response to an extreme event is sometimes necessary. And if COVID is as extreme as, say, Dr. Fauci says it is, well, then, shutting down commerce and locking ourselves in our homes and social distancing and wearing masks is extreme, but necessary. Plan A.
Until we come across unintended consequences. Then we might have a problem.
We knew there would be consequences. You know we knew it because the government immediately sprung into action to give us "relief." No one is questioning the economic impact on the world. Not just us. Businesses have closed, jobs have been lost, people are losing house and even, worst case, life over these consequences. They might not be intended, but they weren't unexpected. But I can think of at least one unintended consequence that I haven't seen anyone talk about.
An article in Greater Good Magazine comes from Dr. Dacher Keltner, Ph.D., the founding director of the magazine and a professor of psychology at UC Berkeley. The article is about the science of touch. Keltner explains that touch is "our primary language of compassion, and a primary means for spreading compassion." He cites interesting studies like one where the person had to try to convey an emotion in a one-second touch on a stranger's forearm. "The odds of guessing the right emotion by chance were about eight percent," he says, "But remarkably, participants guessed compassion correctly nearly 60 percent of the time." We don't know why, but humans respond to touch in ways we don't quite grasp. He quotes Michelangelo's, "To touch can be to give life." Touch is critical to human beings. In another article he explains how "tactile contact is a foundation of the good life," enhancing community, connection, and teamwork. A Psychology Today article explains that "Touch is the first sense we acquire and the secret weapon in many a successful relationship." Studies show that "we appear to be wired to interpret the touch of our fellow humans." Touch increases the speed of communication, enhances connectivity between people, and even helps in healing. Touching is vital throughout our lives.
We've moved on, largely. We had already jumped head first into "internet dating" and "social media" where we can connect without, you know, actually connecting. We have chatrooms and MMORPG games where massive amounts of people can play and "be friends" without ever even seeing each other. We've been working hard to avoid contact, it seems And in today's COVID climate we're told not to have physical cocntact at all. We are mandated to physically disconnect. According to science, that's a bad thing. And, based on increases in suicides, depression, loneliness and such, I think we can clearly see actual, measurable, unintended consequences because of it. But we will not come up with a Plan B, will we?
Sunday, October 11, 2020
Judgment for Believers
John writes in his first epistle about praying for brothers (any believers) that sin.
Most of us understand that Christ, on the cross, declared with His last breath, "It is finished!" (John 19:30), and, by that, He meant, "Paid in full." It was done. For all who come to Him in faith, our sins are forgiven from top to bottom. Paul calls it "no condemnation" (Rom 8:1). And that's good news. We won't face the Great White Throne Judgment (Rev 20) because our names are written in the Lamb's book of life and we're forgiven, cleansed from all unrighteousness (1 John 1:9). Good news! So does this mean there are no consequences for Christians who sin?
Lots of Christians claim that's so. There is no "judgment" -- the Christianese term we banty about. But I don't think that's quite biblical. So maybe our Christianese needs some tuning.
The author of Hebrews says that "The Lord disciplines the one He loves, and chastises every son whom He receives." (Heb 12:6) That should be sufficient information to prove that there are consequences to our sin even if they aren't eternal consequences. The word there is "sons," so it's not everybody and His action is "chastises," referencing "a whipping," so it's not just "teaching." That should be clear enough, but we can find more. We know about Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1-11). There is nothing in their story to suggest they were not children of God, but when they lied to the Holy Spirit, they were struck dead. Pretty serious. Paul told about Corinthian believers who took the Lord's Supper "in an unworthy manner" (1 Cor 11:27) so that "many of you are weak and ill, and some have died." (1 Cor 11:30)
Look at that one for a moment. Paul explains why some are weak, ill, and even dead. "When we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world." (1 Cor 11:32) Paul says "we" are judged and he says we are judged "so that we may not be condemned." Thus, there is judgment for a Christian's sin, but not condemnation.
I've written in the past that many think that sin is not that bad. I think that our "Gospel Lite" version that says, "We have no consequences because we're in Christ" isn't accurate. It's not just the "antichrist" Christians (1 John 2:18-19) that underestimate sin. We can, too.
