Watch Your Mouth

Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers. (Eph 4:29)(KJV)

The theme of the verse is "corrupt communication." The ESV calls it "corrupting talk." The LITV (Literal Translation) uses "any filthy word." You see, then, that while the ideas are the same, there are nuances. What exactly is this kind of "corrupt communication" we're supposed to avoid?

The most common view is that Paul is referring to bad language. You know, cursing, swearing, things like that. "Filthy words." Don't do that. While that might be somewhat in view, I don't think that's the actual intent. While that's what I've been taught, I don't think that's what Paul was teaching. The Greek word here is saprós. Strong's says it means "rotten, that is, worthless (literally or morally)." Thayer's says, "1) rotten, putrefied, 2) corrupted by one and no longer fit for use, worn out, and 3) of poor quality, bad, unfit for use, worthless." (Now you see the nuances.) This helps flesh out the concept a bit. The "corrupt communication" Paul is urging us to avoid isn't just bad words. It is rotten communication, corrupt and unfit for use. It is even worthless dialog. You can see that this is a much broader concept than just swearing.

I think, however, that my original statement -- "The theme of the verse is 'corrupt communication'" -- was not quite accurate, even if that's what we generally make of it. If I told you, "Don't turn right, but turn left instead," you would not think, "The primary topic is not turning right." Neither is this verse so limited. The theme of this verse is communication -- how are we to speak to one another. "No corrupt communication" is only half of the message, and the second half helps to define the first half. The aim of our communication is not X, but to be good for edification -- for giving grace to the hearers. What is X? That which does not edify or give grace. That's the theme. Do that which builds up rather than tears down, especially in how you speak to one another.

I think that, in general, we don't really pay attention to how we speak. Paul goes on to command us to "walk in love" (Eph 5:2) and he starts that with "Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving." (Eph 5:4) Yet we're pretty sure that filthiness, foolish talk, crude jokes, and generally useless talk is actually snappy repartee -- just good, clean fun. Insults between friends is a pleasure, not a problem. And while that looks right, especially to the world, it's just not biblical. I think that a conscious use of words that is aimed at edification, grace, and gratitude actually takes work. And I'm afraid I'm not doing my share. Are you? James says, "If anyone does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect man, able also to bridle his whole body." (James 3:2) Sometimes it seems like we don't much care about being godly in our speech, and I'm not talking about "bad words".

News Weakly - 2/27/21

Doesn't Fit
Well, this doesn't fit with the narrative. In Louisiana a shooting took place at a gun store and range that left two dead (one of them was the shooter) and three injured. Authorities credit armed Samaritans with stopping further violence and saving lives. Wait, people with guns stopped a bad guy with a gun? Is that right? I thought guns were bad and made people bad. Go figure.

Disney No More
Disney+ has added content disclaimer warnings on 18 episodes of The Muppet Show. It's not new. They've already tagged Peter Pan, Dumbo, The Arisocats, Swiss Family Robinson and more. Disney continues to prove the impossibility of attaining to "Abstain from all appearance of evil" in a world where "evil" is up to the individual. And then they fired Gina Carano from Mandalorian because she mocked Democrats and people who were irate about using the "wrong pronouns" -- for wrong thinking. Just more reasons I won't be using Disney+ in my home¹. Meanwhile, Disney is warning viewers that The Muppet Show is from a different era when comedy was culturally acceptable.

Something Else to Consider
This Newsweek article was written by a non-Christian transgender. As such, the source is significant. The author is warning parents about the danger of transitioning brought on by insufficient information, a serious lack of medical standards, and an industry driven by profit rather than care. I wonder if the author will be branded "transphobic" for bringing this up.

Sharing a Coke?
The Coca-Cola company took some heat this week when someone on the inside leaked materials of diversity training given to employees. The course by Robin DiAngelo, author of White Fragility, Why It's So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism, encouraged white people to be "less white." (Go ahead; try that line with any other race.) Coca-Cola said it was just about building "an inclusive workplace" (where "inclusive" is obtained in the classic "exclude" approach). I'm just waiting for the Black Lives Matter folk to come out and honestly admit, "Dr. Martin Luther King was wrong. We do not want his dream where 'they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.' We will continue to judge people by their color as the ultimate good." In the meantime, Coca-Cola is discontinuing Vanilla Coke in order to fight white supremacy.

Bailing Out
Illinois became the first state to eliminate bail. They did it because it's racist; it had a "disproportionately negative impact on people of color." So important is this new law that we're told, "This legislation marks a substantial step toward dismantling the systemic racism that plagues our communities ..." Really? Eliminating bail is a "substantial step" here? Now, the principal purpose of bail is to secure freedom for someone pending trial while ensuring they will return for trial. So in Illinois there is no option of incentivizing defendants to return. This, they tell us, "brings us closer to true safety, true fairness and true justice." I know I feel safer knowing that criminals will be released on their own recognizance with no reason to show up for trial. Let's see, that's Illinois ... remind me not to go there anytime soon.

Inconsistent
Olympic runner Caster Semenya is taking her case to the European Court of Human Rights. She is prohibited from competing in certain track events because her testosterone is too high. Now, she was legally identified as a female at birth and has identified as a female her whole life even though she has male XY chromosomes and associated higher testosterone levels. In response to transgender issues where males who identify as females wish to compete with females in the Olympics, the World Athletics introduced rules that restricted testosterone levels for females competing in women's sports. And that, her lawyers say, is "discriminatory attempts to restrict the ability of certain women to participate in female athletics competitions." I don't get it. She said she identifies as a female. I thought "I identify as" was the definition of gender and trumps all other possible concerns. But, then, I thought "XX" and "XY" were the standard definitions of "female" and "male," so what do I know? I just can't keep up.

Who's Wrong?
You've seen that the Equality Act vote is here. So one Illinois Democrat hung a transgender pride flag outside her office in support of it and another put up a poster that read, "There are TWO genders: Male & Female. Trust The Science!" Who is in trouble? The one who trusts the science. Of course. It's okay to tell the one who trusts science she's wrong by hanging the flag, but not okay to urge the one hanging the flag to trust science. In fact, the flag was put out there specifically to annoy the one who favored science. I know Biden said his administration would always "trust the science," so he's got to weigh in on this, right? (Don't hold your breath.)

What Could Go Wrong?
They've come up with a long-range through-wall imaging system. I suppose it's because everyone is quite sure that people are basically good and folks, including the government, can be trusted not to use it, right? I mean, they're completely trustworthy, aren't they? What could go wrong?

I Can't Keep Up
I'm not ashamed to admit it; I can't keep up. These words are changing faster than I can track. So now Mike Tyson is asking his fans to boycott Hulu because they're planning on doing a miniseries on his life story. He's miffed, I suppose, because it's without compensation, and I can see that. But what he said was it was "a prime example of how Hulu's corporate greed led to this tone-deaf cultural misappropriation of the Tyson life story." Cultural misappropriation? I didn't know that Tyson's life story was a culture to be misappropriated. Or is it the culture of "pay me" that was being misappropiated? Oh, I don't know. I can't be expected to obey the rules if they are constantly changing, can I?

Bad Pork Can Kill
The House is getting ready to pass the COVID stimulus package the president wants. Nearly $2 trillion of COVID relief includes money for Planned Parenthood, a a bridge between New York and Canada, an underground rail line between San Francisco and Silicon Valley, $129 billion to schools whether they open or not, and a $15/hr minimum wage (that would likely decrease hiring). Some estimate up to 90% of the bill has nothing to do with COVID relief. There is only $75 billion for vaccines, testing, and other pandemic medical supplies. That's a lot of pork to fork over to the next generation.

Update: I'm sure you noticed that the House passed the bill including the federal $15/hr minimum wage. The general opinion is that the Senate will kill it, but, hey, at least those kindly House folks care about putting money in their the people's pockets, right? (Hint: No.)

Where's the Bee?!
For those of you who are looking down here asking, "Hey, where's some of that humor from the Bee?", I pulled a fast one and sprinkled it around in the stories above. Hope you were looking at links and paying attention.
________

¹ Sidenote: There is something interesting here. Some Bugs Bunny cartoons have been removed from circulation because they are "offensive." Disney has completely removed Song of the South from circulation because it was "offensive." John Wayne's movies are being pulled because he, apparently, was a racist. This is different than a boycott, where I said, "I won't be using Disney+ in my home." Where Disney tags "offensive content" is different than removing it as in Song of the South. If it is labeled, you have the choice to watch or not; if it is removed, you don't. If I boycott Business X, I don't prevent others from using it; I simply don't use it myself. All of these removals -- the statues and memorials, the music or work of "offending individuals," the "cancel culture," etc. -- is an attempt to control what you see (and, therefore, think) where my choice not to watch X is my attempt to control what I see or think. See the difference? One side is seeking to control you based on their version of "offensive."

