There are those who call for "family-integrated church" in which they oppose the current "age-segregated" approach. Typically, churches, if they have more than 50 people, have "children's ministries" including nursery. Of course, the more children, the bigger the ministries. Larger churches have youth pastors and include specific ministries for a variety of age groups from nursery through college age. In a majority of churches these days, younger children (typically under 12 years old) don't even go to church. They're gathered apart from parents and older siblings while the over-12 group is in the sanctuary. Often they're taught, but always they're entertained. Cuts down on disturbances, you know. Interestingly, no such process is offered in Scripture. There are no "youth pastors," no nurseries listed, no Sunday schools. Not to say that such things didn't exist, but they aren't cited or explained in the Bible. What does the Bible say about children's ministries? The biblical version of children's ministries is "fathers." It isn't the church body that is tasked with bringing them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord; it's fathers (Eph 6:4). It's not the church corporate that is warned not to exasperate children so they don't lose heart; it's fathers (Col 3:21). Conversely, it's not church leaders that children are urged to be obedient to; it's parents (Eph 6:1-3; Col 3:20). God's Word overwhelmingly lays the responsibility of teaching children about God in the lap of the parents in general and the fathers in particular.
Modern society has figured out that a "50-50 marriage" is the way to go. Husband and wife share the responsibilities. Admittedly, we don't do that very well. Women these days end up tending to the house and the kids as well as helping to earn an income. But "50-50" serves as the general rule. Scripture, on the other hand, shifts that a bit. Well, a lot. Okay, completely. The responsible authority in the home is laid on the back of the husband (1 Cor 11:3; Eph 5:25-30; 1 Peter 3:1-7). The responsibility for discipline belongs to fathers (Prov 3:11-12; Heb 12:7). The primary responsibility for teaching children is the parents (Deut 6:6-9). That silly Bible -- it's all out of kilter with our modern sensibilities.
On these points and others our current society has managed to alleviate a lot of responsibility assigned to husbands and fathers and spread it out over all sorts of others. Scripture calls for fathers to teach their children and we've taken that responsibility and given it to schools and churches. God's Word calls for husbands to be the responsible authority in the home and feminism has taken that responsibility and shifted it to the government and women. The Bible tells wives to keep silent in churches and, instead, to ask their husbands the questions they have (1 Cor 14:34-35). That "suggestion" is so offensive that hardly anyone will allow it anymore -- including Bible-believing Christians. So, instead of men taking responsibility for their homes, their wives, and their children, our society has realized God's folly in such a plan and taken that responsibility off men, leaving it to others to accomplish. I don't suppose it's a surprise, then, when moderns complain long and loud about irresponsible men. What do we expect? We made it a rule!
I wonder, then, what would happen to men if we shifted these responsibilities back to them? Would they "man up"? Don't worry, guys. Our culture (under the leadership of the god of this world) is insuring that that will never happen.
Tuesday, August 31, 2021
Monday, August 30, 2021
With Respect
You've all heard it, I'm sure. "Respect is earned, not given." I suspect that the circumstances in which you would have heard such a phrase would be relatively constant -- someone told someone they needed to show respect for someone ... and they didn't want to. Now, of course, it's simply not true. Let's say that a different way; it's a lie. And it's simple to demonstrate. Ask yourself if you deserve respect. Most people will affirm that they do ... and we've just affirmed that respect is given, not earned. It is owed, not earned.
This becomes more readily apparent when we read Scripture. Wives are commanded to submit to their husbands "as to the Lord" (Eph 5:23). That's a pretty high standard ("as to the Lord"), and there is nothing in there about "as long as he earns it." In fact, Peter says to be subject to husbands "even if some do not obey the word" (1 Peter 3:1). That is, specifically, to less than good husbands. Paul says that husbands must love their wives as they love themselves (here, too, no reference to "good wife") and a wife must "see that she respects her husband" (Eph 5:33). Again, nothing about earning it. Peter told servants to respect their masters including the unjust (1 Peter 2:18). Biblically, respect is given, not earned.
How is this possible? How can you respect someone who isn't ... respectable? On what basis, for instance, can a good wife be expected to respect an unkind, uncaring husband? There are several ways. First, it is accomplished on the basis of obedience. Respect isn't an unbidden emotion; it is a choice. So God said it; that is sufficient reason to do it. We are all required to pay "respect to whom respect is owed" (Rom 13:7). He said it; do it. The second obvious reason is by virtue of shared origin. We are all made in the image of God (Gen 1:26-27). That, alone, ought to demand respect from fellow image-bearers. A third one is actually well understood by the world. In the military we were taught, "You have to respect the office, not the man." Authority is due respect by virtue of its authority. If "there is no authority except from God" (Rom 13:1), and resisting authority is resisting God (Rom 13:2), respect ought to be given out of respect for the One who ordained it. In reverse, husbands are told to who honor to their wives "as the weaker vessel" (1 Peter 3:7). In the same way, those in a stronger position ought to respect those in a weaker position and to look out for their interests (Php 2:4). These are a few reasons to give respect rather than require that it be earned. The best one, however, is the one we enjoy the most. It is because we are Christ-ians -- we want to be like Christ. So we should have the same mind He did, humbling ourselves for the benefit of others regardless of their worthiness for it (Php 2:5-7).
One other thing on respect. It is my abiding suspicion that we are not clear just what "respect" is. A definition for kids says, "Having respect is when you feel good about someone because of how they act." If that is accurate, respect is earned by you making me feel good about how you act. More common is the standard "to consider worthy of high regard" kind of thing. More at "A feeling of appreciative, often deferential regard." But, then, we're just looking at the kids' version, aren't we? In fact, how can anyone command "a feeling"? This isn't the biblical version. I think it is often the version that good wives give their good husbands and think they've obeyed the command to respect them. It's just not the biblical version. Interestingly, I think husbands know it.
Scripture commands us to "Show proper respect to everyone." (1 Peter 2:17) In both that Ephesians 5:33 reference and in the 1 Peter 2:18 reference the word translated "respect" might be a surprise; it is phobos -- fear. It is the same word used to express what we owe God (e.g., 1 Peter 2:17). Now, we understand that this "fear" isn't some abject terror, but neither is it mere "reverence." It includes "awe" which includes "dread." It is that sense of fear that moves you forward rather than backward. It's the reasonable fear that keeps a highway worker in the median from walking into the roadway while motivating him to do his job. It is the fear afforded to those who discipline us for our good (Heb 12:9). In biblical respect, then, there is honor and there is a sense of fear.
We need to aim to be respectable (1 Tim 3:2). We ought to live as if we need to earn respect. But in the respect we give we are commanded to give it freely. We are to respect "those who labor among you" (1 Thess 5:12), masters (1 Peter 2:18), those with whom we disagree (1 Peter 3:15), and more -- all whom we owe respect (Rom 13:7). We are to respect those above us, those below us, all who are in the image of God. That respect is not merely a warm feeling of appreciation, but a present sense of fear. As an explosives expert respects explosives while working with them, we ought to respect those around us by handling and responding to them rightly, as more important than ourselves (Php 2:3). It is not natural, but it is biblical and, therefore, the kind of obedience that God produces in His own (Php 2:13).
This becomes more readily apparent when we read Scripture. Wives are commanded to submit to their husbands "as to the Lord" (Eph 5:23). That's a pretty high standard ("as to the Lord"), and there is nothing in there about "as long as he earns it." In fact, Peter says to be subject to husbands "even if some do not obey the word" (1 Peter 3:1). That is, specifically, to less than good husbands. Paul says that husbands must love their wives as they love themselves (here, too, no reference to "good wife") and a wife must "see that she respects her husband" (Eph 5:33). Again, nothing about earning it. Peter told servants to respect their masters including the unjust (1 Peter 2:18). Biblically, respect is given, not earned.
How is this possible? How can you respect someone who isn't ... respectable? On what basis, for instance, can a good wife be expected to respect an unkind, uncaring husband? There are several ways. First, it is accomplished on the basis of obedience. Respect isn't an unbidden emotion; it is a choice. So God said it; that is sufficient reason to do it. We are all required to pay "respect to whom respect is owed" (Rom 13:7). He said it; do it. The second obvious reason is by virtue of shared origin. We are all made in the image of God (Gen 1:26-27). That, alone, ought to demand respect from fellow image-bearers. A third one is actually well understood by the world. In the military we were taught, "You have to respect the office, not the man." Authority is due respect by virtue of its authority. If "there is no authority except from God" (Rom 13:1), and resisting authority is resisting God (Rom 13:2), respect ought to be given out of respect for the One who ordained it. In reverse, husbands are told to who honor to their wives "as the weaker vessel" (1 Peter 3:7). In the same way, those in a stronger position ought to respect those in a weaker position and to look out for their interests (Php 2:4). These are a few reasons to give respect rather than require that it be earned. The best one, however, is the one we enjoy the most. It is because we are Christ-ians -- we want to be like Christ. So we should have the same mind He did, humbling ourselves for the benefit of others regardless of their worthiness for it (Php 2:5-7).
One other thing on respect. It is my abiding suspicion that we are not clear just what "respect" is. A definition for kids says, "Having respect is when you feel good about someone because of how they act." If that is accurate, respect is earned by you making me feel good about how you act. More common is the standard "to consider worthy of high regard" kind of thing. More at "A feeling of appreciative, often deferential regard." But, then, we're just looking at the kids' version, aren't we? In fact, how can anyone command "a feeling"? This isn't the biblical version. I think it is often the version that good wives give their good husbands and think they've obeyed the command to respect them. It's just not the biblical version. Interestingly, I think husbands know it.
Scripture commands us to "Show proper respect to everyone." (1 Peter 2:17) In both that Ephesians 5:33 reference and in the 1 Peter 2:18 reference the word translated "respect" might be a surprise; it is phobos -- fear. It is the same word used to express what we owe God (e.g., 1 Peter 2:17). Now, we understand that this "fear" isn't some abject terror, but neither is it mere "reverence." It includes "awe" which includes "dread." It is that sense of fear that moves you forward rather than backward. It's the reasonable fear that keeps a highway worker in the median from walking into the roadway while motivating him to do his job. It is the fear afforded to those who discipline us for our good (Heb 12:9). In biblical respect, then, there is honor and there is a sense of fear.
We need to aim to be respectable (1 Tim 3:2). We ought to live as if we need to earn respect. But in the respect we give we are commanded to give it freely. We are to respect "those who labor among you" (1 Thess 5:12), masters (1 Peter 2:18), those with whom we disagree (1 Peter 3:15), and more -- all whom we owe respect (Rom 13:7). We are to respect those above us, those below us, all who are in the image of God. That respect is not merely a warm feeling of appreciation, but a present sense of fear. As an explosives expert respects explosives while working with them, we ought to respect those around us by handling and responding to them rightly, as more important than ourselves (Php 2:3). It is not natural, but it is biblical and, therefore, the kind of obedience that God produces in His own (Php 2:13).
Sunday, August 29, 2021
Scars
There is a song that came out recently from a group I enjoy -- Casting Crowns. The song is Scars in Heaven. Now, before I start, let me say (again) that it's a group I enjoy. Further, it's a song I enjoy. This discussion is not about the song; it's about us. The song is only a launching point.
The song is about someone who had hardship in life and went to be with the Lord. The last line in the chorus says,
I suspect, however, that we are mistaken in our understanding. We know that Jesus retained His scars after death because He showed them to Thomas. If He retained His scars, why wouldn't we? "Because," you will probably tell me, "there are no more tears in heaven. We have new bodies." Okay, true, but why lose "scars"? (I put it in quotes because there are physical scars and there are emotional scars, etc.) Scars are not wounds; scars are healed wounds. Scars point to wounds in the past. Like they did in Jesus's hands and side. I think our human perspective is those are things we want to lose. I suspect that we have a poor grasp of the value of wounds.
Scripture says that God uses suffering to produce a better you (Rom 5:3-5; James 1:2-4). For believers, certainly, suffering is never accidental, unplanned, or uncontrolled. Pain is not inflicted on us; it is granted to us (Php 1:29). It's a gift. When this was explained to Paul in the midst of his pain, he replied, "I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me." (2 Cor 12:7-9). He concluded, "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 12:10)
So, we have two stories running here. On one hand we have the world and the flesh urging us to run. Get away from any and all suffering. If it is there, it is bad. For many (most?), if it is there it is an injustice on God's part. Something is wrong. On the other hand we have the biblical claim that suffering is unpleasant, to be sure, but is ultimately for our good. As such, we can rejoice.
I'm fine with the Casting Crowns song. It is comforting to know that His scarred hands hold us, that because He took our sin, we can be with Him. But when I get to heaven, I'm thinking that I will no longer be looking through a glass darkly; I'm thinking I'll see it more clearly. I want to point to those wounds that He allowed/gave and healed, and I want to use them as marks of honor of what God did in me in this life to make me better than I would have been. I want to rejoice now in suffering knowing that He rejoiced in His suffering even while He suffered. He endured the cross and despised the shame because He looked to the joy that was set before Him (Heb 12:2). That's what I want to do now. And when I get to heaven, I want to point to His work mapped out in my scars -- my healed wounds. Maybe they're right; maybe there will be no scars in heaven. But I don't want to devalue the suffering; I want to appreciate it as a gift from the hands of a loving Father.
The song is about someone who had hardship in life and went to be with the Lord. The last line in the chorus says,
And the thought that makes me smile now even as the tears fall downYou get it, right? The "hands that hold you now" are the hands of Jesus who died so that He could hold you now. The hands of Jesus that He offered to Thomas to prove His identity (John 20:27). It is the universal symbol of His sacrifice on our behalf. Beautiful. I'm fine with the song. It is poetry and conveys a beautiful image. The "only scars in heaven" are His because we are fully healed. No more tears. Good stuff.
Is that the only scars in heaven are on the hands that hold you now.
I suspect, however, that we are mistaken in our understanding. We know that Jesus retained His scars after death because He showed them to Thomas. If He retained His scars, why wouldn't we? "Because," you will probably tell me, "there are no more tears in heaven. We have new bodies." Okay, true, but why lose "scars"? (I put it in quotes because there are physical scars and there are emotional scars, etc.) Scars are not wounds; scars are healed wounds. Scars point to wounds in the past. Like they did in Jesus's hands and side. I think our human perspective is those are things we want to lose. I suspect that we have a poor grasp of the value of wounds.