Does God sometimes judge us for sin? Yes. Is some of the suffering we encounter in our lives a corrective? Certainly. Now, Scripture is clear that not all that is unpleasant is just such judgment (e.g., Luke 13:1-5; John 9:3-4), but some is. So, in the end, we must "Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness." (James 1:2-3) That is, while some of our trials may be judgment, not all are, but all are aimed at producing patience which leads to completion (James 1:4), a goal we can joyfully embrace from the hand of God.
If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask and God will for him give life to those who commit sin not leading to death. There is a sin leading to death; I do not say that he should make request for this. All unrighteousness is sin, and there is a sin not leading to death. (1 John 5:16-17)Now, there is a question among believers what he meant by "a sin leading to death." Is that physical death or eternal? And I don't plan to figure that out for you here. What I want to address is the notion of consequences of sin.
Most of us understand that Christ, on the cross, declared with His last breath, "It is finished!" (John 19:30), and, by that, He meant, "Paid in full." It was done. For all who come to Him in faith, our sins are forgiven from top to bottom. Paul calls it "no condemnation" (Rom 8:1). And that's good news. We won't face the Great White Throne Judgment (Rev 20) because our names are written in the Lamb's book of life and we're forgiven, cleansed from all unrighteousness (1 John 1:9). Good news! So does this mean there are no consequences for Christians who sin?
Lots of Christians claim that's so. There is no "judgment" -- the Christianese term we banty about. But I don't think that's quite biblical. So maybe our Christianese needs some tuning.
The author of Hebrews says that "The Lord disciplines the one He loves, and chastises every son whom He receives." (Heb 12:6) That should be sufficient information to prove that there are consequences to our sin even if they aren't eternal consequences. The word there is "sons," so it's not everybody and His action is "chastises," referencing "a whipping," so it's not just "teaching." That should be clear enough, but we can find more. We know about Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1-11). There is nothing in their story to suggest they were not children of God, but when they lied to the Holy Spirit, they were struck dead. Pretty serious. Paul told about Corinthian believers who took the Lord's Supper "in an unworthy manner" (1 Cor 11:27) so that "many of you are weak and ill, and some have died." (1 Cor 11:30)
Look at that one for a moment. Paul explains why some are weak, ill, and even dead. "When we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world." (1 Cor 11:32) Paul says "we" are judged and he says we are judged "so that we may not be condemned." Thus, there is judgment for a Christian's sin, but not condemnation.
I've written in the past that many think that sin is not that bad. I think that our "Gospel Lite" version that says, "We have no consequences because we're in Christ" isn't accurate. It's not just the "antichrist" Christians (1 John 2:18-19) that underestimate sin. We can, too.
Does God sometimes judge us for sin? Yes. Is some of the suffering we encounter in our lives a corrective? Certainly. Now, Scripture is clear that not all that is unpleasant is just such judgment (e.g., Luke 13:1-5; John 9:3-4), but some is. So, in the end, we must "Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness." (James 1:2-3) That is, while some of our trials may be judgment, not all are, but all are aimed at producing patience which leads to completion (James 1:4), a goal we can joyfully embrace from the hand of God.
Saturday, October 10, 2020
News Weakly - 10/10/20
Statuesque
The story is that the Mellon Foundation has committed $250 million to "reimagine" U.S. monuments in this time of anti-monuments (so to speak). I have nothing sarcastic or snarky to say here. I'm just thinking who today's society would consider "heroic," worthy of emulating, and who could endure the test of time. In a time when a classy comedian like Bill Cosby, "America's Dad," gets 3-10 years for drugging and sexually assaulting someone, who do we think is going to stand the test of time? In a world where "My boy was a good boy, a heroic boy, a wonderful kid" is a reference to a thug, a gang member, a thief, or a killer, where in the world are we going to identify heroes that define the best of us?
Feeding the Trolls
So, among the conspiracy theory folks these days a favorite point is, "We don't trust the COVID reporting. We don't think it's accurate!" In order to quell these fears, the WHO has come out with their own unique numbers. Instead of the 35 million or so who have been infected, they say the number is closer to 780 million … or so. And while our best information says 1 million people have died of COVID-related causes, they say it's "certainly higher." That is, the WHO doesn't trust our COVID reporting. They don't think it's accurate. There you go, conspiracy nuts; your fears have been confirmed.
Just a Thought
There is much ado about President Trump's hint that he might not accept the results of the election and go quietly. Isn't the outrage a bit odd coming from an entire political party that still hasn't accepted the results of the 2016 election?