Burned Bonds

I like the story of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. In itself, it's a thrilling story. Three men, taken captive to a foreign country, stand their ground and refuse to bow to the king's golden image. While all around them are on their faces, these three stand tall. And they win. A good story of courage and principled living.

Of course, more recently I've become enamoured specifically with their response to the king. Nebuchadnezzar was livid. "If you do not worship, you shall immediately be cast into a burning fiery furnace. And who is the god who will deliver you out of my hands?" (Dan 3:15) "We don't answer to you," they basically said. "Our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and He will deliver us out of your hand, O king." (Dan 3:16-17) Bold. Daring. We like it. But then they said, "But if not, be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve your gods." (Dan 3:18) Now, see? They've gone a step farther. We're used to "Dear God, if You'll just do this for me, I'll serve You." We get that. We deal with God, a little give and take. Not these three. "Dear God," they were saying, "even if You do not save us, we will serve You." You see, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego weren't in the business of dictating to God what was right for Him to do. They believed that whatever He chose to do, it would be right, so they would do what was right regardless of God's intervention. That's faith.

Most recently another aspect occurred to me. You know the rest of the story. The king superheated the ovens, had them thrown in, and then discovered that they weren't hurt at all. More to the point, he saw four men in the fire where they only threw in three, and one of them looked like "a son of the gods." So he called them back out, discovered they were untouched (except their bonds were burned off), and blessed God. Good ending. No, a great ending. But something struck me about this story. Their God did not prevent them from being thrown into the fire, but He did save them ... in the midst of the fire. Most importantly, He did it with them. He was there in the fire. Not only were they not singed; they weren't alone.

When (not if) we encounter trials, we can keep this in mind. We are not the ones to decide for God what He should do; we are the ones that are simply to trust Him. In that, however, we can have the absolute confidence that He's not "away," He's not gone. He's not "up there somewhere" watching us squirm. He's there with us, in the trial, making sure it all goes as He plans ... for our good. He doesn't send us in there on our own; He's right there with us. In that place -- in fire and bonds and His presence -- we only stand to lose the things that bind us. That's good to keep in mind.

The Coming Equality Apocalypse

The Equality Act is knocking on our doors and is about to break them down. Touted as a "fairness" act, the new law is aimed specifically at changing the definition of "sex" in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fair Housing Act. They want to include the previous "male or female" concept, but then to expand it to gender identity and sexual orientation. Beyond that, the law is self-consciously aimed at violating the First Amendment. The bill explicitly excludes religious freedom as a basis for challenging the law (SEC. 1107. CLAIMS).

This has been brewing for some time now. Biden promised to get it passed in his first 100 days in office. It has the backing of most Democrats and some Republicans and a large number of major corporations. The goal, as it turns out, is not equality; it is intended as an assault on those who disagree. It is aimed at prosecuting beliefs -- often, religious beliefs. In states that have implemented their own versions, businesses and jobs have been lost, homeless shelters have been sued, parents have lost parental rights, and foster parents have been banned for failing to comply. The goal is to transition this to a federal law providing a bigger bat to beat down those who have other beliefs on the subject. The stated aim is to punish those who believe in traditional marriage and traditional gender. "We're going into the hardest states in the country. We're going to punish the wicked."

I echo Paul, then.

I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. (1 Tim 2:1-2)

Update
As expected, the House passed it. It now goes to the Senate, so I'll continue to pray.

Arrogant Pottery

We don't recognize it in ourselves, but we have a tendency to see ourselves as the arbitrators of "good" even when it comes to God. We will see what Scripture says about God and think, "Well, that's not good" and try to figure out why that text doesn't say what it seems to say because we wouldn't see that as good. Sometimes that works well. I mean, if Reference X says "A" about God and Reference Y says "Not A" about God, we'd have a contradiction, and that can't be, so we need to resolve it. And sometimes our understanding is faulty, so it's good to correct that, too. But sometimes it's simply arrogance on our part. And that's not so good.

Solomon wrote something that we find disturbing.

The LORD has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble. (Prov 16:4)

Well, that's nice -- everything for its purpose ... oh ... wait ... "even the wicked"? The Lord has made the wicked? In this text, Solomon places God as the first cause for the wicked existing for a purpose. Now, mind you, it doesn't say that He made them wicked. That is, He made them -- true -- and they ended up wicked -- true. That is all that is required for that claim that He "made the wicked" to be true. Well, that and the fact that He let it happen. He made them, knowing they'd reject Him and be wicked. Which is the purpose of this text. Yes, He made them and, yes, He knew what they would become and, yes, He let that happen even though He could have stopped it and didn't, but He did it with a purpose. That is, they meant it for evil, but He meant it for good. So, yes, the Lord has made everything for its purpose. He has even made people whom He knew would be wicked. Even that has a purpose. He intended to make His wrath and power known (Rom 9:22) and He uses the wicked to do it. The question is, is that okay with you?

Scripture has a surprising concept using pottery as the imagery. We know that "we are the clay, and You are our potter; we are all the work of Your hand." (Isa 64:8) So it stands to reason that we would hear odd things from the clay.

Woe to him who strives with Him who formed him, a pot among earthen pots! Does the clay say to Him who forms it, "What are You making?" or "Your work has no handles"? (Isa 45:9)

The imagery is that of clay talking back to the potter, where "the clay" is humans and "the potter" is God. In Romans Paul uses similar imagery.

But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have You made me like this?" Has the Potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? (Rom 9:20-21)

Is that a bit jarring to you? Does the claim that God is allowed to make some "vessels" for "dishonorable use" make you uneasy or even upset? It was jarring to the people who were asking, who were answering back to God.

We can be very arrogant. The unbeliever is described as "hostile to God" (Rom 8:7). That's arrogant. But we believers are likely to take offense to that kind of language. No, God must not make vessels for dishonorable use. No, God should not make the wicked for His purposes. This cannot be ascribed to God and if it is, some of us will have a problem with God. Well, it is ... and when we have a problem with God, it is truly a case of arrogant pottery.

God's Unexpected Gifts

We like that God gives gifts to His children. He certainly does. And they are very good gifts. They include the mundane things like rain, air, beating hearts -- the everyday stuff. John wrote of God's famous gift -- the gift of His Son (John 3:16). God's grace is a gift. God's mercy is a gift. We don't earn either; He just gives them. We Christians are aware of His special gifts, what we call "spiritual gifts" given by the Holy Spirit to every believer. That's kind of cool (even if too many of us don't actually try to use them for their intended purpose). Peter says that God's divine power "has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness." (2 Peter 1:3) That's a wonderful gift. Paul said that He has "blessed us with every spiritual blessing." (Eph 1:3-14) That's a great gift. But He gives some really good gifts that I think, perhaps, we're not really aware of.

In Acts we read of the first discovery that Gentiles were to be among the saved. Peter had that vision about eating stuff that God had previously declared unclean and God repeatedly told him, "What God has made clean, do not call common." God was preparing him to go to a Gentile who was praying for help. So he went, they received the Holy Spirit, and were baptized. When Peter reported this, the result was "When they heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, "Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life." (Acts 11:18) It's a good story, but note: it says that God granted repentance. It wasn't theirs; it was a gift. Paul writes something similar to Timothy regarding correcting those who opposed him. "God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth." (2 Tim 2:25) There it is again, the idea that repentance is granted and not given. Repentance appears to be a gift from God. Good gift.

We know that we are saved by grace through faith apart from works (Eph 2:8-9). Did you know that this, too, is a gift?

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. (Eph 2:8-9)

It says without ambiguity, "It is a gift of God." What is a gift from God? From an English grammar perspective it should be "faith" since "faith" was just before "this". But, of course, we know that that is controversial ("Oh, no, we must believe. God doesn't believe for us. Faith is what we bring to our salvation.") and, to be fair, Greek doesn't follow English grammar rules. So what is the gift? "Salvation" is the general response for many, but it seems obvious that grace is also a gift by definition. Greek scholars tell me that there is an interesting aspect to the phrasing. In Greek, pronouns are generally masculine when the antecedent is masculine or feminine if the antecedent is feminine. So the "this" should give us a clue. "This" in the Greek is neuter, but "grace" and "faith" in the prior clause are both feminine. Thus, it appears that the entire phrase is the "this" that is "a gift of God." Therefore, "grace," "salvation," and "faith" all fall under the category of "gift." And other texts support the idea that faith is a gift. Paul talks about "the measure of faith that God has given" in Romans 12:3. More explicitly, he told the Philippians, "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) Two things are granted there. We get the "suffer for His sake," but did we miss "to believe in Him"? Even Jesus jumped in on this. When some of His disciples left Him because they didn't believe, He explained why they didn't believe. "'But there are some of you who do not believe.' (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray Him.) And He said, 'This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.'" (John 6:64-65) The Bible presents faith as a gift from God that we must exercise. Good gift.