Scripture says that God uses suffering to produce a better you (Rom 5:3-5; James 1:2-4). For believers, certainly, suffering is never accidental, unplanned, or uncontrolled. Pain is not inflicted on us; it is granted to us (Php 1:29). It's a gift. When this was explained to Paul in the midst of his pain, he replied, "I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me." (2 Cor 12:7-9). He concluded, "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 12:10)
So, we have two stories running here. On one hand we have the world and the flesh urging us to run. Get away from any and all suffering. If it is there, it is bad. For many (most?), if it is there it is an injustice on God's part. Something is wrong. On the other hand we have the biblical claim that suffering is unpleasant, to be sure, but is ultimately for our good. As such, we can rejoice.
I'm fine with the Casting Crowns song. It is comforting to know that His scarred hands hold us, that because He took our sin, we can be with Him. But when I get to heaven, I'm thinking that I will no longer be looking through a glass darkly; I'm thinking I'll see it more clearly. I want to point to those wounds that He allowed/gave and healed, and I want to use them as marks of honor of what God did in me in this life to make me better than I would have been. I want to rejoice now in suffering knowing that He rejoiced in His suffering even while He suffered. He endured the cross and despised the shame because He looked to the joy that was set before Him (Heb 12:2). That's what I want to do now. And when I get to heaven, I want to point to His work mapped out in my scars -- my healed wounds. Maybe they're right; maybe there will be no scars in heaven. But I don't want to devalue the suffering; I want to appreciate it as a gift from the hands of a loving Father.
Saturday, August 28, 2021
News Weakly - 8/28/21
Go Figure
The Antwerp Zoo has banned a woman for loving a chimp. Yes, go back and read that slowly. Adie is heartbroken because for the last 4 years she has visited every week and she and Chita, a 38-year-old chimpanzee, have exchanged blown kisses. The zoo says it's not good for the chimp on a social level, and "Adie doesn't understand what she is doing wrong." And you thought "love is love."
Like I Said
I warned before ... mandates are coming. You thought you lived in a country whose first identification is "liberty," but it's not so anymore. The president mandated all federal workers get vaccinated. The DOD mandated it for all military. New York City requires it for all school district workers. And so on. Now Biden is urging all employers to enact mandates or make the unvaccinated "face strict requirements." Benjamin Franklin said, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Based on misleading, confusing, and questionable information we're being told we need to surrender our liberty ostensibly for our safety (while more and more "fully vaccinated" people get sick). The World Health Organization is calling for a delay in boosters first to get more shots to under-vaccinated countries and second to slow the mutation that vaccination causes. Welcome to 21st century America, where we, like sheep, are expected to roll up our sleeves and bow to our masters who know very little but, we're sure, they know it quite well.
Meanwhile, Delta Air Lines has listened to the president. Either get vaccinated or pay $200 more a month for healthcare. If it violates your principles to get the vaccine, you will pay dearly for your principles. As for me, I won't be flying Delta anytime soon ... just on principle.
Trust the Science
Oregon has the first state to require face masks outdoors "even if they have been vaccinated." All that they've told us about the effectiveness of this vaccine calls to mind the line from The Avengers: "Puny god."
Dirty Minds
Anyone familiar with the band Nirvana will likely recall the album cover for Nevermind, the iconic baby in the water reaching for a dollar bill. That baby was Spencer Eldon, now 30, who is suing Cobain's estate and anyone else connected for child pornography and sexually exploiting him. He claims "lifelong damage." A little paragraph lower down in the story says, "Elden previously recreated the cover to celebrate the 15th and 25th anniversaries of the album's release. In 2016, he told The New York Post he volunteered to do his latest iteration of the cover naked, but the photographer 'thought that would be weird.'" Sounds a lot like "I approve" right up until someone refused to give him more money. And what kind of mind thinks of baby photos as "child porn"? And, of course, if it is and he possesses and distributes it himself, isn't he guilty of the same? Twisted thinking.
COVID Casualty
"COVID-related" is a term that is hard to define. As a cartoon I saw said, the doctor told the patient, "I think you're problem is the arrow in your eye, but I'll test for COVID." We know that COVID has had a large impact, but we aren't as clear on the impact of the COVID prevention. A story out of CNN reports on the academic cost of avoiding a pandemic. Scores in reading and math have dropped between 3 and 12%. It appears as if taking kids out of classrooms to "protect" them does its own version of harm.
Filed Under "What Could Go Wrong?"
A video surfaced of the Taliban "test driving" UH-60 Blackhawk in Kandahar. According to the story, along with the helicopter, the Taliban has "seized control of up to 200,000 firearms, 20,000 Humvees and hundreds of aircraft that were financed by the US for the Afghan army." Well ... didn't see that coming. I don't remember "Let's arm the Taliban" as one of Biden's talking points. Of course, the Taliban is proving that it will be "business as usual" in Afghanistan, meaning more oppression and less freedom, despite their assurances to the contrary. (Did you even know that music was forbidden in Islam?)
I Don't Even ...?
I guess this would be filed under "What could go wrong?" Apparently the U.S. gave the Taliban a list of Americans and Afghan allies to evacuate. "'Basically, they just put all those Afghans on a kill list,' said one defense official," the story said. I can't imagine who thought that was a good idea
Cancel Culture on Steroids
More under "I don't even ...," Blizzard has a Western game called Overwatch with some characters named after real-life Blizzard staff members. Now one of them left the company over sexual harassment allegations, so Blizzard finds it necessary to change the name of the fictious cowboy character "to something that better represents what Overwatch stands for." The ultimate cancel culture. "Not only do we want this person allegedly involved in some bad stuff gone; we want any reference to his name eliminated as well, even if it's fictitious."
This is what I've been talking about
The governor of Illinois has mandated masks and vaccines. "Illinois will require all eligible students and school employees to be vaccinated and re-instituted an indoor mask mandate." Not unexpected, but the story goes on to say that the policy was "spurred largely by the Delta variant of the virus and increasing reports of 'breakthrough' cases in which people already vaccinated get infected." Hang on! If there are "increasing reports of 'breakthrough' cases" among the vaccinated, then how is vaccination indicated? "This is a pandemic of the unvaccinated," the governor said, but the impetus is "breakthrough" cases. Is no one thinking this through?
What's Yours is Mine
Biden's plan for tax increase is in trouble. Midterm elections are coming and Democratic candidates on razor-thin edges are concerned that increasing taxes will damage their possibility of winning. Meanwhile, progressives want to completely rewrite the tax code to fund social programs and address the wealth gap. "Income inequality is a big problem." Hold on a moment. "Income inequality is a big problem"? How? "Well, it is not fair to have the wealth of a nation unequally distributed." Really? I suppose the statement is true if we're eliminating capitalism, wiping out any sort of incentive to work hard and get ahead, and wholly switching over to socialism. Is that the goal? Is it a moral evil for one person to earn more than another (the definition of "income inequity")? Or are we simply looking at the standard, classical "I want what you have, so you must give it to me"?
From A to Bee
The Bee offered its standard fare of news-related satire this week, like the one about the Taliban opening a chain of U.S. Army surplus stores or the snide headline about Biden being praised for his rescue efforts to save a kid he pushed down a well. They might be banned from the world for their story about the Dominion voting machine regretting the 50,000 extra votes it gave to Biden. Ant they also had a story for fun that I suspect is actually nearly true. It was about a study that found a connection between the frequency of checking the news with the intensity of longing for Jesus's return. Now that actually rings true.
The Antwerp Zoo has banned a woman for loving a chimp. Yes, go back and read that slowly. Adie is heartbroken because for the last 4 years she has visited every week and she and Chita, a 38-year-old chimpanzee, have exchanged blown kisses. The zoo says it's not good for the chimp on a social level, and "Adie doesn't understand what she is doing wrong." And you thought "love is love."
Like I Said
I warned before ... mandates are coming. You thought you lived in a country whose first identification is "liberty," but it's not so anymore. The president mandated all federal workers get vaccinated. The DOD mandated it for all military. New York City requires it for all school district workers. And so on. Now Biden is urging all employers to enact mandates or make the unvaccinated "face strict requirements." Benjamin Franklin said, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Based on misleading, confusing, and questionable information we're being told we need to surrender our liberty ostensibly for our safety (while more and more "fully vaccinated" people get sick). The World Health Organization is calling for a delay in boosters first to get more shots to under-vaccinated countries and second to slow the mutation that vaccination causes. Welcome to 21st century America, where we, like sheep, are expected to roll up our sleeves and bow to our masters who know very little but, we're sure, they know it quite well.
Meanwhile, Delta Air Lines has listened to the president. Either get vaccinated or pay $200 more a month for healthcare. If it violates your principles to get the vaccine, you will pay dearly for your principles. As for me, I won't be flying Delta anytime soon ... just on principle.
Trust the Science
Oregon has the first state to require face masks outdoors "even if they have been vaccinated." All that they've told us about the effectiveness of this vaccine calls to mind the line from The Avengers: "Puny god."
Dirty Minds
Anyone familiar with the band Nirvana will likely recall the album cover for Nevermind, the iconic baby in the water reaching for a dollar bill. That baby was Spencer Eldon, now 30, who is suing Cobain's estate and anyone else connected for child pornography and sexually exploiting him. He claims "lifelong damage." A little paragraph lower down in the story says, "Elden previously recreated the cover to celebrate the 15th and 25th anniversaries of the album's release. In 2016, he told The New York Post he volunteered to do his latest iteration of the cover naked, but the photographer 'thought that would be weird.'" Sounds a lot like "I approve" right up until someone refused to give him more money. And what kind of mind thinks of baby photos as "child porn"? And, of course, if it is and he possesses and distributes it himself, isn't he guilty of the same? Twisted thinking.
COVID Casualty
"COVID-related" is a term that is hard to define. As a cartoon I saw said, the doctor told the patient, "I think you're problem is the arrow in your eye, but I'll test for COVID." We know that COVID has had a large impact, but we aren't as clear on the impact of the COVID prevention. A story out of CNN reports on the academic cost of avoiding a pandemic. Scores in reading and math have dropped between 3 and 12%. It appears as if taking kids out of classrooms to "protect" them does its own version of harm.
Filed Under "What Could Go Wrong?"
A video surfaced of the Taliban "test driving" UH-60 Blackhawk in Kandahar. According to the story, along with the helicopter, the Taliban has "seized control of up to 200,000 firearms, 20,000 Humvees and hundreds of aircraft that were financed by the US for the Afghan army." Well ... didn't see that coming. I don't remember "Let's arm the Taliban" as one of Biden's talking points. Of course, the Taliban is proving that it will be "business as usual" in Afghanistan, meaning more oppression and less freedom, despite their assurances to the contrary. (Did you even know that music was forbidden in Islam?)
I Don't Even ...?
I guess this would be filed under "What could go wrong?" Apparently the U.S. gave the Taliban a list of Americans and Afghan allies to evacuate. "'Basically, they just put all those Afghans on a kill list,' said one defense official," the story said. I can't imagine who thought that was a good idea
Cancel Culture on Steroids
More under "I don't even ...," Blizzard has a Western game called Overwatch with some characters named after real-life Blizzard staff members. Now one of them left the company over sexual harassment allegations, so Blizzard finds it necessary to change the name of the fictious cowboy character "to something that better represents what Overwatch stands for." The ultimate cancel culture. "Not only do we want this person allegedly involved in some bad stuff gone; we want any reference to his name eliminated as well, even if it's fictitious."
This is what I've been talking about
The governor of Illinois has mandated masks and vaccines. "Illinois will require all eligible students and school employees to be vaccinated and re-instituted an indoor mask mandate." Not unexpected, but the story goes on to say that the policy was "spurred largely by the Delta variant of the virus and increasing reports of 'breakthrough' cases in which people already vaccinated get infected." Hang on! If there are "increasing reports of 'breakthrough' cases" among the vaccinated, then how is vaccination indicated? "This is a pandemic of the unvaccinated," the governor said, but the impetus is "breakthrough" cases. Is no one thinking this through?
What's Yours is Mine
Biden's plan for tax increase is in trouble. Midterm elections are coming and Democratic candidates on razor-thin edges are concerned that increasing taxes will damage their possibility of winning. Meanwhile, progressives want to completely rewrite the tax code to fund social programs and address the wealth gap. "Income inequality is a big problem." Hold on a moment. "Income inequality is a big problem"? How? "Well, it is not fair to have the wealth of a nation unequally distributed." Really? I suppose the statement is true if we're eliminating capitalism, wiping out any sort of incentive to work hard and get ahead, and wholly switching over to socialism. Is that the goal? Is it a moral evil for one person to earn more than another (the definition of "income inequity")? Or are we simply looking at the standard, classical "I want what you have, so you must give it to me"?
From A to Bee
The Bee offered its standard fare of news-related satire this week, like the one about the Taliban opening a chain of U.S. Army surplus stores or the snide headline about Biden being praised for his rescue efforts to save a kid he pushed down a well. They might be banned from the world for their story about the Dominion voting machine regretting the 50,000 extra votes it gave to Biden. Ant they also had a story for fun that I suspect is actually nearly true. It was about a study that found a connection between the frequency of checking the news with the intensity of longing for Jesus's return. Now that actually rings true.
Friday, August 27, 2021
Get Thee Behind Me
In 1813, Commodore Oliver Perry said, "We have met the enemy and they are ours." In 1970, cartoonist Walt Kelly spoofed the phrase to encourage environmental awareness with his character, Pogo, who said, "We have met the enemy, and he is us." Kelly was concerned about environmentalism; I'm thinking about something more basic and more serious.
God was absolutely clear when He said, "You shall have no other gods before Me." (Exo 20:3). Of course, it's easy for us to misplace that "before." We think "in priority over" while the word actually means "in My presence." No other gods in His presence. Where is His presence? Everywhere. Therefore, no other gods ... period. And we nod and say, "We will do it" and promptly go out to our local neighborhood god -- "me." We can't get away from it. It is inherent, intrinsic, innate, built in. Our most common highest concern is "me." Maybe we can rise to the level philosophers call "enlightened self-interest" where we recognize that doing good for others is in our best interest, but at the core we are our own first god.