And Now for Something Completely Different
Not news this time, but an interesting piece (in opposition to what I've been saying this election cycle … and last). Something to think about.
Counting the Cost
The London Economic reported that "More than 2,300 people died from Covid-19 in the United States on the days President Trump was in hospital." The news outlet complained, "Since leaving care, any suggestion that the president’s brush with the illness would draw out a more empathetic response to Covid-19 have swiftly been dashed." In contrast, over 9,000 babies were executed by abortion in the 3 days that Trump was hospitalized. The media, the mothers, the doctors, and the public obviously don't care. Between February 2 and October 3 the CDC reports that more than 198,000 people have died of COVID-19 in the U.S. while something like 738,000 babies have been killed by choice. Any notion that this many babies killed during the pandemic might draw out a more empathetic response from the media or the public should immediately be quashed. I don't suppose too many will be mourning for them.
America Makes It Clear
Our nation is locked in a voting struggle for who will be our next president. Emotions are high. Politics is big. And Americans proved the depth of their concerns ... when their biggest takeaway from the debate between Harris and Pence was a fly on Pence's head. Seriously, America, get a grip. We have very real issues at stake here and a fly is not among them. But in America where the media treats Twitter like "the voice of the people," replacing actual interviews with tweets as a story, if this is what we can expect from voters, we should definitely lower our expectations for any serious voters.
Disqualified
During a townhall gathering an audience member asked Joe Biden about his "particular plan to protect women's reproductive rights in the U.S." with Amy Barrett possibly joining the Supreme Court. Biden didn't waver. "Number one, we don't know exactly what she will do, although the expectation is that she very well may overrule Roe, and the only responsible response to that would be to pass legislation to make Roe the law of the land. That's what I would do." I believe that a man whose fundamental promise is not only to refuse to protect the most vulnerable people of the land, but to make their murder legally protected by law is not qualified to be the president of that land.
But ... HIPAA
The Hill (and others) are reporting that rotten ol' Trump made doctors at Walter Reed Medical Center sign nondisclosure agreements before treating him last year. Two refused and were not allowed to be involved. So people decry this kind of secrecy. Except … we have laws in this country that prevent anyone from releasing personal medical information. When I check in at my doctor's office for my annual physical I have to keep my distance from anyone else checking in because there are laws. When a coworker recently was diagnosed with COVID, we weren't allowed to say who it was because there are laws. Just not for the president, I guess.
And ... There It Is If you've been here before, you know that one of the big things I talk about is "words mean something." I'm particularly concerned with our post-modern thinking that allows us to yank out words, turn them around in their meaning to suit our taste, and then impose them on everyone else. Nancy Pelosi is making my point for me. The 25th Amendment comes into play when the president is "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office." In this case, the vice president operates as president. Pelosi wants a commission to "evaluate presidential mental and physical fitness" where "mental fitness" could be defined by the commission as "doesn't think like we want him to" so he could easily be classified as "mentally unfit." Given that each chamber of Congress has to affirm the finding within 25 days and given that Vice President Pence would act as president ("Oh, no!"), I can only imagine that Pelosi is making this move 1) with the anticipation that Trump might win the election, 2) there is an expectation that she and her people can define "mental fitness" in their own image, and 3) they'll deal with Pence when they get there.
Just Pondering
The district attorney in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, announced there was not a sufficient case to charge the police officer who shot Alvin Cole with a crime. And the crowd erupted. Protests continue. You know, "No justice, no peace." But I'm wondering. If he had brought charges would that have sufficed? If the officer was tried and exonerated by a jury, would that have sufficed? I'm pretty sure that the only "justice" that would suffice would be termination of the officer's job or, perhaps, his life. I suspect "We call for justice these days, but it's only on our terms." We're not asking that justice be satisfied; we're demanding that we are.
Satire from Another Source This time from Genesius Times, the headline reads, "Biden touts abortion as 'mostly peaceful'." Fitting, given Biden's assurance that he plans to make abortion the law of the land. And again from Genesius Times because I commented on the topic above, we get, "BREAKING: Pence’s excellent debate responses fed by covert drone fly." Now, come on, that's humorous. Okay, not if you hate everything about this current administration, but to normal folks …
Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
The story is that the Mellon Foundation has committed $250 million to "reimagine" U.S. monuments in this time of anti-monuments (so to speak). I have nothing sarcastic or snarky to say here. I'm just thinking who today's society would consider "heroic," worthy of emulating, and who could endure the test of time. In a time when a classy comedian like Bill Cosby, "America's Dad," gets 3-10 years for drugging and sexually assaulting someone, who do we think is going to stand the test of time? In a world where "My boy was a good boy, a heroic boy, a wonderful kid" is a reference to a thug, a gang member, a thief, or a killer, where in the world are we going to identify heroes that define the best of us?