There are more, of course. The first church asked God to "grant to Your servants to contiinue to speak Your word with all boldness" (Acts 4:29) because our ability to do so is a gift. Scripture describes suffering for Christ as a gift (Php 1:29; 1 Peter 3:17; 1 Peter 4:19; James 1:2-4). Paul prayed that God would "grant you to be strengthened with power through His Spirit" (Eph 3:16) because knowing His unknowable love (Eph 3:19) is going to require special strength. James says, "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change." (James 1:17) I wonder if we aren't too shortsighted when we consider those gifts. And that would make us inadequately grateful, wouldn't it? And that would be a bad thing because in His gifts He is glorified.

Who Was That Masked Man?

To mask or not to mask, that is the question. One side is adamant that you mask ... no ... double mask ... or else. Or else you're a fool. Or worse. Some places assign serious consequences to those who don't mask. The other side is adamant that you not mask. "It's not effective," they boldly claim. But here's the thing. They never seem to define "effective."

Back in the Reagan "Star Wars" days, a general came up with a plan to protect America from Soviet ICBMs using existing and proven technology. He suggested they launch some satellites with radar and a shotgun, essentially. The radar would detect and track a missile and puff out a cloud of BBs, essentially, in its path. A missile traveling at 6000 mph or more colliding with a slow-moving cloud of BBs would be destroyed. Easy stuff! And it couldn't be threat to ground targets because the BBs could never reach the ground. Wonderful! "So," the government asked, "how much will it stop?" "Oh," the general estimated, "probably at least 90%." They turned him down. They didn't figure 90% was "effective."

Multiple researchers have done studies on masks. Mayo did a study in November of 2020 looking at both distancing and masks. They found that masks were effective in blocking both transmission and reception of the virus.

"No, they didn't," would likely be the response. "For instance, at 1 foot with the target masked, 38% made it through. See? Not effective." That's because we're not defining "effective" the same way. Mayo's test that showed that less than 0.5% of the virus made it through at 1 foot separation when both were masked. In this version of "effective," that does not constitute "effective" because it wasn't zero.

Sadly, we're once again back to the problem of language and definitions. Usually I've seen it on the Left, but this time it's the Right. When the Left does it, it's with ulterior motives. What are the ulterior motives of the anti-maskers? "We won't be told what to do." "I demand my liberty." "My face is the reflection of God's image." I don't know.

Election

Now that we're past our recent "fun" presidential election (yes, that was sarcasm), I thought we should take a moment to look at ... election. In theological terms, the concept of Election is viewed by many (most?) as a Calvinist thing. For more than a few, "It's those extremists that came up with this thing." Unfortunately, that's simply not true. The Doctrine of Election is not a Reformed thing or a Calvinist thing; it's a Bible thing. It was Jesus who said, "Many are called, but few are chosen." (Matt 22:14) In fact, Jesus referred to "the elect" multiple times (e.g., Matt 24:22, 24, 31). It was Peter who wrote "You are a chosen race ..." (1 Peter 2:9). That particular epistle was written to "those who are elect exiles" (1 Peter 1:1) It was Paul who declared that God "chose us in Him before the foundation of the world ..." (Eph 1:4). The Doctrine of Election is not a 16th century invention. It's biblical.

Of course, it still begs the question. What is it, then, and how does it work? Well, the biblical references to "election" refer to God's choosing. That is, references to "the chosen" are identical to "the elect." Election, then, is God choosing who will, ultimately, be His. In that Ephesians 1:4 reference it says He "chose us in Him," referring to His Son. So election is connected to being "in Him" -- in Christ. Acts 13:48 tells of an event in which "as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed." Paul told the Thessalonians, "God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation" (2 Thess 2:13) which goes right along with that Ephesians 1:4 verse that includes "from before the foundation of the world." Thus, election, however it works, is "from before the foundation of the world."

Election and predestination are often used interchangeably. I'm not sure that's accurate. I think the predestination is broader, encompassing more than just being chosen to belong to God. However, predestination is certainly not less than being chosen for salvation. So in Romans Paul writes,

For those whom He foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, in order that He might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom He predestined He also called, and those whom He called He also justified, and those whom He justified He also glorified. (Rom 8:29-30)

For clarification, that begins with a "for" because it is an explanation of the previous thought -- that God causes all things to work together for good. This passage explains what that "good" is. You see, then, that predestination is 1) a biblical concept and 2) it is linked to (but not limited to) election. In this text it begins with God's foreknowledge (which, by the way, is not merely a term meaning "known in advance," but a more intimate term of knowing). From there predestination occurs. From predestination the calling happens followed by a string that begins with justification and ends with glorification without a break. So election -- being chosen to belong to God -- is a product of predestination, but predestination also includes the entire process and product -- to be conformed to the image of His Son.

So what about that nasty "double predestination"? The suggestion is that if God predestines some to be chosen, He predestines others ... not to be chosen. And, in a sense, if election is true (as Jesus said it was), then double predestination is also true. However, all of election includes God's efforts to make us His own and none of the other side of predestination inludes God's actions at all. In choosing some to be His own, He works overtime, so to speak, while in not choosing the rest, He does nothing. He doesn't have to. He simply lets them choose their own path. So while "double predestination" is logically true, they are not actually equivalent or symmetrical. But the fact that God predestines some not to be chosen (simply by choosing who will be chosen) isn't merely a logical reality; it's a biblical one. In Revelation we read of "the dwellers on earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world." (Rev 17:8) Note the parallel with those chosen "before the foundation of the world." Jude writes about "certain people" who "long ago were designated for this condemnation." (Jude 1:4) Scripture acknowledges, then, that there are those who, "from the foundation of the world," are not going to be saved, but are "designated for this condemnation." These people aren't forced to be condemned; they earn it like everyone else. But they are "long ago" (literally "before time") designated for this.

The Bible, then, is not unclear. God chose from before the foundation of the world whom He would save and whom He would let proceed on their chosen course. God only needed to intervene in the lives of the former and not the latter. The question remains, then, about the mechanism. How does He choose? We can find some answers, but probably not to your satisfaction. On one hand, He does not choose on our merits (Eph 2:8-9). He doesn't choose on the basis of being the best or the brightest (1 Cor 1:26-29). He doesn't even choose us for making the right choice (John 1:13; Rom 9:16). So how does He choose? Accoding to Scripture, He chooses "not because of our works but because of His own purpose and grace." (2 Tim 1:9) "He predestined us for adoption to Himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of His will." (Eph 1:5) We are "called according to His purpose." (Rom 8:28) Paul said that Jacob was chosen over Esau "in order that God's purpose of election might continue." (Rom 9:10-13)

Biblically, humans are by nature without hope of obtaining salvation (Eph 2:1-3; Rom 8:7; 1 Cor 2:14; etc.). All of us are destined by our sin nature to well deserved condemnation. It is, then, a complete surprise that "God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ" (Eph 2:4-5). That wasn't obligation. It wasn't because we were so good or so lovable. It is all Him. It is for His good purposes. It is for His glory. And it's biblical.

News Weakly - 2/20/21

Lose-Lose
As I'm sure you're all aware, Trump's impeachment was, again, dismissed. Although 7 Republicans voted with the 50 Democrats to convict, it wasn't enough for the 2/3's required to convict. So, what did we learn? For all the Trump haters, the impeachment is over; get over it. For all the Trump lovers, the impeachment was dropped, not overturned. Trump wasn't declared not guilty. Most of the Republicans that voted against convicting did so on a technicality -- you can't impeach a president who is not a president. So, Trump was not convicted and Trump was not exonerated. Lose-lose. What was the point again? Politics as usual.

Not in Safe Hands
Biden asked Congress for tougher gun laws including a ban on assault weapons. I'd be fine with a ban on assault weapons ... if they could figure out just what that means. There are seemingly endless definitions and the way we are going these days it doesn't matter how we define them today; tomorrow could be another thing. In 1964 they banned discrimination for "sex" meaning "being male or female" and today they've redefined it to mean "whatever your sexual preference or gender might be." Today they ban "assault weapons" like machine guns and tomorrow they might include baseball bats because "someone used a baseball bat as a weapon to assault someone." You just can't tell in a society so prone to insanity.

Looks Bad
Governor Cuomo's aide admitted to covering up 13,000 deaths in nursing homes and Cuomo concurred. New York had a policy of sending elderly COVID patients back to their nursing homes rather than isolating them, obviously increasing the number of deaths in nursing homes. They opted to lie about it rather than face up to it and deal with it. As long as you can lie to the public, the scandal never happened. Certainly looks bad for a "liberal" governor who wasn't being very "generous" with his people.