The problems this causes are legion. They are everywhere and all the time. Almost without exception the first cause of any conflict -- international, national, political, social, personal, whatever -- is "me." James wrote, "What is the source of conflict and what causes fights among you? Is it not this, that your passions are at war within you?" (James 4:1). It seems as if this is the simple, constant truth. Two friends end up in an argument because one or both feels slighted. A parent disciplines a child in anger because the parent feels disrespected. Two people fight over a political or religious perspective not because of the perspective, but because of a gut response. "Righteous indignation" is rarely righteous indignation; it is more often self-righteous anger. We can hardly do anything without considering ourselves first.
When Scripture, then, says, "Count others more significant than yourselves," (Php 2:3), we're at a loss. When we read, "Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others," (Php 2:4), we're baffled. When it says, "Let each of us please his neighbor for his good, to build him up" (Rom 15:2), we mitigate it with "What about me?" When we read, "But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires" (Rom 13:14), we are baffled. "What does that mean?" Because it is unnatural to not start with "me."
Imagine, then, what it could be like if "me" was not the first concern. What if I left "me" up to God and just followed what He said? How would that affect my life? How would it affect what I wear, what I do, where I go, how I get there? How would my priorities change? What would change in my value system -- the things I consider most valuable? How would my responses change to affronts or disagreements? How would I treat my friends and family who fail to meet my expectations for how they should treat "me"? I have to say, it would be freedom. It would allow release in so many areas if "I" was not my first concern. My priorities would be reordered, the things that please me would change (because it would be more about the things that please others). My relationship with God would be necessarily closer (because I'm clinging to Him now for all those things I thought I needed to struggle to obtain for me). I would have a new God, and it would not be me. I need to get Me behind me. Or, maybe better, behind Christ.
God was absolutely clear when He said, "You shall have no other gods before Me." (Exo 20:3). Of course, it's easy for us to misplace that "before." We think "in priority over" while the word actually means "in My presence." No other gods in His presence. Where is His presence? Everywhere. Therefore, no other gods ... period. And we nod and say, "We will do it" and promptly go out to our local neighborhood god -- "me." We can't get away from it. It is inherent, intrinsic, innate, built in. Our most common highest concern is "me." Maybe we can rise to the level philosophers call "enlightened self-interest" where we recognize that doing good for others is in our best interest, but at the core we are our own first god.
The problems this causes are legion. They are everywhere and all the time. Almost without exception the first cause of any conflict -- international, national, political, social, personal, whatever -- is "me." James wrote, "What is the source of conflict and what causes fights among you? Is it not this, that your passions are at war within you?" (James 4:1). It seems as if this is the simple, constant truth. Two friends end up in an argument because one or both feels slighted. A parent disciplines a child in anger because the parent feels disrespected. Two people fight over a political or religious perspective not because of the perspective, but because of a gut response. "Righteous indignation" is rarely righteous indignation; it is more often self-righteous anger. We can hardly do anything without considering ourselves first.
When Scripture, then, says, "Count others more significant than yourselves," (Php 2:3), we're at a loss. When we read, "Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others," (Php 2:4), we're baffled. When it says, "Let each of us please his neighbor for his good, to build him up" (Rom 15:2), we mitigate it with "What about me?" When we read, "But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires" (Rom 13:14), we are baffled. "What does that mean?" Because it is unnatural to not start with "me."
Imagine, then, what it could be like if "me" was not the first concern. What if I left "me" up to God and just followed what He said? How would that affect my life? How would it affect what I wear, what I do, where I go, how I get there? How would my priorities change? What would change in my value system -- the things I consider most valuable? How would my responses change to affronts or disagreements? How would I treat my friends and family who fail to meet my expectations for how they should treat "me"? I have to say, it would be freedom. It would allow release in so many areas if "I" was not my first concern. My priorities would be reordered, the things that please me would change (because it would be more about the things that please others). My relationship with God would be necessarily closer (because I'm clinging to Him now for all those things I thought I needed to struggle to obtain for me). I would have a new God, and it would not be me. I need to get Me behind me. Or, maybe better, behind Christ.
Thursday, August 26, 2021
In the Way He Should Go
I'm sure most of you caught the reference from the title.
The question isn't really that hard. Scripture offers two ways: the way of wisdom and life, and the way of folly and death. There you go. Clear as day. You're welcome. Enjoy your parenting.
Of course, that's not sufficient, is it? And certainly the Bible offers more insight than that. Solomon spent several chapters in specific training for his son. The first nine chapters of Proverbs revolve around a father (Solomon) instructing his son about important matters in life. He begins with "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction." (Prov 1:7). A good and necessary start. From there he will tackle the avoidance of sin (Prov 1:10), the importance of wisdom (Prov 1:20-2:22) (actually, over and over), trusting God (Prov 3:5), avoiding sexual sin (Prov 5:1-12), sundry practical points (Prov 6), again the avoiding of sexual sin (Prov 6:20-7:27) (one might be tempted to think that Solomon found this a particularly besetting sin), the blessings of wisdom (Prov 8), and the dangers of folly (Prov 9:13-18). A good framework. There is a repeated effort to draw sharp lines between the consequences of sin versus the value of godliness (e.g., Prov 11:5; 14:2; 16:7; 22:5). But the prevailing wind here, the primary aim, is wisdom.
If a parent intends to love their child and follow the command -- train up a child in the way he should go -- the primary thrust must be wisdom. That, of course, has its root in one place. "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is insight." (Prov 9:10; Prov 1:7; Job 28:28; Psa 111:10). Viewing God with genuine fear which includes reverence and awe (which includes dread) is the starting point of biblical wisdom. Where does that begin? For us humans, it begins with God -- His revelation (Psa 19:1-6), His explanation (Rom 1:19-20), His Word (Psa 19:7-14).
Parents, if there is one thing you must do to bring up your children in the way they should go, it is to fully and completely submerge them in God's Word. It must be read, memorized, taught, explained, lived (Deut 6:4-9). It should be the air they breathe, the food they eat, the clothing they wear, their nourishment and exercise. Of course, if you recognize that, then you will also see that you will need to do the same. In order to teach them, you will have to show them. But if a parent loves their child, these kinds of things are the things they do out of love to provide the best for their children.
Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it. (Prov 22:6)The verse has a couple of ... hiccups, little difficulties to consider. First, is this a firm promise from God? No, absolutely not. To think that is a failure to understand the nature of a proverb. Proverbs are truisms, generally true. Not all children who go astray do so because their parents failed to bring them up as they should, and not all children who are properly brought up remain that way. Second, there is a dispute about the translation of "should." The word, in fact, doesn't occur in the text. The Hebrew is literally translated, "Initiate the child at the mouth of his path." We can draw "mouth" out to mean "beginning" or "opening." So it can read, "Train a child in his way." Some understand that to mean we should teach them in ways that suit them. Others argue that it is not "should," but "would" -- his natural course. If you let a child go the way he naturally will go, he won't depart from it when he's old ... and that's bad. So there is that. But let's go with the more traditional "should." Understanding that this is an instruction and not a promise, we need to proceed to do it ... and ask, "What is the way he should go?" Because it seems to me we rarely ask that question when looking at this text.
The question isn't really that hard. Scripture offers two ways: the way of wisdom and life, and the way of folly and death. There you go. Clear as day. You're welcome. Enjoy your parenting.
Of course, that's not sufficient, is it? And certainly the Bible offers more insight than that. Solomon spent several chapters in specific training for his son. The first nine chapters of Proverbs revolve around a father (Solomon) instructing his son about important matters in life. He begins with "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction." (Prov 1:7). A good and necessary start. From there he will tackle the avoidance of sin (Prov 1:10), the importance of wisdom (Prov 1:20-2:22) (actually, over and over), trusting God (Prov 3:5), avoiding sexual sin (Prov 5:1-12), sundry practical points (Prov 6), again the avoiding of sexual sin (Prov 6:20-7:27) (one might be tempted to think that Solomon found this a particularly besetting sin), the blessings of wisdom (Prov 8), and the dangers of folly (Prov 9:13-18). A good framework. There is a repeated effort to draw sharp lines between the consequences of sin versus the value of godliness (e.g., Prov 11:5; 14:2; 16:7; 22:5). But the prevailing wind here, the primary aim, is wisdom.
If a parent intends to love their child and follow the command -- train up a child in the way he should go -- the primary thrust must be wisdom. That, of course, has its root in one place. "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is insight." (Prov 9:10; Prov 1:7; Job 28:28; Psa 111:10). Viewing God with genuine fear which includes reverence and awe (which includes dread) is the starting point of biblical wisdom. Where does that begin? For us humans, it begins with God -- His revelation (Psa 19:1-6), His explanation (Rom 1:19-20), His Word (Psa 19:7-14).
Parents, if there is one thing you must do to bring up your children in the way they should go, it is to fully and completely submerge them in God's Word. It must be read, memorized, taught, explained, lived (Deut 6:4-9). It should be the air they breathe, the food they eat, the clothing they wear, their nourishment and exercise. Of course, if you recognize that, then you will also see that you will need to do the same. In order to teach them, you will have to show them. But if a parent loves their child, these kinds of things are the things they do out of love to provide the best for their children.
Wednesday, August 25, 2021
Foolish Mortals
I've come across (once again) a concept from Scripture that doesn't line up with our current understanding. The concept is a "fool." We think of a fool as someone who lacks understanding, who may act unwisely on a given occasion, or even someone who appears ridiculous. But we make a mistake if we port those definitions into the biblical concept.
A fool isn't simply unaware; he makes evil plans (Isa 32:6). He enjoys wicked schemes (Prov 10:23) and proclaims folly (Prov 12:23). He mocks sin (Prov 14:9) and speaks perversity (Prov 19:1) and commits sexual immorality (Prov 6:32). He spurns parents' discipline (Prov 15:5), despises his mother (Prov 15:20), and brings grief to his parents (Prov 17:25). In biblical terms, then, a fool isn't poor informed or merely lacking understanding; a fool is a rebel against God.
In this light, it's interesting -- probably not the best term ... frightening? -- that Scripture says, "Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child." (Prov 22:15) Understanding now that "foolishness" is not a mere lack of education, a simple failure to act wisely on occasion, but rebellion against God, this text says it is deeply seated in a child's heart. God said, The intention of man's heart is evil from his youth." (Gen 8:21). That's not a ringing endorsement of the innate goodness of the human being. David wrote, "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." (Psa 51:5). Sin is part of our structure from childhood. "Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child." So what is the solution? The rest of the verse.
We are sinful humans and we are fully capable of taking something God says is good and abusing it. Loving discipline, something God does and commands, is one such thing. We can strip off the love and leave only discipline and it becomes wrong. But to call all corporal punishment "evil" when Scripture commands it and God does it Himself isn't wise. It's foolishness. And for a believer to refuse to do what God says because the world has a different idea puts him or her in the Old Testament category of a fool.
A fool isn't simply unaware; he makes evil plans (Isa 32:6). He enjoys wicked schemes (Prov 10:23) and proclaims folly (Prov 12:23). He mocks sin (Prov 14:9) and speaks perversity (Prov 19:1) and commits sexual immorality (Prov 6:32). He spurns parents' discipline (Prov 15:5), despises his mother (Prov 15:20), and brings grief to his parents (Prov 17:25). In biblical terms, then, a fool isn't poor informed or merely lacking understanding; a fool is a rebel against God.
In this light, it's interesting -- probably not the best term ... frightening? -- that Scripture says, "Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child." (Prov 22:15) Understanding now that "foolishness" is not a mere lack of education, a simple failure to act wisely on occasion, but rebellion against God, this text says it is deeply seated in a child's heart. God said, The intention of man's heart is evil from his youth." (Gen 8:21). That's not a ringing endorsement of the innate goodness of the human being. David wrote, "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." (Psa 51:5). Sin is part of our structure from childhood. "Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child." So what is the solution? The rest of the verse.
Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline drives it far from him. (Prov 22:15)Well, that doesn't work in today's world, does it? Of course, the premise of today's world is that people are basically good, so they automatically dismiss the verse to begin with. And we shouldn't really be surprised. The world is hostile to God (Rom 8:7). It's what we expect. Scripture tells us that God disciplines His children (Prov 3:11-12; Heb 12:5-6). Indeed, these texts irrevocably tie "discipline" to "love." "The Lord disciplines the one He loves." Hebrews says, "If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons." (Heb 12:8). Proverbs says, "Whoever spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him." (Prov 13:24).
We are sinful humans and we are fully capable of taking something God says is good and abusing it. Loving discipline, something God does and commands, is one such thing. We can strip off the love and leave only discipline and it becomes wrong. But to call all corporal punishment "evil" when Scripture commands it and God does it Himself isn't wise. It's foolishness. And for a believer to refuse to do what God says because the world has a different idea puts him or her in the Old Testament category of a fool.
Tuesday, August 24, 2021
Opposites Attract
Have you ever considered the many things in life that require their opposites to be known at all? Our eyes are "hardwired" to see difference. If someone holds up a white sheet with a small black dot on it and asks you, "What do you see?" you'll likely answer, "A small black dot" rather than "A large white sheet." We're wired that way. In life, we find much of the same principle in many places.
Take, for instance, the concept of courage. We understand courage in contrast to fear. We see it in such contrast that we often think that courage is the lack of fear, but that isn't the case. In fact, it can't be. Courage requires fear for its existence. Courage is defined as the ability to do something that frightens you. If there is no fear, there is no courage or need for courage. Bravery only comes into play when there is fear to overcome.
Take, for instance, tolerance. Our current culture has so distorted the concept that they have erased its meaning. We think of tolerance as "acceptance." That's simply nonsense. "Acceptance" is acceptance. Tolerance is the willingness to allow the existence of something that you do not like or agree with. If tolerance was the willingness to allow something you embrace, it would be pointless. There is no virtue in allowing something you prefer. In order for tolerance to have any meaning, there must be something you do not like or agree with and then bear it anyway. A person that, say, disagrees with homosexual behavior but doesn't act to eliminate it is, in truth, being tolerant. The person who embraces such behavior cannot be tolerant of it because embracing something eliminates the need for tolerance.