Feeding the Trolls
So, among the conspiracy theory folks these days a favorite point is, "We don't trust the COVID reporting. We don't think it's accurate!" In order to quell these fears, the WHO has come out with their own unique numbers. Instead of the 35 million or so who have been infected, they say the number is closer to 780 million … or so. And while our best information says 1 million people have died of COVID-related causes, they say it's "certainly higher." That is, the WHO doesn't trust our COVID reporting. They don't think it's accurate. There you go, conspiracy nuts; your fears have been confirmed.
Just a Thought
There is much ado about President Trump's hint that he might not accept the results of the election and go quietly. Isn't the outrage a bit odd coming from an entire political party that still hasn't accepted the results of the 2016 election?
And Now for Something Completely Different
Not news this time, but an interesting piece (in opposition to what I've been saying this election cycle … and last). Something to think about.
Counting the Cost
The London Economic reported that "More than 2,300 people died from Covid-19 in the United States on the days President Trump was in hospital." The news outlet complained, "Since leaving care, any suggestion that the president’s brush with the illness would draw out a more empathetic response to Covid-19 have swiftly been dashed." In contrast, over 9,000 babies were executed by abortion in the 3 days that Trump was hospitalized. The media, the mothers, the doctors, and the public obviously don't care. Between February 2 and October 3 the CDC reports that more than 198,000 people have died of COVID-19 in the U.S. while something like 738,000 babies have been killed by choice. Any notion that this many babies killed during the pandemic might draw out a more empathetic response from the media or the public should immediately be quashed. I don't suppose too many will be mourning for them.
America Makes It Clear
Our nation is locked in a voting struggle for who will be our next president. Emotions are high. Politics is big. And Americans proved the depth of their concerns ... when their biggest takeaway from the debate between Harris and Pence was a fly on Pence's head. Seriously, America, get a grip. We have very real issues at stake here and a fly is not among them. But in America where the media treats Twitter like "the voice of the people," replacing actual interviews with tweets as a story, if this is what we can expect from voters, we should definitely lower our expectations for any serious voters.
Disqualified
During a townhall gathering an audience member asked Joe Biden about his "particular plan to protect women's reproductive rights in the U.S." with Amy Barrett possibly joining the Supreme Court. Biden didn't waver. "Number one, we don't know exactly what she will do, although the expectation is that she very well may overrule Roe, and the only responsible response to that would be to pass legislation to make Roe the law of the land. That's what I would do." I believe that a man whose fundamental promise is not only to refuse to protect the most vulnerable people of the land, but to make their murder legally protected by law is not qualified to be the president of that land.
But ... HIPAA
The Hill (and others) are reporting that rotten ol' Trump made doctors at Walter Reed Medical Center sign nondisclosure agreements before treating him last year. Two refused and were not allowed to be involved. So people decry this kind of secrecy. Except … we have laws in this country that prevent anyone from releasing personal medical information. When I check in at my doctor's office for my annual physical I have to keep my distance from anyone else checking in because there are laws. When a coworker recently was diagnosed with COVID, we weren't allowed to say who it was because there are laws. Just not for the president, I guess.
And ... There It Is If you've been here before, you know that one of the big things I talk about is "words mean something." I'm particularly concerned with our post-modern thinking that allows us to yank out words, turn them around in their meaning to suit our taste, and then impose them on everyone else. Nancy Pelosi is making my point for me. The 25th Amendment comes into play when the president is "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office." In this case, the vice president operates as president. Pelosi wants a commission to "evaluate presidential mental and physical fitness" where "mental fitness" could be defined by the commission as "doesn't think like we want him to" so he could easily be classified as "mentally unfit." Given that each chamber of Congress has to affirm the finding within 25 days and given that Vice President Pence would act as president ("Oh, no!"), I can only imagine that Pelosi is making this move 1) with the anticipation that Trump might win the election, 2) there is an expectation that she and her people can define "mental fitness" in their own image, and 3) they'll deal with Pence when they get there.