Missing the Point
In a mindless shooting in Philadelphia, a gunman shot 8 apparently random people, killing one. Mayor Jim Kenney wrote, "Today's mass shooting near the Olney Transportation Center, in broad daylight, is yet another tragic example of the vicious, outrageous, and unacceptable gun violence epidemic that's threatening the lives and safety of our fellow Philadelphians." Yes, this is about the presence of guns, not the crazy people that use them for irrational and outrageous purposes. It's the guns that are the problem. And if we can just get these guns away from the American public, we're pretty sure that irrational and outrageous people will straighten right up. It would only make sense, I suppose, if Cuomo would blame his pen for making him sign the order that killed thousands of nursing home patients.

Polar Opposite
The Mayor of Colorado City, Texas, resigned this week after lashing out at his constituents who were asking for help in the cold crisis. "No one owes you or your family anything," he wrote in social media, "nor is it the local government's responsibility to support you during trying times like this! Sink or swim, it's your choice! The City and County, along with power providers or any other service owes you NOTHING!" Unfortunate contrast to the liberal side that is intent on controlling every aspect of our lives.

In Other News
While Texans complain about global warming -- "If this global warming keeps up, we're all going to freeze to death" -- Ted Cruz hustled to Cancun to lasso the sun and return it to Texas. Meanwhile, the party of love and progress is celebrating the death of Rush Limbaugh.

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

Benefits of a Pandemic

We all know that a horrible pandemic is ravaging our world, threatening everyone's lives, and wreaking havoc all around. "We're all going to die!" one fellow complained to me. Well, yes, he's technically accurate, just not from COVID. We've seen (obviously) health trauma and economic trauma and emotional trauma. Of real concern is the decline of church attendance. From being locked out to thinking that a switch to "virtual church" is suitable, a lot of people that used to go to church may not anymore.

So is it all bad news? I don't think so. While the tail end of 2020 and the start of 2021 saw a run up in numbers worldwide, we've seen a decline in both new cases and deaths lately. The horror stories of how "everyone is getting it" aren't actually accurate. Incidence rates are around 10%, up from the earlier 2% but not approaching the 50% of the Spanish flu pandemic. And of those who do get it, fatality rates are still generally less than 2%. It's not all horrible. Still, I would argue a little bit further. I'd argue that there have actually been some benefits from this malignant virus.

Environmental
It's odd to consider the positive effects a deadly worldwide pandemic has had on what we have considered for a few years now our greatest threat -- environmental issues. "Global climate change" is the faceless enemy to many and, arriving to save the day, as it were, COVID-19 rides in with solutions. We've stopped traveling as much, stopped moving as much, stopped doing as much, and we've seen a 25% decrease in carbon emissions and a 50% decrease in notrogen oxides emissions. One scientist has estimated this has saved 77,000 lives over two months. Air quality has improved. Water quality has improved. There have been reports of wildlife spotted in cities. One think tank believes that the pandemic may have pushed the fossil fuel industry into "terminal decline" with the decrease in demand for such products while, on the other hand, bike sales surged. Adobe reported a 50% increase in PDF documents, deccreasing the use of paper. There are more than a few effects on our environment that aren't all bad.

Family Relations
I know more than a few elderly people who were once alone -- tucked away in retirement homes or on their own in their own homes -- who are not anymore. I know more than a few whose adult children have moved them into their homes or have moved in with their aging parents to take care of them. In a culture that values "me time" over "you time," this is remarkable. In a society that intentionally aimed to put to death the "nuclear family" -- the "multigenerational home" -- I think this is a positive.

Beyond this, because of COVID fears and quarantines and enforced isolation, families that were once "scattered abroad" doing their own thing have been forced to share the same limited space, being forced in turn to get used to it and maybe even like it. When choices are limited, it turns out the intolerable may not be as bad as we thought.

Changed Values
I've been fascinated at some of the conversations and interviews I've seen. Traditionally, kids loved summer vacation and hated going back to school. Once established as a tradition, it reinforced itself into "You must hate school if you're going to be cool." Now these interviews and conversations are saying something different. Kids want to go back to school. They miss their friends and their teachers. They see value to learning. It has been fun to watch.

That is one example of the shift in values that we're seeing. When we were unhindered, we were scattered in our values. Fun was highest on most lists; not as much now. Life has become more important when so many have lost it. Freedom was our mainstay before, but now we're willing to give up freedoms for a new, higher value -- safety. Independence was important, but now we're learning that dependence is also something worth embracing.

There are still people with the same values. "Me" is still prevalent. And, yet, I've also seen some people who have shifted some on that point. I know people who, personally opposed to wearing masks, for instance, still do so because it benefits others who are not opposed. People who are very uncomfortable in those strangulation devices still don them if it makes someone who is scared feel safer. That's a shift in values. A good one.

Then there are those church people. While it is true that many won't be back, it's also true that another group of church-goers have developed a new love for going to church. Originally locked out, now, like those school kids who suddenly find they really need to be there, some have discovered that being connected in close proximity to God's people is much more vital than they realized before. They took it for granted when it was readily available, but now it has become critical.

Life
It has been touching to see a change in the sense of the fragility of life. For most of us death is mostly remote. It happens to someone else or to someone else's loved ones. Sure, that's not accurate, but it's the feeling many have. When you add half a million American deaths to the mix where seemingly healthy people are suddenly dead and gone, it has an effect. When a mother or a father or a spouse who was "too young to die" is suddenly gone like that -- specifically in large numbers like that -- it changes your perspective. Life becomes more personal and more valuable. We mourn the dead and embrace the living more. That's not a bad thing.

Theology
There is one other effect. Crises like these act as a winnowing. They serve to crystallize our theology. What do I really believe about God? They remove the chaff from the wheat. They shake loose the false from the true, the imposter from the authentic. While we can cruise along okay without crisis, these kinds of things either crowd us closer than ever to the Sovereign Lord or clearly display that no such relationship existed before. In some of the latter, it is a wake up call to get that remedied for themselves. In others, it serves as notification to those believers around them that someone we thought was a fellow believer is not, so we can now get to work on evangelizing the "saved."

A pandemic is not pleasant and not fun. It's not something we like. But I have it on good authority that "for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to His purpose." (Rom 8:28) While we face suffering and hardships, His good plan continues. It is another illustration that what God's enemies intend for evil He intends for good (Gen 50:20). If we can just settle on that and get ourselves firmly rooted in that, I think we'll find that these kinds of things can be a source of supernatural joy, knowing that "the testing of your faith produces steadfastness," and steadfastness perfects and completes us (James 1:3-4).

Doublethink

Somebody mentioned "doublethink" the other day. You remember that, right? It was from Orwell's 1984, part of the government's aim to control thought. If you could require them to accept words as meaning contradictory things, you could begin to control their thinking. Like their mantra: "War is peace, Freedom is slavery, Ignorance is strength."

It is chilling on one hand and, yet, almost expected on the other to realize that they're doing it today ... on a regular basis. For instance, they use "women's choice" to indicate "killing babies." "Oh, no they don't," some will object. "They don't think of them as babies." Yes, that's what they say, but when a woman "loses her baby" to miscarriage or, worse, violence, it's a baby, isn't it? Doublethink.

They are blatant about it in their drive for inclusivity that requires excluding those who disagree. Recently the House started their new session with H.R. 8, a rule for "gender inclusivity" that is accomplished ... by removing gender. In the document they list specifics: "father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, ... nephew, niece, husband, wife, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, stepfather, stepson, stepdaughter, stepbrother, step sister, half brother, half sister, grandson, granddaughter." Out. Because, you see, inclusivity requires exclusivity. Doublethink.

Those are just two glaring examples of the day. I'd bet you could come up with a couple of your own if you're not too immersed in doublethink.

Orwell's 1984 was a dystopian novel about a totalitarian government aiming at mind control. Using fear and punishment on one hand and doublethink and control of the language on the other, they set out with apparent success to gain control over a populace who embraced their overlords. Claiming to be wise, they became fools. The story serves as a model for us today. We only have to ask if it's a model we want to follow or avoid. Currently our societal arc is to embrace rather than to evade.

Anthropocentric

It's a fancy-sounding word -- "anthropocentric." It rolls off the tongue like a lead balloon. But hopefully you can see what it means. It refers to a worldview that puts Man at the center. Not men; Man. Mankind. Human beings. And, of course, if we're honest, by "man-centered" we mean "me." Humans as a whole believe that we are the point, the issue, the reason for everything. If we are philosophical atheists, we carefully prove that everything is meaningless ... except, of course, for us. If we are ardent theists, we argue diligently for the existence of a God ... whose highest concern is us. Genuine, sincere, Bible-believing Christians will admit at times that if God doesn't love them like they demand, then He's not God. Because at the core we all tend to be anthropocentric.