Those are just a couple of examples. Over and over we find that only in comparison do we find clarity. "Poor" is only poor when compared with "rich." "Strong" is only relative to "weak." "Good" requires "bad" to have any context. On and on. But one of the biggest concepts we can consider in terms of contrasts is God and His attributes. How many of the things that define or describe God could not be known if we didn't have their opposites? We could not know justice if there was no injustice. We could not know grace if there was no wrath -- no disfavor. We could not see mercy if there was no judgment. God's power would not be known if there was no demand for God's power. God's extreme holiness is only demonstrated in the extreme unholiness in the world. Much of what we classify as bad in the world is a clear and present indicator of all that is good about God. Love is only recognized when contrasted with hate. God's extreme judgment makes plain the depth of sin. And so on.
Darkness is only dark when compared with light. Motion is betrayed most when everything else is still. We operate largely in contrasts. So it is that God's power and wrath are displayed in His willingness to punish "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" and, then, sharply contrasted with His mercy when He doesn't do it (Rom 9:22-23). So while we complain about some of life's circumstances, trials, and perceived injustices, we should remember that they help show the way to something better. And we may not be thankful for all those hardships, but we can be thankful in them (1 Thess 5:18) because they provide a better glimpse of God.
Take, for instance, the concept of courage. We understand courage in contrast to fear. We see it in such contrast that we often think that courage is the lack of fear, but that isn't the case. In fact, it can't be. Courage requires fear for its existence. Courage is defined as the ability to do something that frightens you. If there is no fear, there is no courage or need for courage. Bravery only comes into play when there is fear to overcome.
Take, for instance, tolerance. Our current culture has so distorted the concept that they have erased its meaning. We think of tolerance as "acceptance." That's simply nonsense. "Acceptance" is acceptance. Tolerance is the willingness to allow the existence of something that you do not like or agree with. If tolerance was the willingness to allow something you embrace, it would be pointless. There is no virtue in allowing something you prefer. In order for tolerance to have any meaning, there must be something you do not like or agree with and then bear it anyway. A person that, say, disagrees with homosexual behavior but doesn't act to eliminate it is, in truth, being tolerant. The person who embraces such behavior cannot be tolerant of it because embracing something eliminates the need for tolerance.
Those are just a couple of examples. Over and over we find that only in comparison do we find clarity. "Poor" is only poor when compared with "rich." "Strong" is only relative to "weak." "Good" requires "bad" to have any context. On and on. But one of the biggest concepts we can consider in terms of contrasts is God and His attributes. How many of the things that define or describe God could not be known if we didn't have their opposites? We could not know justice if there was no injustice. We could not know grace if there was no wrath -- no disfavor. We could not see mercy if there was no judgment. God's power would not be known if there was no demand for God's power. God's extreme holiness is only demonstrated in the extreme unholiness in the world. Much of what we classify as bad in the world is a clear and present indicator of all that is good about God. Love is only recognized when contrasted with hate. God's extreme judgment makes plain the depth of sin. And so on.
Darkness is only dark when compared with light. Motion is betrayed most when everything else is still. We operate largely in contrasts. So it is that God's power and wrath are displayed in His willingness to punish "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" and, then, sharply contrasted with His mercy when He doesn't do it (Rom 9:22-23). So while we complain about some of life's circumstances, trials, and perceived injustices, we should remember that they help show the way to something better. And we may not be thankful for all those hardships, but we can be thankful in them (1 Thess 5:18) because they provide a better glimpse of God.
Monday, August 23, 2021
Living Black and White in a Grayscale World
New technology exists, but printers used to print in dots. In order to print gray, they printed black dots separated by white space. The closer together, the darker the gray, and vice versa. At a distance, it looks gray. Viewed closely, you could see the dots.
Today, we live in a morally grayscale world. "Good and bad" is often seen as a gray area. And, viewed from a distance, we'd actually agree on that. I suspect, though, that if you looked closely enough, you'd find a black and white world.
At first pass it's actually fairly straightforward. We have God's commands; now go out and do likewise. Black and white. "Is it okay to commit adultery?" No. "But, what about if I really, really want to?" No. "What about if we're really in love?" No. Black and white. But even there it can get murky. "Is it wrong to kill another human?" Yes! "What if it's accidental?" Oh, well, no. "What if it's in self defense or the defense of an innocent?" Well, okay. And now something perceived as "black and white" descends into "gray."
Most people at this point go with a relativistic approach. "Good/bad for me; bad/good for you. It all depends." I'd like to propose another viewpoint. I'd like to see if we can return to black and white.
In Scripture there are two overarching rules. Number one is God's glory. The purpose of all creation is the Creator. David wrote, "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims His handiwork." (Psa 19:1-6). He wrote, "O LORD, our Lord, how majestic is Your name in all the earth! You have set Your glory above the heavens." (Psa 8:1). Paul wrote, "What can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For His invisible attributes, namely, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made." (Rom 1:19-20). Humans were made in His image (Gen 1:26). The aim of everything is to glorify God (1 Cor 10:31). The other overarching rule is love. When asked about the most important commandment, Jesus said,
We've boiled it down now to two principles -- God's glory and love. If our ongoing, constant self-evaluation is "Am I doing this for God's glory?" and "Am I doing this for love?", I think we'd find a crystalized approach to our actions and attitudes. From a distance, perhaps it does look grayscale, but up close, it's pretty black and white. At a distance, your actions to glorify God and love God and your neighbor may look different than mine (gray), but up close, it's just those two -- black and white. We will, certainly, tend to obscure it. Mostly we just won't think about it. And an uninformed approach -- devoid of God's Word -- about what glorifies God and what love looks like will make it murky at a distance. But if you take God at His Word and aim to glorify God and love God and your neighbors in all you do, I suspect it will greatly simplify your view of right and wrong.
Today, we live in a morally grayscale world. "Good and bad" is often seen as a gray area. And, viewed from a distance, we'd actually agree on that. I suspect, though, that if you looked closely enough, you'd find a black and white world.
At first pass it's actually fairly straightforward. We have God's commands; now go out and do likewise. Black and white. "Is it okay to commit adultery?" No. "But, what about if I really, really want to?" No. "What about if we're really in love?" No. Black and white. But even there it can get murky. "Is it wrong to kill another human?" Yes! "What if it's accidental?" Oh, well, no. "What if it's in self defense or the defense of an innocent?" Well, okay. And now something perceived as "black and white" descends into "gray."
Most people at this point go with a relativistic approach. "Good/bad for me; bad/good for you. It all depends." I'd like to propose another viewpoint. I'd like to see if we can return to black and white.
In Scripture there are two overarching rules. Number one is God's glory. The purpose of all creation is the Creator. David wrote, "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims His handiwork." (Psa 19:1-6). He wrote, "O LORD, our Lord, how majestic is Your name in all the earth! You have set Your glory above the heavens." (Psa 8:1). Paul wrote, "What can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For His invisible attributes, namely, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made." (Rom 1:19-20). Humans were made in His image (Gen 1:26). The aim of everything is to glorify God (1 Cor 10:31). The other overarching rule is love. When asked about the most important commandment, Jesus said,
"The most important is, 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these." (Mark 12:29-31)Love. Love God (first) and love your neighbor (second). But note that critical point Jesus makes; "There is no other commandment greater than these." As Paul wrote, "Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law." (Rom 13:10).
We've boiled it down now to two principles -- God's glory and love. If our ongoing, constant self-evaluation is "Am I doing this for God's glory?" and "Am I doing this for love?", I think we'd find a crystalized approach to our actions and attitudes. From a distance, perhaps it does look grayscale, but up close, it's pretty black and white. At a distance, your actions to glorify God and love God and your neighbor may look different than mine (gray), but up close, it's just those two -- black and white. We will, certainly, tend to obscure it. Mostly we just won't think about it. And an uninformed approach -- devoid of God's Word -- about what glorifies God and what love looks like will make it murky at a distance. But if you take God at His Word and aim to glorify God and love God and your neighbors in all you do, I suspect it will greatly simplify your view of right and wrong.
Sunday, August 22, 2021
God Likes You Best
It's a little game I play. Someone will tell me of something wonderful that God has done for them recently and I'll say, "See? It's like I always say. God likes you best." It is, of couse, in jest. What's really important is not "like," but "love." And, of course, since God is love (1 John 4:8), it's not possible to say "He loves you best" beause we know in what way He loves -- He sent His Son to die for us (John 3:16; Rom 5:8). One thing we're all clear on, then, is that God loves us. Not some better than others; none of us have earned more love than another. We're all loved equally.
I think, however clear we think we are on God's love for us, we're not quite clear on God's love for us. We talk in terms of quantity and quality. His love is everlasting, unending, eternal. His love is unconditional, unchanging, perfect. These are true, but given our modern concepts of love, sometimes misleading. We mustn't understand God's love in terms of warm affection for rebellion. It is false to suggest "He loves you as you are" if we mean "He'll leave you as you are." (Rom 8:28-29). In fact, if "He loves you as you are" means "He wouldn't change a thing," it isn't love, given our deceived (Jer 17:9), sin-sick condition. Love would seek to give the loved one the best, not leave them in misery. God's love, then, is much, much bigger than we imagine in both quantity and quality. Which, I suppose, is why Paul prayed "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 3:17-19). In terms of quantity and quality, God's love exceeds our understanding.
One other aspect about God's love that we need to keep ever before us. God's love is sure (Rom 8:35-39). God defines love. Since that's true, we ought to be viewing our thoughts and circumstances through that love rather than evaluating His love through our own thoughts and circumstances. Of course, we typically get that backward, but a life lived from the perspective of the absolute truth of God's love will change you.
I think, however clear we think we are on God's love for us, we're not quite clear on God's love for us. We talk in terms of quantity and quality. His love is everlasting, unending, eternal. His love is unconditional, unchanging, perfect. These are true, but given our modern concepts of love, sometimes misleading. We mustn't understand God's love in terms of warm affection for rebellion. It is false to suggest "He loves you as you are" if we mean "He'll leave you as you are." (Rom 8:28-29). In fact, if "He loves you as you are" means "He wouldn't change a thing," it isn't love, given our deceived (Jer 17:9), sin-sick condition. Love would seek to give the loved one the best, not leave them in misery. God's love, then, is much, much bigger than we imagine in both quantity and quality. Which, I suppose, is why Paul prayed "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 3:17-19). In terms of quantity and quality, God's love exceeds our understanding.
One other aspect about God's love that we need to keep ever before us. God's love is sure (Rom 8:35-39). God defines love. Since that's true, we ought to be viewing our thoughts and circumstances through that love rather than evaluating His love through our own thoughts and circumstances. Of course, we typically get that backward, but a life lived from the perspective of the absolute truth of God's love will change you.
Saturday, August 21, 2021
News Weakly - 8/21/21
Trading Lives
As we've all seen all week, Biden ordered the withdrawal of U.S. support in Afghanistan and promised that the Afghans could hold their own. Now armed Taliban troops have entered Kabul awaiting "a peaceful and satisfactory trnsfer of power" and Biden belatedly sends troops where they "aren't needed" because it's Trump's fault. Meanwhile, many fear the elimination of women's rights and the return to terrorist support. Good job, Mr. President. Afghan President Ghani appreciates it. Video shows Afghans cheering as the last flight out of Kabul leaves. Oh, wait, no, not cheering. Running for their lives. And dying. Biden pulled out the troops because he wanted no more American lives lost. He defended his decision. He defends it still. To him, lost lives and human rights in Afghanistan is fine. We'll just have to hope that the Taliban doesn't launch more 9/11-type terrorism on American soil ... because they're certainly an honorable bunch. I'm not saying we should have gone into Afghanistan. I'm just saying, "You break it, you bought it." We may not have been right for going in, but we certainly have the obligation to not leave it as we found it ... or worse.
Booster Club
The word is out. Turns out the fabulous protection our fine COVID vaccines give us isn't so fine. "Trust us," they said, "this will last awhile." Now it's "Trust us. You're going to need a booster." Now, of course, the more wary among us might read it as "See? It's not as good as they promised." The more jaded might understand it to mean, "See? They're trying to milk more money out of us ... perhaps even mandatory money." The unspoken questions like, "If this vaccine is so effective, why do three fully vaccinated Senators come down with COVID this week?" or "Why aren't they telling us that they believe having COVID gives 'more than 8 months' of immunity?" Or "'10 months'?" Even "'very long lasting'?" Like years? Or the another question: "What causes a virus to mutate?" That answer is 1) error, 2) pressure from select cells, and 3) creation of a vaccine. Wait ... aren't they telling us our only protection against mutation is the vaccine??? At what point do we ask, "Why trust them?" Oh, that's right ... these are questions we're not supposed to ask.
Constitutional Right
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a Texas law that, in the language of the media, effectively banned the most common abortion procedure for terminating 2nd-trimester pregnancies. Originally the law was blocked as "unconstitutional" because it "unduly burdens a woman's constitutionally protected right" to kill her baby. I have not yet found any such constitutional right, but in our drive to secure our right to do whatever we want, facts are not necessary to support claims. I was interested on the side that they threw out this "Republican-enacted abortion restriction" line of thinking, clearly distancing Democrats from any concern for the sanctity of life. Meanwhile, South Korea is granting legal status to animals. In South Korea abandoning a pet will be punished while in America killing a baby is a "constitutional right."
Disinformation
Facebook and Twitter-type media have been banning people lately for disinformation, presenting "false information" or, more truthfully, viewpoints that are not currently allowed. Unless, of course, you're a Taliban spokesman who finds a warm and welcoming platform on Twitter and the like to tell of how wonderfully the Taliban is treating their new conquests ... pay no attention to the reports coming out of the country about actual conditions. If someone questions the efficacy of masks, they're labeled "misleading or deceptive." If a spokesman for the Taliban spouts all roses for the Afghans, he's fine. The Babylon Bee picked up on this with the story about Trump getting back on Twitter by getting hired as a Taliban spokesman.
Something About Money and Trees
Biden is canceling $58 billion in student loans from the government because, hey, it's not his money; it's yours. People who unwisely borrow money and find out they can't repay shouldn't have to pay for it when there are so many good-hearted taxpayers who will do it for them because the president told them to. I once heard that a miracle requires making something from nothing, which only God can do. Well, except for government; they can make money out of thin air.
You mean, it's NOT true?