Just Pondering
The district attorney in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, announced there was not a sufficient case to charge the police officer who shot Alvin Cole with a crime. And the crowd erupted. Protests continue. You know, "No justice, no peace." But I'm wondering. If he had brought charges would that have sufficed? If the officer was tried and exonerated by a jury, would that have sufficed? I'm pretty sure that the only "justice" that would suffice would be termination of the officer's job or, perhaps, his life. I suspect "We call for justice these days, but it's only on our terms." We're not asking that justice be satisfied; we're demanding that we are.
Satire from Another Source This time from Genesius Times, the headline reads, "Biden touts abortion as 'mostly peaceful'." Fitting, given Biden's assurance that he plans to make abortion the law of the land. And again from Genesius Times because I commented on the topic above, we get, "BREAKING: Pence’s excellent debate responses fed by covert drone fly." Now, come on, that's humorous. Okay, not if you hate everything about this current administration, but to normal folks …
Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
Friday, October 09, 2020
All Things
If all Scripture is God-breathed (2 Tim 3:16-17) and, therefore, not merely a human product, but a divine output, it would stand to reason that some Scripture would seem … not right. No, that was too soft. It would seem wrong, not what we expect, counterintuitive. Because God is not us; His ways are not our ways and His thoughts are not our thoughts (Isa 55:8-9). And Scripture certainly is counterintuitive on occasion. Take the concept of pain.
Every normal human being has a natural response to pain. It is flight. It is withdrawal. It is protection. You don't think about it when you touch a hot stove; you yank your hand back. It's natural. And we tend toward the same innate approach in all sorts of human pain, from the physical to the emotional and on down the line. The programming goes something like this. "If pain, withdraw. If cannot withdraw, shelter in place and shield." So we build up protections and calluses and scar tissue. We put barriers in place to avoid previously painful relationships. We even get seared consciences (1 Tim 4:2). Whatever it takes to protect ourselves from pain.
And then, there is Scripture.
In Paul's second epistle to the church at Corinth he wrote about a difficult time. He referred to it as "a messenger of Satan" and "a thorn in the flesh" (2 Cor 12:7). His first response was what we would expect. "Three times I pleaded with the Lord about this." (2 Cor 12:8) No help. Then God told Him, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." (2 Cor 12:9) So Paul responded, "Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me. For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities. For when I am weak, then I am strong." (2 Cor 12:9-10) Paul embraced his weaknesses.
This isn't the only time this occurs in Scripture. The Book of Lamentations is a book from the prophet Jeremiah about, you guessed it, his lament. Everything was gone. His people had been carried off into captivity. God's promised judgment had occurred. Everything was ruined. And Jeremiah wept. In the 3rd chapter he complained about God. For 20 verses he bemoaned God's treatment -- God's wrath, Jeremiah's suffering, God's deafness to his prayers, Jeremiah's travail. "My endurance has perished," he said, "so has my hope from the LORD." (Lam 3:18) Pain. Time to withdraw or protect. But then he says, "But this I call to mind, and therefore I have hope: The steadfast love of the LORD never ceases; His mercies never come to an end; they are new every morning; great is Your faithfulness. 'The LORD is my portion,' says my soul, 'therefore I will hope in Him.'" (Lam 3:21-24) Note that Jeremiah doesn't see the light at the end of the tunnel. Nor does he attempt to minimize his own pain. He doesn't make excuses or expect better days. What he does do is embrace his one and only hope -- "The LORD is my portion." He sees hope in hopelessness by looking to God. Not to better circumstances, but to God Himself. Jeremiah walked through the pain.
One other similar story; a familiar one, I'm sure. They were three friends of Daniel in Babylon. They got caught refusing to bow to an idol (Dan 3:12). The penalty was to be cast into a "burning fiery furnace." (Dan 3:11) (I guess "furnace" wasn't enough. Nor was "fiery furnace." Apparently a really, really hot furnace was on tap.) You remember the story. Faced with the option to bow or burn, they told the king, "Our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace." (Dan 3:17) Escape, see? But, no. They went on to say, "But if not, be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the golden image that you have set up." (Dan 3:18) Like Jeremiah and Paul, these three opted to embrace the pain rather than avoid it based on their relationship with God. No protection. No defense. God was enough. And you remember how that came out. There was "a fourth man" in there with them (Dan 3:25) and when they came out, nothing was burned but their bonds.
"Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds," James wrote, "for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing." (James 1:2-4) We agree that that's just not natural. We don't "count it all joy." That's just crazy. Maybe in the "normal world," but not in God's economy. And you and I, family of God, are called to the same craziness. We're commanded to rejoice in the tough times (1 Thess 5:16-18) -- to embrace the suffering as a gift (Php 1:29) -- not because things will necessarily be more comfortable. They may; they may not. We rejoice because of God. It's because we have a relationship with a good and awesome and powerful God who always seeks what's best for us and we can trust Him in that. So we don't need to put up walls or develop calluses or run away from trials. In God's hand, we can be safe through the fire and know that it's the best. The world intends it for evil, but God intends it for good.
Every normal human being has a natural response to pain. It is flight. It is withdrawal. It is protection. You don't think about it when you touch a hot stove; you yank your hand back. It's natural. And we tend toward the same innate approach in all sorts of human pain, from the physical to the emotional and on down the line. The programming goes something like this. "If pain, withdraw. If cannot withdraw, shelter in place and shield." So we build up protections and calluses and scar tissue. We put barriers in place to avoid previously painful relationships. We even get seared consciences (1 Tim 4:2). Whatever it takes to protect ourselves from pain.
And then, there is Scripture.
In Paul's second epistle to the church at Corinth he wrote about a difficult time. He referred to it as "a messenger of Satan" and "a thorn in the flesh" (2 Cor 12:7). His first response was what we would expect. "Three times I pleaded with the Lord about this." (2 Cor 12:8) No help. Then God told Him, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." (2 Cor 12:9) So Paul responded, "Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me. For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities. For when I am weak, then I am strong." (2 Cor 12:9-10) Paul embraced his weaknesses.
This isn't the only time this occurs in Scripture. The Book of Lamentations is a book from the prophet Jeremiah about, you guessed it, his lament. Everything was gone. His people had been carried off into captivity. God's promised judgment had occurred. Everything was ruined. And Jeremiah wept. In the 3rd chapter he complained about God. For 20 verses he bemoaned God's treatment -- God's wrath, Jeremiah's suffering, God's deafness to his prayers, Jeremiah's travail. "My endurance has perished," he said, "so has my hope from the LORD." (Lam 3:18) Pain. Time to withdraw or protect. But then he says, "But this I call to mind, and therefore I have hope: The steadfast love of the LORD never ceases; His mercies never come to an end; they are new every morning; great is Your faithfulness. 'The LORD is my portion,' says my soul, 'therefore I will hope in Him.'" (Lam 3:21-24) Note that Jeremiah doesn't see the light at the end of the tunnel. Nor does he attempt to minimize his own pain. He doesn't make excuses or expect better days. What he does do is embrace his one and only hope -- "The LORD is my portion." He sees hope in hopelessness by looking to God. Not to better circumstances, but to God Himself. Jeremiah walked through the pain.
One other similar story; a familiar one, I'm sure. They were three friends of Daniel in Babylon. They got caught refusing to bow to an idol (Dan 3:12). The penalty was to be cast into a "burning fiery furnace." (Dan 3:11) (I guess "furnace" wasn't enough. Nor was "fiery furnace." Apparently a really, really hot furnace was on tap.) You remember the story. Faced with the option to bow or burn, they told the king, "Our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace." (Dan 3:17) Escape, see? But, no. They went on to say, "But if not, be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the golden image that you have set up." (Dan 3:18) Like Jeremiah and Paul, these three opted to embrace the pain rather than avoid it based on their relationship with God. No protection. No defense. God was enough. And you remember how that came out. There was "a fourth man" in there with them (Dan 3:25) and when they came out, nothing was burned but their bonds.
"Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds," James wrote, "for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing." (James 1:2-4) We agree that that's just not natural. We don't "count it all joy." That's just crazy. Maybe in the "normal world," but not in God's economy. And you and I, family of God, are called to the same craziness. We're commanded to rejoice in the tough times (1 Thess 5:16-18) -- to embrace the suffering as a gift (Php 1:29) -- not because things will necessarily be more comfortable. They may; they may not. We rejoice because of God. It's because we have a relationship with a good and awesome and powerful God who always seeks what's best for us and we can trust Him in that. So we don't need to put up walls or develop calluses or run away from trials. In God's hand, we can be safe through the fire and know that it's the best. The world intends it for evil, but God intends it for good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)