I suppose, in a sense, it is the definition of sin. Or, better, maybe, the sin nature. It is in our sin nature to choose to be supreme, to choose to be God. It was the serpent's temptation at the beginning. "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." (Gen 3:5) Claiming to be wise, we became fools and exchanged the Creator for the creature, the truth for a lie.

And now it's our abode. It's where we live. These days, for instance, we're told that if we don't embrace "their identity", whatever that might be, we're haters because, above all else, we are anthropocentric to the core. It's about "me" and you will submit. Even God considers us more important than Himself. I know ... sounds silly, but I've heard it again and again from dedicated believers. And if He does not submit, we are going to have a problem with Him.

It is so much a part of our core, placing God as subservient in some way to Man. We think He is just like us (Psa 50:21). It's an easy mistake to make because it's buried so deeply in us, but it is a mistake, and in so doing we fall short of the glory of God. Escaping the grips of this pervasive perception is a long and hard process, but just because it's difficult doesn't mean we ought not embark on the trip. Our task as believers is to elevate God to His rightful position. Perhaps we should do the hard work of doing that in our own hearts and minds first.

Walk This Way

In his letter to the church at Ephesus, Paul urges the Ephesian believers to "walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called." (Eph 4:1) Seems reasonable. But, uh, one question. What calling? I mean, don't we have to know the calling to know how we should walk? Well, sure. Let's look.

Paul begins the letter with this claim:

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places. (Eph 1:3)

Okay, so the blessings that He has already given are part of our calling. What blessings (Eph 1:4-14)? Well, He "chose us in Him before the foundation of the world that we should be holy and blameless" and "He predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ" and He redeemed us through His blood and He made known to us the mystery of His will to unite all things in Christ and He gave us an inheritance and He gave us the Holy Spirit as a guarantee of our inheritance. For starters. All of that was "according to His purpose" and "to the praise of His glory." Our calling, then, includes His blessings for His glory and His purpose.

Further, Paul prayed that they would know God (Eph 1:17), specifically in terms of "the hope to which He has called you," "the riches of His glorious inheritance in the saints," and the "immeasurable greatness of His power." What power? That power that raised Christ from the dead and raised Him to God's right hand "far above all rule and authority and power and dominion." (Eph 1:17-23) That's part of our calling.

And there is more.

But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ. (Eph 2:4-5)

The news itself is stunning -- raising dead sinners like that (Eph 2:1-3) -- but He did it "so that in the coming ages He might show the immeasurable riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus." (Eph 2:7) We have a calling, to make known the vast riches of His grace in His kindness to us.

He's not done. Paul told the Gentile believers to remember their first condition -- "separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world" (Eph 2:12) -- and now are brought near (Eph 2:13), made into "one new man" (Eph 2:15), being "built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit" (Eph 2:22). Another aspect of our calling.

And there's more. Paul told the Ephesian believers about his mission to the Gentiles (Eph 3:2-13). The purpose was "so that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places." (Eph 3:10) Our calling.

Finally, Paul prays. He asks God to strengthen them "so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith" (Eph 3:10) for a specific purpose. That purpose is that they would "know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge" (Eph 3:18-19). This is obviously impossible on its face, so Paul points out that God "is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think, according to the power at work within us" for His glory (Eph 3:20-21). Our calling.

There it is, in summary. There is our calling. There is the standard that should dictate how we should walk. With God as central and God's glory always in view and God's purposes always at the fore, we are called always to make Him known on the basis of His grace ... no, the "immeasurable riches of His grace." We are called to embrace His blessings and glorify Him in all things. Walk that way. Paul begins chapter for with a "therefore." In this case it is a huge "therefore." We have a lot of walking to do to walk in a manner worthy of that calling.

Secret Sins

Who said, "Be sure your sin will find you out"? That would be Moses. In the Bible (Num 32:23). As a warning to Israel.

Ravi Zacharias died in May of 2020, a venerated Christian speaker. By September he was no longer venerated; he was castigated. Now a report is out that says he was doing horrendous things. Secretly. No one knew. No one came forward. At least, not until he was dead. And cannot defend himself. Nice.

That's not my point. My point is "Be sure your sin will find you out." There is no such thing as a "secret sin." There are open sins and there are private sins, but there are, in the final analysis, no secret sins. They all come out in the end. And when they come out like these have, the damage they do is tremendous. There are no "victimless sins." All sins have consequences and not pleasant ones at that. If you're counting on your sins going unnoticed, think again.

Sin is a real problem ... for us. Paul wrote about restoring brothers caught in sin and warned, at the same time, "Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted." (Gal 6:1) Because sin is insidious. He told Timothy regarding elders in sin, "As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear." (1 Tim 5:20) Because sin is dangerous and serious and we need to be on guard. Still, we tend to be lackadaisical. About our own sin.

Scripture calls us ambassadors for Christ (2 Cor 5:20). Perhaps that ought to change how we present ourselves? Scripture says we should be doing our works in such a way that they glorify our Father (Matt 5:16). Perhaps that does not include sinning? Most of us know that we don't stop sinning in this life (1 John 1:8-2:1), but that doesn't mean we should indulge sin. Paul said, "Do not let sin reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions." (Rom 6:12) Before you came to Christ you couldn't avoid it; now it's your choice. Choose not to sin. Because there are no secret sins and because all sin causes damage -- to yourself and to others and to the name of Christ -- and because we are made for good works (Eph 2:10), not sin. We ought to get serious about this (Matt 16:24; Gal 5:24; Eph 4:22; Col 3:5; etc.).

Culture vs the Church

We're Christians. We favor "the church." Well, mostly. Not so in our culture. Why would that be? Well, first and foremost, our world follows the prince of the power of the air (Eph 2:2), so it would be by definition opposed to Christ. We expect it. Here's the problem. Sometimes we don't see it. That is, because we're in it, sometimes we don't recognize its influence in our thinking. Take, for instance, how we think about "the church."

Our American culture is an "independence" and "individualist" culture. We value, perhaps above all else, our individuality and our independence. We view as heroes those who "make it on their own," who stand alone against the crowd and prevail. Independence. And individualism. And that creeps almost unbidden and unnoticed into our thinking about the church.

Christianity, we know, is a relationship. It is a relationship of individuals with the Almighty. It's a wonderful thing. But when we allow our culture to tell us it stops there, we miss the point. Big time. It is quite common for us to view church as an add on, as an option. Perhaps a good idea ... perhaps. We're careful to say, "The church is not that building on the corner; it's us," but then we go on thinking that it doesn't require us. If we do participate, we do as consumers, picking and choosing where we're most comfortable. Find the music I like. Make sure that preacher doesn't preach too long. Or get too personal. Is there a good program for the kids? That's important, because I really want my kids entertained for the morning. And if something changes, so do we. Find a new one. Because church, primarily, is all about me and my preferences. There are typically more Christians attending church than Christians who are attending church as members. And if you factor in the standard "80% of the work is done by 20% of the people," church involvement is very low. Because who needs membership? Who needs that kind of commitment? Megachurches are popular because we like popular and, besides, it's easy to go unnoticed in a big church. We are thinking of church like we think of other consumables -- like our culture thinks.

The New Testament does not reference anyone who was not a part of a church. All of Paul's epistles were either written to churches or written to people who were leading churches. The Bible has no category for "saved but not part of a church." Yes, we begin with a personal relationship with Christ, but that relationship necessarily leads us into a relationship with Christ's Body. In his first epistle to the church at Corinth, Paul explains that we are each "given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good." (1 Cor 12:7) He goes on to describe that "common good." He describes us as a body with many members. Each of us is a part. Each of us contributes. How does that work, then, as an individualist? How does "I like Jesus, but not the church" make any sense in the imagery of the body? "Independent and individual" doesn't work at all in this context.

Scripture is full of "one anothers." It doesn't take a genius to recognize that in order to perform "one another" you must have "one" and you must have "another" and that trying to "one another" without others is nonsense. But we do it. Regularly. In and out of the church. Some don't go. "I can't find a good one." "Churches aren't good for me." "I don't really need the church; just Jesus." Others attend without involving themselves. Works out the same way -- not at all. Paul describes us as a temple. The foundation is the Apostles and the Prophets, Christ is the cornerstone, and we are the building material (Eph 2:19-22). "Jointly fitted together," he says. Except a good number of us would just as soon remain "independent" and "individuals."

Here's what I just came across. Here's what makes this most egregious. The fundamental purpose of the church is to make known to rulers and authorities in the heavenly places God's manifold wisdom (Eph 3:10). And we have believers -- genuine Christians -- saying, "Nah, not interested, thanks. I'll just stay over here with my Lord." That cannot be a good thing. That cannot go over well with God. If we are commanded to "Consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another" (Heb 10:24-25) and we say, "No thanks," it cannot be considered obedience. How is it not sin?