Timely as ever, the Bee included a couple of stories this week about Afghanistan. In one, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez goes to Afghanistan to warn refugees not to come to oppressive, racist America. Especially the women. Another "quotes" a Taliban spokesman who assures that they will guarantee to protect women's rights in Afghanistan ... which is none. And I had to laugh about the giant hurricane that formed over Washington because of the White House's spinning of the Afghanistan story. Speaking of the White House, on the COVID front, Biden promises "15 booster shots to slow the spread." There was a questionable entry. They wrote one about the looming crisis of infertility among transwomen. Can you say "Sensitivity training"?
Must be true; I read it on the internet.
As we've all seen all week, Biden ordered the withdrawal of U.S. support in Afghanistan and promised that the Afghans could hold their own. Now armed Taliban troops have entered Kabul awaiting "a peaceful and satisfactory trnsfer of power" and Biden belatedly sends troops where they "aren't needed" because it's Trump's fault. Meanwhile, many fear the elimination of women's rights and the return to terrorist support. Good job, Mr. President. Afghan President Ghani appreciates it. Video shows Afghans cheering as the last flight out of Kabul leaves. Oh, wait, no, not cheering. Running for their lives. And dying. Biden pulled out the troops because he wanted no more American lives lost. He defended his decision. He defends it still. To him, lost lives and human rights in Afghanistan is fine. We'll just have to hope that the Taliban doesn't launch more 9/11-type terrorism on American soil ... because they're certainly an honorable bunch. I'm not saying we should have gone into Afghanistan. I'm just saying, "You break it, you bought it." We may not have been right for going in, but we certainly have the obligation to not leave it as we found it ... or worse.
Booster Club
The word is out. Turns out the fabulous protection our fine COVID vaccines give us isn't so fine. "Trust us," they said, "this will last awhile." Now it's "Trust us. You're going to need a booster." Now, of course, the more wary among us might read it as "See? It's not as good as they promised." The more jaded might understand it to mean, "See? They're trying to milk more money out of us ... perhaps even mandatory money." The unspoken questions like, "If this vaccine is so effective, why do three fully vaccinated Senators come down with COVID this week?" or "Why aren't they telling us that they believe having COVID gives 'more than 8 months' of immunity?" Or "'10 months'?" Even "'very long lasting'?" Like years? Or the another question: "What causes a virus to mutate?" That answer is 1) error, 2) pressure from select cells, and 3) creation of a vaccine. Wait ... aren't they telling us our only protection against mutation is the vaccine??? At what point do we ask, "Why trust them?" Oh, that's right ... these are questions we're not supposed to ask.
Constitutional Right
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a Texas law that, in the language of the media, effectively banned the most common abortion procedure for terminating 2nd-trimester pregnancies. Originally the law was blocked as "unconstitutional" because it "unduly burdens a woman's constitutionally protected right" to kill her baby. I have not yet found any such constitutional right, but in our drive to secure our right to do whatever we want, facts are not necessary to support claims. I was interested on the side that they threw out this "Republican-enacted abortion restriction" line of thinking, clearly distancing Democrats from any concern for the sanctity of life. Meanwhile, South Korea is granting legal status to animals. In South Korea abandoning a pet will be punished while in America killing a baby is a "constitutional right."
Disinformation
Facebook and Twitter-type media have been banning people lately for disinformation, presenting "false information" or, more truthfully, viewpoints that are not currently allowed. Unless, of course, you're a Taliban spokesman who finds a warm and welcoming platform on Twitter and the like to tell of how wonderfully the Taliban is treating their new conquests ... pay no attention to the reports coming out of the country about actual conditions. If someone questions the efficacy of masks, they're labeled "misleading or deceptive." If a spokesman for the Taliban spouts all roses for the Afghans, he's fine. The Babylon Bee picked up on this with the story about Trump getting back on Twitter by getting hired as a Taliban spokesman.
Something About Money and Trees
Biden is canceling $58 billion in student loans from the government because, hey, it's not his money; it's yours. People who unwisely borrow money and find out they can't repay shouldn't have to pay for it when there are so many good-hearted taxpayers who will do it for them because the president told them to. I once heard that a miracle requires making something from nothing, which only God can do. Well, except for government; they can make money out of thin air.
You mean, it's NOT true?
Timely as ever, the Bee included a couple of stories this week about Afghanistan. In one, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez goes to Afghanistan to warn refugees not to come to oppressive, racist America. Especially the women. Another "quotes" a Taliban spokesman who assures that they will guarantee to protect women's rights in Afghanistan ... which is none. And I had to laugh about the giant hurricane that formed over Washington because of the White House's spinning of the Afghanistan story. Speaking of the White House, on the COVID front, Biden promises "15 booster shots to slow the spread." There was a questionable entry. They wrote one about the looming crisis of infertility among transwomen. Can you say "Sensitivity training"?
Must be true; I read it on the internet.
Friday, August 20, 2021
Dad Jokes
Those who know me often bemoan my sense of humor. Is that accurate? Maybe not. The number of times I've had to tell people "I'm joking" suggests I'm not. So this will possibly be a hardship rather than humor. My apologies in advance.
I enjoyed the story about the two elderly ladies out for a drive. A police officer pulled them over for going too slow. "Excuse me, ma'am," the officer said, "but you were doing 25 in a 65 zone. That makes you a road hazard." "But officer," the driver contended, "I saw the speed limit sign when we got on this road. It said 25. I always drive the speed limit." "No, ma'am," he replied, "this is the 25. This is I-25." The driver was sufficiently ashamed. "But, lady, I have to ask," the officer went on, "what's wrong with your passenger? She's shaking and clutching the seat and dashboard and looks terrified. What's wrong?" "Oh," she answered, "I guess it's because we just got off the 202."
And I used to love this story.
A scientist worked in his own private laboratory for years learning how to make something live forever. He finally figured out how to make dolphins immortal. It was a secret recipe which included baby sea gulls as its prime ingredient. He fed his dolphins this food for years, monitoring for any sign of aging, and they remained youthful. One day, he noted his supply of baby sea gulls was dwindling, so he went out to gather more. When he returned, he was aghast to see a large lion laying across his doorstep, fast asleep. He was unsure of what to do until the lion shifted and opened its mouth and he realized it was completely toothless. And he remembered he had heard about an aged escaped circus lion. This was him. This shouldn't be dangerous. So he carefully stepped over the poor old creature heading into his house and was promptly arrested. The charge: Transporting little gulls across a staid lion for immortal porpoises.
You can thank me later.
I enjoyed the story about the two elderly ladies out for a drive. A police officer pulled them over for going too slow. "Excuse me, ma'am," the officer said, "but you were doing 25 in a 65 zone. That makes you a road hazard." "But officer," the driver contended, "I saw the speed limit sign when we got on this road. It said 25. I always drive the speed limit." "No, ma'am," he replied, "this is the 25. This is I-25." The driver was sufficiently ashamed. "But, lady, I have to ask," the officer went on, "what's wrong with your passenger? She's shaking and clutching the seat and dashboard and looks terrified. What's wrong?" "Oh," she answered, "I guess it's because we just got off the 202."
And I used to love this story.
A scientist worked in his own private laboratory for years learning how to make something live forever. He finally figured out how to make dolphins immortal. It was a secret recipe which included baby sea gulls as its prime ingredient. He fed his dolphins this food for years, monitoring for any sign of aging, and they remained youthful. One day, he noted his supply of baby sea gulls was dwindling, so he went out to gather more. When he returned, he was aghast to see a large lion laying across his doorstep, fast asleep. He was unsure of what to do until the lion shifted and opened its mouth and he realized it was completely toothless. And he remembered he had heard about an aged escaped circus lion. This was him. This shouldn't be dangerous. So he carefully stepped over the poor old creature heading into his house and was promptly arrested. The charge: Transporting little gulls across a staid lion for immortal porpoises.
You can thank me later.
Thursday, August 19, 2021
Submission
There is a really trying text in Ephesians that causes a lot of ire for many. It is the concept of "be subject to" or "submit to." Now, to be fair, the initial problem isn't the concept. Most of the world understands that everyone is subject to someone. It is, I think, a largely American problem because we practically worship "freedom" as our favorite god. Independence is one of our highest values. So laying "be subject to" alongside "independence" is just not comfortable.
The other problem, I think, is our perception that "submit" means "diminish." This is simply not true. I could offer some cogent arguments with fancy words (like "cogent"), but it's best if we go to the ultimate "submitter" and see it for ourselves. Jesus said, "I have come down from heaven not to do My will, but to do the will of Him who sent Me." (John 6:38). Jesus said, "So that the world may know that I love the Father, I do exactly as the Father commanded Me." (John 14:31). Ultimately, "When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subjected to the One who put all things in subjection under Him, so that God may be all in all." (1 Cor 15:28). In the same vein, Paul urges Christians to "Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus." (Php 2:5). Which mind? Jesus surrendered being seen as God and became a servant all the way to the cross (Php 2:6-8). Diminished, right? Not at all. The outcome was "God highly exalted Him" (Php 2:9-11). No, being submissive does not require being demeaned.
Most people don't realize it, but that passage in Ephesians is actually a lot longer than we think. The idea spawns from being "filled with the Spirit" (Eph 5:18) which produces other behaviors, one of which is "submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ." (Eph 5:21). It's that next verse that causes the most discomfort (or outrage) for many. "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord" (Eph 5:22-24). But that's not the end of the topic. It can't be. Why? Because the principle is "submitting to one another." "Wives, submit" isn't "one another" if it stands alone. In truth, then, if "Wives, submit" is one, "Husbands, love your wives" (Eph 5:25-32) is the other. If that is the case (and I can't seem to get around it), then both are submission of some sort, and the point is 1) mutual submission that is 2) not always the same in appearance. Thus, wives submit to their husbands "as the church submits to Christ" and a husband submits to his wife by loving her "as Christ loved the church." A wife submits her role as leader and a husband submits his role as dominator. Both submit, but not necessarily in the same way.
If that was all, it might be enough, but it isn't. Paul is not satisfied with one example of "submit to one another." The idea goes into the next chapter. He tells children to obey their parents and fathers to not provoke children, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord (Eph 6:1-4). He tells servants to obey their earthly masters "rendering service with good will as to the Lord and not to man" (Eph 6:5-8) and, interestingly enough, tells masters "Do the same to them" (Eph 6:9). These are all examples of "submit to one another" that are, on one hand, unexpected and, on the other, not the same in appearance. The common thread is submission ... for everyone.
Our world thinks that submission is demeaning. That's a cool trick of the devil. Our best example of submission is our Lord and Savior who submitted to the Father and submitted Himself to the cross. None of that diminished His value. Instead He is highly exalted for it. If "Christian" is the process of becoming "like Christ" (Rom 8:29), then submission ought to mark the life of the Christian as it marked the life of Christ. I suspect that the negative reaction one has to the concept of "submit" is a potential measure of our own "pride of life" (1 John 2:16), a gift from the world that just keeps on taking. I think it defies human nature, but I think it is biblically commanded and, therefore, a good aim for each of us as God has directed. First and foremost, submission to the Lord.
The other problem, I think, is our perception that "submit" means "diminish." This is simply not true. I could offer some cogent arguments with fancy words (like "cogent"), but it's best if we go to the ultimate "submitter" and see it for ourselves. Jesus said, "I have come down from heaven not to do My will, but to do the will of Him who sent Me." (John 6:38). Jesus said, "So that the world may know that I love the Father, I do exactly as the Father commanded Me." (John 14:31). Ultimately, "When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subjected to the One who put all things in subjection under Him, so that God may be all in all." (1 Cor 15:28). In the same vein, Paul urges Christians to "Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus." (Php 2:5). Which mind? Jesus surrendered being seen as God and became a servant all the way to the cross (Php 2:6-8). Diminished, right? Not at all. The outcome was "God highly exalted Him" (Php 2:9-11). No, being submissive does not require being demeaned.
Most people don't realize it, but that passage in Ephesians is actually a lot longer than we think. The idea spawns from being "filled with the Spirit" (Eph 5:18) which produces other behaviors, one of which is "submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ." (Eph 5:21). It's that next verse that causes the most discomfort (or outrage) for many. "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord" (Eph 5:22-24). But that's not the end of the topic. It can't be. Why? Because the principle is "submitting to one another." "Wives, submit" isn't "one another" if it stands alone. In truth, then, if "Wives, submit" is one, "Husbands, love your wives" (Eph 5:25-32) is the other. If that is the case (and I can't seem to get around it), then both are submission of some sort, and the point is 1) mutual submission that is 2) not always the same in appearance. Thus, wives submit to their husbands "as the church submits to Christ" and a husband submits to his wife by loving her "as Christ loved the church." A wife submits her role as leader and a husband submits his role as dominator. Both submit, but not necessarily in the same way.
If that was all, it might be enough, but it isn't. Paul is not satisfied with one example of "submit to one another." The idea goes into the next chapter. He tells children to obey their parents and fathers to not provoke children, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord (Eph 6:1-4). He tells servants to obey their earthly masters "rendering service with good will as to the Lord and not to man" (Eph 6:5-8) and, interestingly enough, tells masters "Do the same to them" (Eph 6:9). These are all examples of "submit to one another" that are, on one hand, unexpected and, on the other, not the same in appearance. The common thread is submission ... for everyone.
Our world thinks that submission is demeaning. That's a cool trick of the devil. Our best example of submission is our Lord and Savior who submitted to the Father and submitted Himself to the cross. None of that diminished His value. Instead He is highly exalted for it. If "Christian" is the process of becoming "like Christ" (Rom 8:29), then submission ought to mark the life of the Christian as it marked the life of Christ. I suspect that the negative reaction one has to the concept of "submit" is a potential measure of our own "pride of life" (1 John 2:16), a gift from the world that just keeps on taking. I think it defies human nature, but I think it is biblically commanded and, therefore, a good aim for each of us as God has directed. First and foremost, submission to the Lord.