We know that the world is opposed to God and, by extension, to His people and His church. That we -- His people and His church -- would be complicit in this is a slap in the face of God. How can we be comfortable with that? If we are lackadaisical about church -- the Body of Christ -- whether we attend or not, how is that to the glory of God? If we're satisfied to attend but not minister, to be involved, to be committed, to be invested, how is God declared to the world? It sounds a lot like too many of us are saying to our world, "Yeah, you're right. The Body of Christ isn't such a big thing."

News Weakly - 2/13/21

As Expected
It's not a big deal and, frankly, not really news. The Left-driven SAG-AFTRA union has banned Donald Trump from ever rejoining SAG-AFTRA. "It is a resounding statement that threatening or inciting harm against fellow members will not be tolerated. An attack against one is an attack against all." Because against the evidence and without any trial or judge or jury the Hollywood elites believe they can hold people as guilty without being proven innocent as all true Americans can. Oh ... wait ... that's not right, is it? In the case of Trump, it's not right, but it's the norm. Condemn first, ask questions later ... maybe. I have been unable to find any reference to anyone ever having been banned from the union at any other time. Maybe the fact that they hate Trump so badly that they can set this sort of precedent would be news? Nah, not really.

No-Brainer
The Biden administration is indicating that the U.S. is going to rejoin the UN Human Rights council. That's a no-brainer. No, not "Well, of course!" A "no-brainer" as in "You wouldn't consider it if you used your brain." The UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights is irrational in places ... at best. Basic "universal" human rights include the "right to life" (Article 3) and the right to be recognized as a person (Article 6) while we know that the unborn have no such rights. Article 16 states that "The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State" without definition of "family" or "protection." Article 25 says, "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family ..." That is, if people don't have such a standard of living, their human rights are being violated. (No reference to personal responsibility, etc.) Everybody has the right to "the free development of his personality." (Article 22) (I don't mind telling you I don't think that it is a human right for a child molester or sociopath to have the "free development of his personality.") The UN declares that it is a universal human right to participate in "periodic and genuine elections" and in one fell swoop they ban all non-democratic systems of government. (By the way, the current anti-racism movement has declared that democracy is a tool of white supremacy and needs to be eliminated.) There is a long list of "universal human rights" that are not being met and should not be and the U.S. wants to take part in that. No-brainer.

Coming Soon to a Country Near You?
The Australian state of Victoria has passed legislation "to ensure that all people, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, feel welcome and valued in Victoria and are able to live authentically and with pride." That's nice. Vague, without a lot of definition or meaning, and, at its edges, really frightening, but nice. (Consider, for instance, the guy that claims his sexual orientation leads him to molest little girls. We don't want him to feel welcome or valued, do we?) The aim is to make conversion therapies -- the methods used to voluntarily or involuntarily change from "homosexual" to heterosexual or to realign gender identity with birth biology -- illegal by any means. The law includes "prayer-based practice," making it illegal in Victoria to pray for people in these conditions. Even if they ask you to. Mull that over for a moment.

A Surprise that Shouldn't Be
You all thought that Planned Parenthood was all about killing the unborn. Well, they're branching out. Surprise! "Planned Parenthood is now one of the largest providers in the United States of cross-sex hormones like testosterone to females seeking medical gender transition." That is, Planned Parenthood has jumped onto the trans activism bandwagon big time with the aim of changing women into men. The primary target is "trans-identifying kids" who, in order to complete this endeavor, would have to keep going back to PP for years unlike the "one-and-done" abortion event. Reports are that 1-2 female teens per day are seeking hormone treatments. No doctors. No licensed mental health professionals. Given the surge of teenage girls (up to 4000%), this should be disturbing to women above all. Given Planned Parenthood's dedication to killing babies, their aim to decrease the female population should not really be a surprise at all.

Without Explanation
The owner of the Dallas Mavericks has, without explanation, dropped the playing of the national anthem at their games. His only response was, "Ask why they don't play the National Anthem every day before you start work." He disagreed with critics of kneeling players and coaches and said he would join those who do. The playing of the national anthem before the game was primarily a product of World War I as a show of national pride and unity. It was a matter of patriotism. So, no explanation needed, Mr. Cuban. If you recognize no patriotism, you would obviously not want it represented before your games. We get it. Just another reason to stop paying any attention to sports these days.

Chilling
I don't have a television, so I wasn't really paying attention, but I got a haircut this week and a TV was on covering the impeachment hearings. I was stunned to hear the bottom line concern of the prosecutors. They said (two of them) that Trump had "dangerous beliefs that produced dangerous actions." We're prosecuting "dangerous beliefs" now? Who gets to define "dangerous beliefs"? Trump believed, true or false, that there were good reasons to believe that election fraud had occurred. This is now defined as a "dangerous belief" and they are prosecuting him. "If the U.S. doesn't give us what we want, we will burn the system down is not a dangerous belief? Current culture holds that the belief that homosexual behavior is a sin is homophobia. Is that an example of what's next? Chilling.

Seems Reasonable
In a mail-in impeachment vote this week the Senate convicted Trump 8275 to 3. It could happen.

Remember

It is our nature to try to forget. You know. We try to put the bad things behind us. We try to forget the pains we've suffered and the tribulations we've faced. We try to forget the wrongs others have done us and the losses we've endured. Just put it behind you. That's the aim.

So it might come across as a little strange when Paul says, "Remember."

Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called "the uncircumcision" by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands — remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. (Eph 2:11-12)

If the notion is to forget trials and tribulations, certainly a list like that would fall in the "forget" category. "Having no hope" and "without God" are sufficient losses to seek to erase from your memory. And Paul says, "Remember." Why?

The point (the point of everything) is God's glory. The point is "so that in the coming ages He might show the immeasurable riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus." (Eph 2:7) The point is "so that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places." (Eph 3:10) So, God, according to His eternal purpose (Eph 3:11), has chosen the outsiders, so to speak, to demonstrate the magnitude of His glory. In so doing, we also receive benefits. We know, for instance, that he who is forgiven much loves much (Luke 7::47).

So, remember. Remember where you came from. Remember how low you were. Remember that we were without hope and without God. Remember so that God receives the greatest glory for bringing the most hopeless to Himself. Remember so that we can properly reflect His glory and make known His wisdom. Remember so we can be proportionately grateful. Remember.

Big Prayer

In Ephesians 3, after a brief parenthetical excursion into Paul's tasking from God to take the gospel to the Gentiles, Paul prays for Gentile believers.

I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named, that according to the riches of His glory He may grant you to be strengthened with power through His Spirit in your inner being, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith — that you, being rooted and grounded in love, may have strength to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God. (Eph 3:14-19)

This is a big prayer, but it's somewhat convoluted. That is, you have to track it carefully to see what he's praying for. Let's see if I can boil it down. He prays that "you would be strengthened with power through His Spirit" for the purpose of having Christ dwell in your hearts and so that you can comprehend the love of Christ. There, now, Paul, wouldn't that have been clearer? Easier to understand? Well, maybe, but certainly far more anemic. What more does Paul give us?

1) You have the source -- the Father. He is the Creator of all. He grants strength according to the riches of His glory. This prayer, then, will be answered to the glory of God. And you have the power for it -- the Holy Spirit.

2) You have the first request. He asks for strength so that Christ may dwell in your hearts. You have the mechanism -- faith.

3) You have the second request -- the strength to comprehend the love of Christ.

4) You have the conditions of how to comprehend His love -- to be rooted and grounded in love. That is, all of your nourishment ("rooted") is provided in His love and your basis for everything ("grounded") is His love. You thrive on and proceed from His love. This is necessary for you to comprehend His love.

5) You have the structure of His love. It is multidimensional. It has "breadth and length and height and depth." And it is vast; it "surpasses knowledge," which, clearly, is why we need the Holy Spirit's empowerment. We are to comprehend that which surpasses knowledge.

6) Finally, you have the ultimate purpose of the prayer. The underlying purpose is God's glory, but why do we need to have power for Christ to dwell in our hearts and strength to comprehend the incomprehensible love of Christ? So that we will be filled with all the fullness of God. That is the ultimate end. Paul's prayer is that Christ would dwell in us so we can operate in and from His love to be filled with the fullness of God that exceeds anything and everything we can imagine (Eph 3:20).

I told you it was a big prayer.

You Complete Me

It's a romantic saying between two people. "You complete me." That's nice. Except it's not particularly popular today. Or, at least, should not be. I mean, we're all about "be yourself" and "you do you" and "believe in yourself" and "follow your dream" with very, very little room for "I'm not complete" and "You complete me." Today it's a nice, warm saying, but mostly romantic drivel not acceptable in modern realities. Of course, that's not accurate. Modern "realities" aren't solid realities and we live in a world perfectly happy to call things "real" without requiring us to maintain that they're actually real.