Wednesday, August 18, 2021
Conspiracy Theory
"Conspiracy theory" seems to be the word of the day. (Okay, two words. Give me a break.) You know it's true. I say "Conspiracy theory" and you will likely immediately jump to "anti-vaxxer" or "fixed election" or the like, because it's right there on the tip of our minds.(I dont suppose that's an actual phrase, is it? Well, you know what I mean.) We're all painfully aware of the "conspiracy theorists" out there who see conspiracies around every corner. And their unerring line of reasoning -- "The proof of a conspiracy is the total lack of evidence." Sigh. What can you do with that? The idea is unfalsifiable. The theory here -- conspiracy -- cannot be falsified because attempting to prove the theory disproves it and it is only true if it has no solid proof. So we're stuck.
I am not a conspiracy theory buff. I am, in general, a skeptic. Rather than embracing the latest whispered conspiracy, I prefer to look at a variety of sources, find what is verifiable, and leave the rest on the "maybe" pile.
Having distanced myself from "anti-vaxxer" conspiracy theories and "fixed election" conspiracy theories and the like, I have to admit to one conspiracy theory I do believe in. I am quite sure that there is a vast scheme at work in our world that affects every single person on the planet. I believe there is a cabal that is in the business of disrupting life in all sorts of ways with the ultimate aim of destruction. Jesus referred to it as "the father of lies" and "your father, the devil" (John 8:44). Paul referred to it as "the god of this world" (2 Cor 4:4) and "the prince of the power of the air" (Eph 2:1-3). Peter warned that this enemy aims to devour (1 Peter 5:8). John claimed that those who do what is sinful contribute to this conspiracy (1 John 3:8). The primary weapon is deceit (Gen 3:1-6; 2 Cor 11:3). The primary damage is to the truth (Rom 1:18-19) and, in the end, our hearts and minds.
Now, I don't think I'm being clever here. You know what I'm talking about. Nor am I being cute. I believe there is an actual conspiracy that has existed since the Garden of Eden that is aimed ultimately at God but uses humans as its weapon. Satan and his forces have been lying and harming the beings God created in His image practically from the beginning. So invasive is this conspiracy that we've come to accept it as normal rather than conspiratorial. It is blatantly obvious and devastatingly destructive, but we're deceived (Jer 17:9) and blinded (2 Cor 4:4) and don't even notice. So all manner of immorality is embraced as normal and all manner of abusive evil is considered "business as usual" and when some abuses are addressed, they are simply replaced with new abuses so that we think we're moving forward but we're just spreading the hate. And that, at its core, is the bottom-line force behind this conspiracy. Hate. Where God is love (1 John 4:8), His enemies operate on hate. That's the scheme.
Keith Green wrote a song titled No One Believes in Me Anymore. It's referred to as "Satan's boast." He explains that Satan is perfectly happy with how easy his job is when no one believes in him anymore. Like us today. Like the world at large, to whom he is their god. Like self-professed Christians who don't believe in Satan. Like other self-professed Christians who do say they believe in him but operate oblivious to his schemes as if they don't. We know that all power is in Christ's hands (Matt 28:18), so we know the outcome, but blinding ourselves to this very real, very dangerous, very destructive conspiracy and even assisting its aims and operations does no one any good.
I am not a conspiracy theory buff. I am, in general, a skeptic. Rather than embracing the latest whispered conspiracy, I prefer to look at a variety of sources, find what is verifiable, and leave the rest on the "maybe" pile.
Having distanced myself from "anti-vaxxer" conspiracy theories and "fixed election" conspiracy theories and the like, I have to admit to one conspiracy theory I do believe in. I am quite sure that there is a vast scheme at work in our world that affects every single person on the planet. I believe there is a cabal that is in the business of disrupting life in all sorts of ways with the ultimate aim of destruction. Jesus referred to it as "the father of lies" and "your father, the devil" (John 8:44). Paul referred to it as "the god of this world" (2 Cor 4:4) and "the prince of the power of the air" (Eph 2:1-3). Peter warned that this enemy aims to devour (1 Peter 5:8). John claimed that those who do what is sinful contribute to this conspiracy (1 John 3:8). The primary weapon is deceit (Gen 3:1-6; 2 Cor 11:3). The primary damage is to the truth (Rom 1:18-19) and, in the end, our hearts and minds.
Now, I don't think I'm being clever here. You know what I'm talking about. Nor am I being cute. I believe there is an actual conspiracy that has existed since the Garden of Eden that is aimed ultimately at God but uses humans as its weapon. Satan and his forces have been lying and harming the beings God created in His image practically from the beginning. So invasive is this conspiracy that we've come to accept it as normal rather than conspiratorial. It is blatantly obvious and devastatingly destructive, but we're deceived (Jer 17:9) and blinded (2 Cor 4:4) and don't even notice. So all manner of immorality is embraced as normal and all manner of abusive evil is considered "business as usual" and when some abuses are addressed, they are simply replaced with new abuses so that we think we're moving forward but we're just spreading the hate. And that, at its core, is the bottom-line force behind this conspiracy. Hate. Where God is love (1 John 4:8), His enemies operate on hate. That's the scheme.
Keith Green wrote a song titled No One Believes in Me Anymore. It's referred to as "Satan's boast." He explains that Satan is perfectly happy with how easy his job is when no one believes in him anymore. Like us today. Like the world at large, to whom he is their god. Like self-professed Christians who don't believe in Satan. Like other self-professed Christians who do say they believe in him but operate oblivious to his schemes as if they don't. We know that all power is in Christ's hands (Matt 28:18), so we know the outcome, but blinding ourselves to this very real, very dangerous, very destructive conspiracy and even assisting its aims and operations does no one any good.
Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. Resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same kinds of suffering are being experienced by your brotherhood throughout the world. (1 Peter 5:8-9)
Tuesday, August 17, 2021
My New Theory
I live in a large metropolitan area. That means that I encounter crowds most places I go. Most anyone can tell you that there is a dearth of common courtesy out there, worse than it has been in the past. There is a civility shortage and people are on hair triggers emotionally. (The mere word, "triggered," upsets some people.) And there is a surge of the "me first" mentality. "Of course I can take this spot between these two cars traveling down the highway at 70MPH. I'm the important one here." "No one will complain if I leave my shopping cart to block the aisle while I chat with someone. I'm the important one here." It's there, and it's getting worse. I came up with a new theory.
Since the advent of the internet, there has been a surge of bullying and a decline of civility. Those both existed prior, but the internet has really made them a growth market. Why is that? Simply put, anonymity. People on the internet are anonymous. You don't know who they are, so they feel like they can set aside any façade of kindness and let people have it ... with both barrels. Look at comment feeds or Facebook or Twitter and watch the venom drip. Why? Because you don't know who I am, so I can say what I want without consequences.
I believe that same principle is at work in the busy cities, the busy highways, the busy stores all around us. The quaint notion of "community" and "neighbors" has been edged out by big city anonymity. Most people hardly know their own neighbors. And the more affluent they are, the worse it gets. I remember back in the 90's there was a blackout for the entire bottom half of California. It was summer and it was miserable. My wife and I drove into our neighborhood and were surprised at all the people outside talking, chatting, sharing something cold to drink or the like. No one ever came out in our neighborhood before. And I realized what had happened to those charming times when neighbors knew neighbors -- air conditioning. Sure, that's an oversimplification, but back when our homes weren't completely and totally self-contained, we needed our neighbors. We had porches to sit on and talk to passers-by. We'd share meals and know that Mrs. Jones had had a baby and we'd bring food. No longer. We've got it covered. It's all right there in our homes -- all the creature-comforts you could want. Who needs neighbors? And we're now anonymous.
God made us for "one anothers." Love one another. Bear one anothers burdens. Forgive one another. Be kind to one another. On and on. But we, in our "new and improved" modern era, have determined that "one another" need only be found on Facebook and email. Now we can minimize the contact, minimize the connection, and do whatever we please ... anonymously. Who did I just cut off on the freeway? Who knows? Who cares? But beyond the obvious dangers, it is fatal to society when the anonymous outnumber those who care. So you and I need to make an effort to be the exception. We need to do our good works in such a way that those who see them will glory the Father. You can quote me on that if you want.
Since the advent of the internet, there has been a surge of bullying and a decline of civility. Those both existed prior, but the internet has really made them a growth market. Why is that? Simply put, anonymity. People on the internet are anonymous. You don't know who they are, so they feel like they can set aside any façade of kindness and let people have it ... with both barrels. Look at comment feeds or Facebook or Twitter and watch the venom drip. Why? Because you don't know who I am, so I can say what I want without consequences.
I believe that same principle is at work in the busy cities, the busy highways, the busy stores all around us. The quaint notion of "community" and "neighbors" has been edged out by big city anonymity. Most people hardly know their own neighbors. And the more affluent they are, the worse it gets. I remember back in the 90's there was a blackout for the entire bottom half of California. It was summer and it was miserable. My wife and I drove into our neighborhood and were surprised at all the people outside talking, chatting, sharing something cold to drink or the like. No one ever came out in our neighborhood before. And I realized what had happened to those charming times when neighbors knew neighbors -- air conditioning. Sure, that's an oversimplification, but back when our homes weren't completely and totally self-contained, we needed our neighbors. We had porches to sit on and talk to passers-by. We'd share meals and know that Mrs. Jones had had a baby and we'd bring food. No longer. We've got it covered. It's all right there in our homes -- all the creature-comforts you could want. Who needs neighbors? And we're now anonymous.
God made us for "one anothers." Love one another. Bear one anothers burdens. Forgive one another. Be kind to one another. On and on. But we, in our "new and improved" modern era, have determined that "one another" need only be found on Facebook and email. Now we can minimize the contact, minimize the connection, and do whatever we please ... anonymously. Who did I just cut off on the freeway? Who knows? Who cares? But beyond the obvious dangers, it is fatal to society when the anonymous outnumber those who care. So you and I need to make an effort to be the exception. We need to do our good works in such a way that those who see them will glory the Father. You can quote me on that if you want.
Monday, August 16, 2021
Fundamentalist
You know that word, don't you? I'd suspect that the mere reading of it might create a tension in your stomach. Those fundamentalists are ... well ... crazy. Now, to be fair, most people today hear "fundamentalists" and think "Islamic terrorists" and that's not entirely unfair. However, most also lump in "fundamentalist Christians," too. Because there is a tangential element that calls themselves "fundamentalist Christians" who are ... well ... crazy. They are anti-government, militant, and potentially as violent as the "Islamic fundamentalist" types. And they are an extreme minority ... and hold views in direct opposition to Christ.
Huh. That's odd, isn't it? "Christians" whose views are in "direct opposition to Christ"? Can you classify them as "Christian"? That kind of logic doesn't disturb most people these days.
What is "fundamentalist," then? The Encyclopedia Britannica (and many others) define it simply as a group "characterized by the advocacy of strict conformity to sacred texts." That's it. That's all. There are, of course, other ramifications, but that, at its core (at the fundamentals), is it. Now, if you take that definition and overlay it on, say, Islamic fundamentalists, does it fit? Why, yes ... yes it does. They take their sacred scriptures as literally true. It says "jihad" and they do. It says "kill infidels" and they do. It fits. It is not the fundamentalists of Islam who are off the mark from their scriptures; it is the moderate Moslems.
Let's try that again. What about those crazy "fundamentalist Christians" who seek to overthrow the government, who embrace violence, who are more nationalist than Christian, etc.? How does that work? Not well. Christ commanded love. Christ commanded to turn the other cheek. Scripture requires that believers submit to authority. Repeatedly the Scriptures say to consider the welfare of others over your own. Biblical Christianity and that particular group so often perceived as "fundamentalist Christians" don't correspond.
"So," you may be asking, "are you saying there are not fundamentalist Christians?" No, that is not what I'm saying. Taking the proper definition, there are genuine Christians who take the Scriptures as they are written and work to apply them to their lives. They have some sort of bizarre belief that God is good and God is capable of transmitting and maintaining His actual ideas (2 Tim 3:16-17) and they seek to follow them. So when Jesus says, "No man comes to the Father but by Me," (John 14:6) they conclude that the only way to God is through Jesus. When Jesus says, "You must be born again," (John 3:3, 5) they conclude you must be born again. When Scripture says, "Consider others as more important than yourself," (Rom 15:2; Php 2:3-4) it becomes their goal to do just that. These are genuine Christian fundamentalists. Turns out they are the most tolerant people on the planet (Rom 14:1-3) not because they embrace all the ideas and values that contradict biblical principles and morality, but because they tolerate them as "sojourners and exiles." (2 Cor 5:1; 1 Peter 2:11; Heb 13:14). Thus, to the extent that Christians receive God's Word as God's Word and seek to conform their thinking and living to it (and not the other way around), they are genuine Christians and, correctly, fundamentalist. However, as we know, that kind of fundamentalist is unacceptable to the god of this world and, therefore, to his followers, so if there is any way he can turn people away from that kind, he will. Welcome to our world (1 John 2:15-17).
Huh. That's odd, isn't it? "Christians" whose views are in "direct opposition to Christ"? Can you classify them as "Christian"? That kind of logic doesn't disturb most people these days.
What is "fundamentalist," then? The Encyclopedia Britannica (and many others) define it simply as a group "characterized by the advocacy of strict conformity to sacred texts." That's it. That's all. There are, of course, other ramifications, but that, at its core (at the fundamentals), is it. Now, if you take that definition and overlay it on, say, Islamic fundamentalists, does it fit? Why, yes ... yes it does. They take their sacred scriptures as literally true. It says "jihad" and they do. It says "kill infidels" and they do. It fits. It is not the fundamentalists of Islam who are off the mark from their scriptures; it is the moderate Moslems.
Let's try that again. What about those crazy "fundamentalist Christians" who seek to overthrow the government, who embrace violence, who are more nationalist than Christian, etc.? How does that work? Not well. Christ commanded love. Christ commanded to turn the other cheek. Scripture requires that believers submit to authority. Repeatedly the Scriptures say to consider the welfare of others over your own. Biblical Christianity and that particular group so often perceived as "fundamentalist Christians" don't correspond.
"So," you may be asking, "are you saying there are not fundamentalist Christians?" No, that is not what I'm saying. Taking the proper definition, there are genuine Christians who take the Scriptures as they are written and work to apply them to their lives. They have some sort of bizarre belief that God is good and God is capable of transmitting and maintaining His actual ideas (2 Tim 3:16-17) and they seek to follow them. So when Jesus says, "No man comes to the Father but by Me," (John 14:6) they conclude that the only way to God is through Jesus. When Jesus says, "You must be born again," (John 3:3, 5) they conclude you must be born again. When Scripture says, "Consider others as more important than yourself," (Rom 15:2; Php 2:3-4) it becomes their goal to do just that. These are genuine Christian fundamentalists. Turns out they are the most tolerant people on the planet (Rom 14:1-3) not because they embrace all the ideas and values that contradict biblical principles and morality, but because they tolerate them as "sojourners and exiles." (2 Cor 5:1; 1 Peter 2:11; Heb 13:14). Thus, to the extent that Christians receive God's Word as God's Word and seek to conform their thinking and living to it (and not the other way around), they are genuine Christians and, correctly, fundamentalist. However, as we know, that kind of fundamentalist is unacceptable to the god of this world and, therefore, to his followers, so if there is any way he can turn people away from that kind, he will. Welcome to our world (1 John 2:15-17).
Sunday, August 15, 2021
This Means War
I came across a reference to an interesting phrase: "wage war against your soul." I thought, "Where does that come from?" From Peter, it turns out.
Before he tells us what he urges us toward, he gives us the first reason why: we are sojourners and exiles. This world is not our home. We really are just passing through. It makes no sense to invest oneself too heavily in someplace that is brief.
Now he gets to the request, the "urge." The Greek is parakaleō, meaning "to call near." You may see its proximity to a reference to the Holy Spirit from the lips of Jesus (John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7). That word (same root) is "comforter" or "helper." So Peter is saying, "Please, let me help you by inviting you to walk alongside me as we do this." Do what? "Abstain from the passions of the flesh." Now, of course, we've all heard that kind of talk before. And, too often, it makes us think of God as the Cosmic Killjoy. But, we know, a "good Christian" doesn't do those things, so ... sigh ... we'll try. Sort of. Because, after all, "the passions of the flesh" are where we live. Seriously. That is our contact with reality. And, in truth, most of them aren't, by definition, sinful. They only become sinful when they rule us, when they are corrupted, when they rise to the level of idolatry -- a god before God. It's not a sin to eat; it's a sin to be gluttonous. It's not a sin to have sexual relations; it's a sin to have sexual relations outside of God's plan and purpose for them. The flesh is our current living arrangement. It is corrupted by sin, but it's where we live. So the problem isn't our bodies as much as the passions that rule. Abstain from those passions that are purely about our bodily pleasures. Why? Well, there's more than one reason, but he already said that our bodies are temporary. We're sojourners and exiles.
That is one reason. He gives the big one next. Yes, we're temporary residents, so don't make this residence our primary focus. But it's more than that. These passions "wage war against your soul." Paul says, "I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members." (Rom 7:23). We are new creations (2 Cor 5:17), born again (1 Peter 1:3, 23). We have a new mind, a new will, and new emotions -- the soul. These fleshly passions, then, attack our true identity.
Peter doesn't say, "Stop sinning." Instead, he rightly points to the root of the problem -- passions. The only way to stop sinning is to change within, and that means changing your passions -- the things that drive you. We all have passions. They drive us to act. Peter didn't say to stop acting on our passions; he said to avoid the ones that harm us. To "abstain." Because the problem is the desire long before the acting on that desire occurs. Abstain, then, from those passions. Withdraw from them. Put distance between you and them. Don't get close. Don't ask, "Is it okay to do this? I ask because it is really close to that, and that is sin." Go the other way (Psa 1:1-2; Prov 4:14). Because, you see, they're bad for you. (Do you see how that's love to urge this?) They are at war with you. They will cause you serious damage.
Peter approaches this in love for those whose home is elsewhere. He warns them of the serious danger of pursuing passions of the flesh. "Run," he says. "Change your passions." Because, he says, those fleshly passions are out to harm you. They're out to kill you. They're out to tear down your soul. So put them as far from you as you can. It doesn't seem like something about which we should be lackadaisical.
Beloved, I urge you as sojourners and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul. (1 Peter 2:11)In that one, simple, straightforward verse, Peter says a lot. Note, first, the motivation -- "Beloved." He's not trying to be judgmental, trying to be preachy, trying to foist off ideas or opinions. He's trying to love. As we ought. Next, he urges us toward something.
Before he tells us what he urges us toward, he gives us the first reason why: we are sojourners and exiles. This world is not our home. We really are just passing through. It makes no sense to invest oneself too heavily in someplace that is brief.
Now he gets to the request, the "urge." The Greek is parakaleō, meaning "to call near." You may see its proximity to a reference to the Holy Spirit from the lips of Jesus (John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7). That word (same root) is "comforter" or "helper." So Peter is saying, "Please, let me help you by inviting you to walk alongside me as we do this." Do what? "Abstain from the passions of the flesh." Now, of course, we've all heard that kind of talk before. And, too often, it makes us think of God as the Cosmic Killjoy. But, we know, a "good Christian" doesn't do those things, so ... sigh ... we'll try. Sort of. Because, after all, "the passions of the flesh" are where we live. Seriously. That is our contact with reality. And, in truth, most of them aren't, by definition, sinful. They only become sinful when they rule us, when they are corrupted, when they rise to the level of idolatry -- a god before God. It's not a sin to eat; it's a sin to be gluttonous. It's not a sin to have sexual relations; it's a sin to have sexual relations outside of God's plan and purpose for them. The flesh is our current living arrangement. It is corrupted by sin, but it's where we live. So the problem isn't our bodies as much as the passions that rule. Abstain from those passions that are purely about our bodily pleasures. Why? Well, there's more than one reason, but he already said that our bodies are temporary. We're sojourners and exiles.
That is one reason. He gives the big one next. Yes, we're temporary residents, so don't make this residence our primary focus. But it's more than that. These passions "wage war against your soul." Paul says, "I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members." (Rom 7:23). We are new creations (2 Cor 5:17), born again (1 Peter 1:3, 23). We have a new mind, a new will, and new emotions -- the soul. These fleshly passions, then, attack our true identity.
Peter doesn't say, "Stop sinning." Instead, he rightly points to the root of the problem -- passions. The only way to stop sinning is to change within, and that means changing your passions -- the things that drive you. We all have passions. They drive us to act. Peter didn't say to stop acting on our passions; he said to avoid the ones that harm us. To "abstain." Because the problem is the desire long before the acting on that desire occurs. Abstain, then, from those passions. Withdraw from them. Put distance between you and them. Don't get close. Don't ask, "Is it okay to do this? I ask because it is really close to that, and that is sin." Go the other way (Psa 1:1-2; Prov 4:14). Because, you see, they're bad for you. (Do you see how that's love to urge this?) They are at war with you. They will cause you serious damage.
Peter approaches this in love for those whose home is elsewhere. He warns them of the serious danger of pursuing passions of the flesh. "Run," he says. "Change your passions." Because, he says, those fleshly passions are out to harm you. They're out to kill you. They're out to tear down your soul. So put them as far from you as you can. It doesn't seem like something about which we should be lackadaisical.
Saturday, August 14, 2021
News Weakly - 8/14/21
Paying the Debt
The White House's suspension of federal student loan payments has been extended through January, 2022. (Note it is "federal." Other student loans aren't covered under this.) The reason is that the economy is recovering "at a record rate" (Biden is reading different reports than I am, apparently), but not for students with loans. The call, of course, is to cancel student loans, because people who wanted to go to college bad enough to encumber themselves with outrageous debt should not be held responsible. Or, "Lesson #1: Don't expect consequences of your choices."
Now Diversity Makes Sense
I'm good with diversity; I just never understood what the mandate for diverse races and genders (whatever those two words mean today) contributed to businesses. Why should it be mandatory for businesses to hire based on race and gender rather than skill and ability? Why shouldn't a company, say, serving a black marketplace, not be allowed to hire only blacks because it would provide the best business model for the company? (I know; it never goes that way, but you get the point.) Now I get it. The SEC has approved Nasdaq's plan to require diversity in order to be listed. The threat of lost income -- that's a real reason to hire more intersectionals. (Not a good one, but a real one.)
Confused
I'm a bit confused. A legal challenge has been filed against Florida's executive order to ban mask mandates. Please, read that again carefully. Because the plaintiffs seek "an injunction on the order signed by DeSantis that allows parents to decide if their children should wear masks or not in school." The executive order forbids schools from requiring masks. It does not forbid students from wearing them. Or do the plaintiffs want the parents to decide that all parents will decide that all children will wear masks (a mask mandate)? I live in a state where the governor has signed a similar ban of mandates. The schools still "strongly encourage" masks. Apparently that's not good enough in Florida.
Leading the Charge
President Biden said, "I am proud that our military women and men will continue to help lead the charge in the fight against this pandemic, as they so often do, by setting the example of keeping their fellow Americans safe." How are those brave men and women doing that? The Secretary of Defense mandated vaccines for all military. They're "leading the charge" at gunpoint, so to speak. They're "leading the charge" by shutting up and doing what they're told. We're waiting to see how many of the rest of America's unvaccinated can "lead the charge" in the same way.
Protection Perspectives
The headline reads, "Charlotte passes LGBTQ protections." The North Carolina city passed an ordinance that "adds sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, familial status, veteran status, pregnancy and natural hairstyle to the list of classes protected against discrimination." ("Natural hairstyle" is a protected "class"??) Interestingly, the story says the new ordinance "does not address bathroom accommodations." So, "LGBTQ protection" in what sense? Not in bathrooms. Which, by the way, would be considered removing protections for women in bathrooms. Depending on your perspective.
Failed Economics 101
We already knew that the House of Representatives was eager to further encumber your tax dollars another $3.5 trillion, but we had hopes that some sort of economic sanity could reign in the Senate. No such luck. Just when you thought you had some money left in your wallet after the COVID drain, the Senate Democrats jumped on that spending plan. The plan would theoretically require everyone over the age of 18 to contribute $11,800 to the government (on top of what you're already paying). Don't worry, though. They plan to take it from the wealthiest Americans and their companies ... who pay your wages ... so I'm sure that can't impact you ... right? My question regarding the spending bill is "Is this really the job of the government?" followed by "Should it be?" with all the concerns of "Where does it end?"
Who Holds the Reins Reigns
YouTube suspended Senator Rand Paul for saying in a video, "Most of the masks you get over the counter don’t work." The CDC says that cloth masks work fine ... as long as they're multi-layered ... and fit snugly against the sides of your face ... and have a nose wire to prevent air from leaking out of the top ... and best worn with another mask. So, no, most of the ones you buy over the counter fit that description, but the difference is the CDC isn't saying it on a YouTube video, so ...
Safe and Sound?
Our only hope is the vaccine, they tell us. So it would seem odd that 27 people aboard a Carnival cruise ship, all of whom were vaccinated, came down with COVID. God warned against putting your trust in princes (Psa 146:3). I would hope you would see "vaccines" in the same light.
Makes Sense?
The Atlanta Black Star is reporting on a black principal of an public elementary school in Atlanta who thought it would be best to segregate students by race. The principal had the black students in separate classrooms from the white students because it would be best to keep them from mixing. Now if you accept the new definition of "racism" as "all whites and only whites," why would you not seek to protect black children from the scum of the earth? And it all vanishes in a puff of logic ... except, of course, it doesn't.
Not So Funny
Too close to today's culture, the Babylon Bee floated the story about how the prodigal son was kicked out of his house after old tweets surfaced. There was another story told how Oregon high schools would no longer teach reading so kids wouldn't be influenced by Thomas Sowell books (like Basic Economics). And perhaps the shortest story of all, a comprehensive list of all the socialist countries that haven't turned into a totalitarian hellscape where you have to eat your dog. (Hint: All you get is the headline.)
Must be true; I read it on the internet.
The White House's suspension of federal student loan payments has been extended through January, 2022. (Note it is "federal." Other student loans aren't covered under this.) The reason is that the economy is recovering "at a record rate" (Biden is reading different reports than I am, apparently), but not for students with loans. The call, of course, is to cancel student loans, because people who wanted to go to college bad enough to encumber themselves with outrageous debt should not be held responsible. Or, "Lesson #1: Don't expect consequences of your choices."
Now Diversity Makes Sense
I'm good with diversity; I just never understood what the mandate for diverse races and genders (whatever those two words mean today) contributed to businesses. Why should it be mandatory for businesses to hire based on race and gender rather than skill and ability? Why shouldn't a company, say, serving a black marketplace, not be allowed to hire only blacks because it would provide the best business model for the company? (I know; it never goes that way, but you get the point.) Now I get it. The SEC has approved Nasdaq's plan to require diversity in order to be listed. The threat of lost income -- that's a real reason to hire more intersectionals. (Not a good one, but a real one.)
Confused
I'm a bit confused. A legal challenge has been filed against Florida's executive order to ban mask mandates. Please, read that again carefully. Because the plaintiffs seek "an injunction on the order signed by DeSantis that allows parents to decide if their children should wear masks or not in school." The executive order forbids schools from requiring masks. It does not forbid students from wearing them. Or do the plaintiffs want the parents to decide that all parents will decide that all children will wear masks (a mask mandate)? I live in a state where the governor has signed a similar ban of mandates. The schools still "strongly encourage" masks. Apparently that's not good enough in Florida.
Leading the Charge
President Biden said, "I am proud that our military women and men will continue to help lead the charge in the fight against this pandemic, as they so often do, by setting the example of keeping their fellow Americans safe." How are those brave men and women doing that? The Secretary of Defense mandated vaccines for all military. They're "leading the charge" at gunpoint, so to speak. They're "leading the charge" by shutting up and doing what they're told. We're waiting to see how many of the rest of America's unvaccinated can "lead the charge" in the same way.
Protection Perspectives
The headline reads, "Charlotte passes LGBTQ protections." The North Carolina city passed an ordinance that "adds sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, familial status, veteran status, pregnancy and natural hairstyle to the list of classes protected against discrimination." ("Natural hairstyle" is a protected "class"??) Interestingly, the story says the new ordinance "does not address bathroom accommodations." So, "LGBTQ protection" in what sense? Not in bathrooms. Which, by the way, would be considered removing protections for women in bathrooms. Depending on your perspective.