So what is real in this question? Is there any truth to the notion of "You complete me"? Well, since I try to live in a biblical worldview, I'd say it is definitely real (versus all that "I'm perfectly operational in myself" perspective). "Oh? Biblical? What are you talking about?" Thanks for asking. (It's always helpful if I can control the conversation, right?) Scripture says that in Creation God made Man. He gave him some tasks, some instructions, and set him to work. But God declared, for the first time in His Creation, that something was "not good." "It is not good," He said, "that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him." (Gen 2:18) "A helper fit for him," was the aim. The word is specifically "a counterpart, a mate, an opposite." The idea is "Where he is strong this 'helper' will be weak and where he is weak this 'helper' will be strong. Where the helper needs help he can help and where he needs help the helper can help." The idea is a complement. Look the word up. A complement is "somthing that completes or makes perfect." It is "either of two parts needed to complete the whole." God designed Adam and Eve to be a "fit," counterparts (not the same) that help and complete one another. "You complete me" was God's idea.

Biblically marriage is designed to complete us. Biblically the male and the female are intended to be complementary, filling in each others' weaknesses to make a more complete whole. Biblically the concept of "two become one" (Gen 2:24; Eph 5:31) is God's actual planned structure to make a better unit. Biblically divorce is a radical, dangerous, nonsensical concept. So Jesus said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate." (Matt 19:4-6) It is God's design that male and female would be distinct and unique (not the same) and would be complementary for the purpose of completing each other. It doesn't seem like our new "I don't need anyone else" or our new "marriage" or our new "sexual equality" have offered an improvement on that design.

Powerful

One of my favorite passages of Scripture is in Ephesians 3. The language is so tightly packed with meaning that we might easily miss it.

Now to Him who is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think, according to the power at work within us, to Him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, forever and ever. Amen. (Eph 3:20-21)

It is the end of a prayer Paul offers at the end of the chapter, so it is to "Him" -- the Father (Eph 3:14). What is it that Paul is ending with about "Him"? "To Him be glory." (Eph 3:21) Not us. Not anyone else. Him. What glory? "In the church and in Christ Jesus." What quantity of glory? "Throughout all generations, forever and ever." Lots and lots of glory.

So what does Paul say that provides such glory to God? He speaks of God's power at work in us. Well, that's nice, I guess. No, not "nice." Huge! This power that Paul is referencing is so massive that Paul runs out of description. Our Bibles translate it "far more abundantly beyond," but the structure of the language itself is strange. The Greek phrase is hypér hyperekperissou pâs. (I know ... "It's all Greek to me, Stan. You're not helping." But follow it for a moment.) If you look you'll see "hyper" and "hyper" side by side in the first two terms. Now, let me think. What do you suppose "hyper" means? It is, of course, exactly the source of our English "hyper" -- "beyond, above." So, what about that "hyperekperissou" thing? Well, that word adds "perissou" to "hyper" winding up with "hyper-abundantly" or "superabundantly." You see? Paul ran out of superlatives. "God is able to do more ... no, wait ... far more ... nope, not good enough ... superabundantly far more that anything ..." ("pâs"). Big, bigger, biggest.

It doesn't end there. So God is able to do superabundantly far more than any what? Superabundantly far more than anything you can ask or think. You can come up with whatever you might ask and He can exceed that. You can dream but not ask and He can exceed that. Really, really, really big. Superabundantly far beyond your wildest imagination.

It doesn't end there. This power ("dunamis") that God has that vastly exceeds your wildest imagination is "at work within us." Not merely around us. Not just "available." Not theoretical. This "superabundantly far more beyond all" power is currently at work in every believer.

Therefore there can be no sense in which we are powerless. There is no lack of capability in what we can do for God's glory. God's power is not general; it is personal. For you. And me. I suppose the thing to do, then, is to get to work, right?

Indoctrinated

I'm sure you've heard it. "We don't teach our kids any religion because we want them to come to it on their own. It's not right if we force our beliefs on them." And you might think, "Well, I can see that. Makes some sense." Fight that temptation. There are too many problems with that to actually enumerate and examine.

People think that indoctrination is bad. The truth is it can be ... if the thing that is being indocrinated is bad. But we know that indoctrination on its own isn't bad. How can I be so sure? Because we mandate that parents send their kids to school. And what is school but indoctrination? We teach them that reading and writing and arithmetic are good (at least theoretically). They learn history and geography and all sorts of things. None of it is without slant, but we expect that the slant is going to be minimal and truthful. So we don't protest. But make no mistake; we are indoctrinating those kids. I remember when my junior-high-aged son came home from school excited. "Dad!" he said, "I finally learned the difference between a liberal and a conservative. A liberal wants to share with everyone and a conservative wants to keep everything for himself." Indoctrinated. (Rest assured he didn't maintain that view by the time our conversation ended. And, yes, again, indoctrinated.)

Beyond our generally accepted, societally affirmed use of indoctrination, it is impossible to avoid by any means. Our constant aim is to have others align with our doctrines, be they political, economic, social, religious ... whatever. We each have views and we aim to try to win others to our own views. That's indoctrination.

Beyond that, the premise, "We don't teach our kids any religion because we want them to come to it on their own. It's not right if we force our beliefs on them," is a doctrine. Further, by not teaching kids any religion you are passing on a doctrine that "Religion is not significant or true." That is, parents don't say, "We don't keep our kids from drinking household cleaners because we want them to come to it on their own." That's called reckless endangerment. But they do it with religion? Because they believe that religion is not significant or true ... and pass that doctrine on to their kids by withholding any teaching. But if it is true, for instance, that all have sinned (Rom 3:23), the wages of that sin is death (Rom 6:23), and Jesus is the only solution (John 14:6), then religion is just as true and significant as teaching your kids not to put their hands on a hot stove. More so. One will get them burned and the other will get them eternally dead.

You may think that it's bad to indoctrinate children. It's not. We all do it. We do it in word and in deed, intentionally or unintentionally, by example and even by silence. We assign the task to others -- teachers, law enforcement, pastors, family members, etc. It cannot be avoided. So the concept "We want them to come to it on their own" is a dodge to avoid not indoctrination, but the right indoctrination. It isn't trivial and it isn't rational. "Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord." (Eph 6:4) Indoctrinate them.

A Short Sunday Thought

It is both foolish and wicked to suppose that we will make much progress in sanctification if we isolate ourselves from the visible church. —R.C. Sproul

News Weakly - 2/6/2021

Killing Babies Around the World
You've probably heard that Biden has rescinded the "Mexico City Policy." And, like me, you likely thought, "So? I mean it has something to do with abortion and apparently something about abortion in Mexico City, but ...?" As it turns out, the policy is not a Trump policy. It came out of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 that disallowed using foreign organizations receiving federal funds to use them to encourage abortion as family planning. It was implimented by Ronald Reagan in 1981 and announced to the U.N. ... in Mexico City -- thus the "Mexico City Policy." It isn't Mexico City; it is worldwide. Since then every Republican president used it and every Democratic president rescinded it, thereby insuring that your tax dollars can be used worldwide to encourage killing babies in other countries. Because, apparently, killing babies wherever they may be found is a priority for the Democratic Party.

What Do You Know?
President Biden has signed three executive actions aimed at reuniting migrant families. Now, I think that reuniting families is a good thing and I'm all for it. I do have a question, though. ICE suggested that too many of the adults with children were not parents with children. The kids that were with them were not their own. In October there were approximately 500 children yet to be reunited with their parents. According to Homeland Security many of those children's parents "refused a reunion." Reports are that "two-thirds of the separated parents are believed to have returned to their home countries." It's not all "the evil U.S." and it's not all Trump, and Biden does not appear to be taking any of this into account.

Just Embarrassing
Utter nonsense. Apparently some of those storming the Capitol last month, outraged that the election was being stolen, didn't vote. Sorry. If you didn't vote, you don't get to complain. You certainly don't get to riot.

Not Protected Status
The U.S. has laws about the use of firearms, even for law enforcement. Generally speaking, the use of deadly force is reserved for the protection of life only. So an assailant bent on slugging a police officer, for instance, can't be shot on that basis. "Like force" is the rule. Now, if a white officer in the course of a criminal investigation happens to shoot a black person who was armed -- a threat to the officer's life -- then a significant portion of the nation today would be outraged. Sure, there was the crime and, sure, there was the threat, but it's a white officer shooting a black person and that must never happen. Of course, the same is not true for the officer that shot an unarmed "break and enter" suspect, Ashli Babbitt. Yes, she was breaking and entering. No, she was not armed -- did not represent a threat to life. Yes, she is dead because she (alone) was killed by a Capitol Police officer who will not face charges. Ashli is not in any kind of protected status, and any of you that think trivialities like "the law" or "I'm an American citizen with rights" or the like will matter should think again.

Not Sure What to Believe
You heard, I hope, about singer Marilyn Manson being accused by multiple sources of some pretty foul sexual shenanigans. According to the Bee, Manson has decided to avoid abuse allegations by running for office as a Democrat. Of course, the Bee is satire, but the story actually seems to make sense. The Angels suspend a coach for allegations of lewd behavior but a Democrat running for office gets a pass. "Believe the woman ... unless he's one of our boys."

Reflections

It's a travel day for me. My wife and I are going to the funeral of my brother-in-law. He died recently of COVID. It was sudden and drastic and unexpected. He had some of those risk factors, but he was only in his mid-50's and it was so quick. It might be the kind of thing that makes you go, "Where was God in all of this?"

Well, before he contracted COVID their daughter was planning to move out with her boyfriend to another state. She was leaving mad. Mad at her father and mad at God. Full rebellion. Except when all of this hit she stayed. She even posted requests for friends to ask God to heal her father. Now, hang on ... didn't we just say that she was mad at God and mad at her dad? I can hear Joseph now: "You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good." (Gen 50:20)

In the midst of the crisis I watched a husband and a wife with tension between them boil it back down to the important. I watched kids who weren't exactly pleased with their father suddenly realize the important and rally around him. I saw hundreds of people turn to God in prayer. Literally hundreds. I saw this and more in the midst of the worst crisis this family has ever faced.

I live on Ephesians 1:11 -- God "works all things after the counsel of His will" -- so in the midst of sickness and loss, tragedy and sadness, trials and tribulations, I can rejoice that God is doing what is best and God will be glorified. What more could I ask?

Weak Link

In Ephesians Paul writes about how the Gentiles were at one time "separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world." (Eph 2:12) Bleak. "But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ." (Eph 2:13) Good news!! He writes that we are made one, made into "one new man" (Eph 2:15). We are no longer strangers and aliens, but fellow citizens and members of the household of God (Eph 2:19). Paul describes us -- Jews and Gentiles who are now one and make up the Church, the Body of Christ -- as "a holy temple in the Lord." (Eph 2:21)

The idea in the text is that we are a building, "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone." (Eph 2:20) In this imagery, we believers are the individual bricks of this building. We are "being joined together" (Eph 2:21). That phrase is actually a single word in Greek and means, most literally, "closely jointed together." I only point that out because the language suggests something more than simply "joined together." There is an attachment and a bonding of differing materials to form a single surface to build a larger edifice. It is a real union produced "in the Lord." (Eph 2:21) This building, with the apostles and prophets (that we now have in book form -- the Bible) as the foundation and Christ as the cormerstone -- guide for all of it -- is built of us "into a dwelling place for God." (Eph 2:22)

It's an interesting concept. It means the removal of hostilities (Eph 2:16) between Jew and Gentile and between us and God. It means that we are no longer about "me" and now about "us" as "one new man" and about being the dwelling place for God by God. It is a greater purpose and a greater value and a greater responsibility. As such, it is also carries greater consequences when we fail. How do we fail? The passage (Eph 2:11-22) is about God making disparate people into a united group by the blood of Christ, a new family, a living temple. So what does it say about us when we refuse to be "closely jointed together" with others? What does it say about us when we don't embrace others, don't love our neighbor, don't bear one anothers burdens? What does it say about us when we make it difficult to "break into" our churches? You know. When those new people come, do they sense that they are being "closely jointed together" with us or do they feel like they're on the outside looking in? Or how about the other divisions among believers -- race, income, class, education, etc.?

The Church is made up of humans and it will always have faults. That doesn't excuse them; it merely recognizes it. We should be diligent to not fail at what God wants us to do. As such, being a dwelling place for God as human bricks "closely jointed together" ought to be a priority for us, and anywhere that we refuse to be part of the whole, joined to fellow believers, ought to cause us serious concern ... about our own sin. I don't want to be the one weakening God's temple. Do you?

Child Abuse

I was talking with a father of a teenage son. "Well," he told me, "perhaps we haven't done the best for him." He told me about how their son was irresponsible, unmotivated, lazy, and uncontrolled. "He just knows how to push the right buttons and his mom and I will do whatever he wants."

I put this in the category of child abuse. "Abuse? Really??" Indeed. The parent(s) that have to live with it have obvious negative repurcussions, but the outcome for the child is not good either. This late-teen kid is about to be unleashed on the world with the belief that everyone owes him whatever it is he wants and no one should have the right to deny him whatever that might be. The concept of "earn your way" is nowhere to be seen. The notion of actual consequences for choices is not present anywhere. Oh, sure, over his lifetime they did the token "discipline." Take his phone when his grades weren't good enough. That sort of thing. Except, of course, the promised consequences -- "We're going to keep your phone until you get your grades up" -- never happened and the message was clear. "At worst, I just have to wait a little while until all my desires are provided." So this kid is going to be entering adulthood without having learned the value of work, without even passing high school, and expecting everything to be handed to him. What could go wrong?

Someplace along the line something went very wrong. It was once expected that fathers would discipline their children (Heb 12:9-10). According to Hebrews, the father that does not discipline his child does not love him (or her). By this measure, a significant number of modern American parents don't love their children. The text in Hebrews says, "The Lord disciplines the one He loves, and chastises every son whom He receives." (Heb 12:6) That "chastises" is obviously related but slightly different than the "disciplines." The "discipline" term means to train, to instruct, to teach. Oh, that's easy enough, right? But the "chastise" term means "to flog or scourge." "Oh, now, hang on!" our modern sensibilities tell us. "That's not right!" Except that it's exactly what it says and it specifically refers to "the Lord" and not some bad dad. "You know, doing that in this country might get you put in jail." Right. Because loving your children in a biblical way is no longer acceptable in America. That's how far we've come from "Train up a child."

It is somewhat naive to think that this will work out well for our kids. Since we don't expect parents to teach them responsibility and discipline, someone else will. Maybe it will be a kindly neighbor or church that steps in. One can only hope. More likely it will be a gang leader or a police officer. And hopefully this learning to submit won't be fatal. We're not doing our kids any favors by trying to be their pal when what they need is loving, responsible parents who are willing to do the hard stuff to prepare them for life as adults. They have lots of friends, but for too many, they have no functional parents. I call that child abuse.

The Counsel of His Will

I thought this was interesting.

One of the biblical texts that rolls around in my head all the time, that shapes my existence, that makes life bearable and even wonderful, is a single phrase in Ephesians. There Paul claims that God "works all things after the counsel of His will." (Eph 1:11) It is a bold and complete claim to the absolute sovereignty of God. That "all things" tethered to "His will" makes life's joys more full and life's sorrows more bearable. Catastrophes become another thing a good God is doing. "All things work together for good" becomes not only possible, but certain.

There was a minor difficulty, though. Well, there was a major one -- "We don't like that." So while the text is unambiguous, it still needed to be defended. But the minor difficulty was, "Just what is 'the counsel of His will'? What does that mean?" The language is actually a bit odd. For "counsel" Paul uses a Greek word that means "volition" and for "will" he uses a Greek word that means "will" (go figure). As it turns out, the New testament is full of these two words. One is often translated "desire" and the other "will," leading people to think there is some distinction, but there are too many places where they are used interchangeably to make that clear. That is, these two words are essentially synonyms in the Greek. So Paul essentially says, "God works all things according to the choices He wills." Um, okay, I guess that's fine. In fact, fairly certain. He essentially nailed it down by repeating the same concept in two different ways.

Then I came across this.

The counsel of the LORD stands forever, the plans of His heart to all generations. (Psa 33:11)

In the previous verse the psalmist had stated that the Lord brings the counsel of the nations to nothing. Then he contrasts that with this. You'll notice a parallelism here. We have "the counsel" parallel to "the plans," "the Lord" parallel to "His heart," and "stands forever" parallel to "to all generations." So the two phrases support and explain one another. That is, the counsel of the Lord is the plans of His heart, and these last forever, to all generations.

If we take that "counsel" and plug it back into the Ephesians passage, we get, "God works all things after His will which is informed by the plans of His heart."

Now, again, it is somewhat of a repeat and, again, somewhat of a nailing down, but I think it helps make "the counsel of His will" clearer. The claim here from Paul is that God works all things to always accomplish what it is that He intends, what is in His heart, what He plans. And since God is a good God and a loving God, I'm good with that. Even if I'm not always aware of what it is He is doing. Now, for those of you who are pretty sure that God has surrendered His Sovereignty to Human Free Will, you still have a problem. This verse makes no sense. But to me this is such a sure resting place that I have no intention of wrestling with it.