Failed Economics 101
We already knew that the House of Representatives was eager to further encumber your tax dollars another $3.5 trillion, but we had hopes that some sort of economic sanity could reign in the Senate. No such luck. Just when you thought you had some money left in your wallet after the COVID drain, the Senate Democrats jumped on that spending plan. The plan would theoretically require everyone over the age of 18 to contribute $11,800 to the government (on top of what you're already paying). Don't worry, though. They plan to take it from the wealthiest Americans and their companies ... who pay your wages ... so I'm sure that can't impact you ... right? My question regarding the spending bill is "Is this really the job of the government?" followed by "Should it be?" with all the concerns of "Where does it end?"
Who Holds the Reins Reigns
YouTube suspended Senator Rand Paul for saying in a video, "Most of the masks you get over the counter don’t work." The CDC says that cloth masks work fine ... as long as they're multi-layered ... and fit snugly against the sides of your face ... and have a nose wire to prevent air from leaking out of the top ... and best worn with another mask. So, no, most of the ones you buy over the counter fit that description, but the difference is the CDC isn't saying it on a YouTube video, so ...
Safe and Sound?
Our only hope is the vaccine, they tell us. So it would seem odd that 27 people aboard a Carnival cruise ship, all of whom were vaccinated, came down with COVID. God warned against putting your trust in princes (Psa 146:3). I would hope you would see "vaccines" in the same light.
Makes Sense?
The Atlanta Black Star is reporting on a black principal of an public elementary school in Atlanta who thought it would be best to segregate students by race. The principal had the black students in separate classrooms from the white students because it would be best to keep them from mixing. Now if you accept the new definition of "racism" as "all whites and only whites," why would you not seek to protect black children from the scum of the earth? And it all vanishes in a puff of logic ... except, of course, it doesn't.
Not So Funny
Too close to today's culture, the Babylon Bee floated the story about how the prodigal son was kicked out of his house after old tweets surfaced. There was another story told how Oregon high schools would no longer teach reading so kids wouldn't be influenced by Thomas Sowell books (like Basic Economics). And perhaps the shortest story of all, a comprehensive list of all the socialist countries that haven't turned into a totalitarian hellscape where you have to eat your dog. (Hint: All you get is the headline.)
Must be true; I read it on the internet.
Friday, August 13, 2021
Love Does No Wrong
In Romans Paul argues that love is the fulfillment of the law.
Contemplate that for a moment. "Love does no wrong to a neighbor." At the start, we can pull up easy examples. Love doesn't allow you to sleep with someone else's spouse (adultery). Clear enough. Same with stealing or coveting. Love doesn't allow those. Those are wrong. No, not the right phrase. Those are wrongs that can be done to another. Easy examples. Now let's find some of our own. How about this "me first" kind of world we live in? Does that work in this context? Is it love to always insure that I get mine first? No. How about if you find a sale on something you know your friend has been looking for? Do you tell him/her or do you keep quiet? Not telling them what would benefit them would wrong them, see? In all of this, we're looking at the same motivation, the same guiding principle, the same aim -- love. Love does no wrong to a neighbor. (We're using "neighbor" in the way Jesus did -- people in your sphere of influence.) Do what's right for your neighbors ... out of love. One more example, then. I had a friend who came to me and told me about his marriage on the rocks. She didn't love him. He didn't love her. But she had an 18-year-old daughter who did and he was planning to divorce his wife and marry her daughter. He looked to me for encouragement. By today's standards, love would be "nonjudgmental" and "tolerant" and "never say an unpleasant thing." "Don't impose your ideas on others." If I knew what Scripture says about divorce and about sexual immorality and I kept silent, it would not be the kind of love this text is talking about. The kind of love we recognize today would wrong my neighbor by withholding important truth from him. Note, however, that a "love" that bashes him over the head for being such a bonehead is also disqualified in this version of love.
Paul says that love is the fulfillment of the law because love does no wrong to a neighbor. We owe that to those with whom we have anything to do. Therefore, if we are to love as commanded, we need to be careful to do no wrong to our loved ones. That wrong could be commission -- doing wrong. That wrong could omission -- failing to do what is right. In all cases, then, we are commanded to love as Christ loved us (John 13:34) -- a tall order -- which puts others and their best interests first. Even if sometimes they don't see it.
Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet," and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. (Rom 13:8-10)Many have misunderstood that first phrase -- "Owe no one anything." It isn't a commentary on debt; it is a command to pay what you owe (Rom 13:7). Don't withhold payment. So the "except to love each other" says, "This will be an ongoing, unending debt that needs to constantly be paid." We never stop owing others love. And love should be our motivation for paying what we owe. Paul offers samples from the law along with the overview: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." He concludes "Love does no wrong to a neighbor" and, therefore, "love is the fulfilling of the law." The first thing you'll notice is that this is not today's version of "love." Our modern version is "warm affection" or, more likely, sexual in content. This love is not that. This love seeks the best for the loved one. This love is selfless, considering first the well-being of others (Rom 15:2-3; Php 2:3-4). Or, here in this text, "Love does no wrong to a neighbor." Not your standard description of love these days.
Contemplate that for a moment. "Love does no wrong to a neighbor." At the start, we can pull up easy examples. Love doesn't allow you to sleep with someone else's spouse (adultery). Clear enough. Same with stealing or coveting. Love doesn't allow those. Those are wrong. No, not the right phrase. Those are wrongs that can be done to another. Easy examples. Now let's find some of our own. How about this "me first" kind of world we live in? Does that work in this context? Is it love to always insure that I get mine first? No. How about if you find a sale on something you know your friend has been looking for? Do you tell him/her or do you keep quiet? Not telling them what would benefit them would wrong them, see? In all of this, we're looking at the same motivation, the same guiding principle, the same aim -- love. Love does no wrong to a neighbor. (We're using "neighbor" in the way Jesus did -- people in your sphere of influence.) Do what's right for your neighbors ... out of love. One more example, then. I had a friend who came to me and told me about his marriage on the rocks. She didn't love him. He didn't love her. But she had an 18-year-old daughter who did and he was planning to divorce his wife and marry her daughter. He looked to me for encouragement. By today's standards, love would be "nonjudgmental" and "tolerant" and "never say an unpleasant thing." "Don't impose your ideas on others." If I knew what Scripture says about divorce and about sexual immorality and I kept silent, it would not be the kind of love this text is talking about. The kind of love we recognize today would wrong my neighbor by withholding important truth from him. Note, however, that a "love" that bashes him over the head for being such a bonehead is also disqualified in this version of love.
Paul says that love is the fulfillment of the law because love does no wrong to a neighbor. We owe that to those with whom we have anything to do. Therefore, if we are to love as commanded, we need to be careful to do no wrong to our loved ones. That wrong could be commission -- doing wrong. That wrong could omission -- failing to do what is right. In all cases, then, we are commanded to love as Christ loved us (John 13:34) -- a tall order -- which puts others and their best interests first. Even if sometimes they don't see it.
Thursday, August 12, 2021
To Your Heart's Content
The Council of Trent was the 19th Ecumenical Council of the Roman Catholic Church. It was called in response to the perceived heresies of the Reformation. One of the key complaints was the Protestant concept of forensic justification. Forensic justification is the belief that those who come to Christ in faith are forgiven, cleansed, justified, even clothed in the righteousness of Christ. Without the requirement of actually becoming functionally sin-free, those who trust Christ enjoy imputed righteousness. This, of course, was unacceptable to the Roman Catholic Church. They declared anathema -- a formal ecclesiastical curse, excommunication -- on anyone who would hold that belief. One of their biggest reasons was that if that form of justification was true, it would only enable free sinning.
You have to admit that on the surface this seems perfectly logical. If I know that all my sin is already forgiven, then why not sin to my heart's content? Why not "sin boldly"? Why in the world would anyone want to become holy -- sanctified -- if there are now no consequences to sin?
The question, however, reveals a serious misunderstanding. The suggestion is that this process of "justified by faith" is an external procedure, so to speak. You know; go to the doctor, get a wart removed, go home. In this case, go to Jesus, get your sin removed, go home. Scripture doesn't allow anything at all like that to occur. Jesus said that the one who is forgiven much loves much (Luke 7:47). That is, forgiveness doesn't merely remove sin; it alters the heart. Scripture says that faith produces obedience (e.g., Rom 1:5; Rom 16:26). John wrote, "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. By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey His commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments." (1 John 5:1-3). It's clear enough. When we come in faith, we are "born of God." We are "born again" (John 3:3, 5-6). That's not a procedure. That's not mere "sin removal." It is a fundamental change. It is a new heart.
Trent and the whole "Why be holy if I'm forgiven?" concept miss the point. Scripture says that the one born of God cannot make a practice of sin (1 John 3:9). Cannot sin on a continual basis. All sin (1 John 1:8-10), but those who are born of God cannot sustain it. There is a fundamental change, an alteration of the inner person, beginning with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The question, "Why be holy if I'm forgiven?" would need to be turned on its ear: "I am deeply concerned about the glory of God and long to be more sanctified all the time." Or, "How could I not seek to be holy since I am fully forgiven?"
Rome wanted to know. "If we are justified as Scripture seems to say -- once for all time -- then why won't people sin to their hearts' content?" The correct answer is, "They will ... because justification produces a changed heart (Rom 6:17), so their hearts' content will be to diminish sin."
You have to admit that on the surface this seems perfectly logical. If I know that all my sin is already forgiven, then why not sin to my heart's content? Why not "sin boldly"? Why in the world would anyone want to become holy -- sanctified -- if there are now no consequences to sin?
The question, however, reveals a serious misunderstanding. The suggestion is that this process of "justified by faith" is an external procedure, so to speak. You know; go to the doctor, get a wart removed, go home. In this case, go to Jesus, get your sin removed, go home. Scripture doesn't allow anything at all like that to occur. Jesus said that the one who is forgiven much loves much (Luke 7:47). That is, forgiveness doesn't merely remove sin; it alters the heart. Scripture says that faith produces obedience (e.g., Rom 1:5; Rom 16:26). John wrote, "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. By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey His commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments." (1 John 5:1-3). It's clear enough. When we come in faith, we are "born of God." We are "born again" (John 3:3, 5-6). That's not a procedure. That's not mere "sin removal." It is a fundamental change. It is a new heart.
Trent and the whole "Why be holy if I'm forgiven?" concept miss the point. Scripture says that the one born of God cannot make a practice of sin (1 John 3:9). Cannot sin on a continual basis. All sin (1 John 1:8-10), but those who are born of God cannot sustain it. There is a fundamental change, an alteration of the inner person, beginning with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The question, "Why be holy if I'm forgiven?" would need to be turned on its ear: "I am deeply concerned about the glory of God and long to be more sanctified all the time." Or, "How could I not seek to be holy since I am fully forgiven?"
Rome wanted to know. "If we are justified as Scripture seems to say -- once for all time -- then why won't people sin to their hearts' content?" The correct answer is, "They will ... because justification produces a changed heart (Rom 6:17), so their hearts' content will be to diminish sin."
Wednesday, August 11, 2021
Moral Mandate
The Hill is reporting that at least 15 states are keeping COVID-19 breakthrough cases under wraps. The CDC no longer monitors breathrough cases that don't require severe treatments, so the states are keeping quiet about it.
Of course, COVID is on the rise again. The dreaded Delta variant is spreading. The solution, they tell us, is vaccines. Vaccines and masks. Vaccines and masks and isolation. (Kind of like a scene from The Jerk.) Vaccines will save us all. Well, of course, the CDC tells us that vaccinated people can still get the virus and vaccinated people can still spread the virus and everyone, including the vaccinated, need to wear masks for protection in both directions. Oh, did I say masks? Yeah, well, now they're saying that those bandanas and, basically, all cloth masks aren't effective. N95s ... that's what we need. Lots of them. Changed often. Those silly things most all of you are wearing (that we were already told worked fine) don't work at all. Double mask or wear medical-grade surgical masks. Preferably those N95s. Which have to be fitted to the user. And replaced daily. And fitted to the user ... ad infinitum. But don't worry. Vaccination and masks and isolation ... these will save us all ... unless, of course, they don't.
At least we have consensus in the American public to mandate vaccines ... or not. Still, the voices are getting louder to either tie people down and inject them or cut them off from any access to public spaces (including restaurants and grocery stores). Whatever it takes. Some have likened this to the Jews in Nazi Germany marked with a star of David. That, of course, doesn't go over well in the public eye. It's not the same thing. The Germans referred to Jews as a world parasite, a "virus." It's not the same thing. Okay, there are similarities, but ... it's not the same thing. We're hoping to "mark" the unvaccinated and get them "better" so we can all be better.
"Hey, haven't you heard the reports about blood clots from the vaccine?" Conspiracy theories and fearmongering won't help. "The CDC is reporting the possibility of blood clotting, inflammation of the heart muscle, even Guillan-Barré syndrome." Now, now, don't let those very, very small numbers frighten you. "Why is it that the percentage of people who had COVID and get it again is as low as the number of people who get the vaccine and get COVID?" Now, look, if you're going to keep asking these irrational questions, we'll just have to get you shot (vaccine or otherwise) and shut you up. You nut cases and your conspiracy theories ...
Of course, COVID is on the rise again. The dreaded Delta variant is spreading. The solution, they tell us, is vaccines. Vaccines and masks. Vaccines and masks and isolation. (Kind of like a scene from The Jerk.) Vaccines will save us all. Well, of course, the CDC tells us that vaccinated people can still get the virus and vaccinated people can still spread the virus and everyone, including the vaccinated, need to wear masks for protection in both directions. Oh, did I say masks? Yeah, well, now they're saying that those bandanas and, basically, all cloth masks aren't effective. N95s ... that's what we need. Lots of them. Changed often. Those silly things most all of you are wearing (that we were already told worked fine) don't work at all. Double mask or wear medical-grade surgical masks. Preferably those N95s. Which have to be fitted to the user. And replaced daily. And fitted to the user ... ad infinitum. But don't worry. Vaccination and masks and isolation ... these will save us all ... unless, of course, they don't.
At least we have consensus in the American public to mandate vaccines ... or not. Still, the voices are getting louder to either tie people down and inject them or cut them off from any access to public spaces (including restaurants and grocery stores). Whatever it takes. Some have likened this to the Jews in Nazi Germany marked with a star of David. That, of course, doesn't go over well in the public eye. It's not the same thing. The Germans referred to Jews as a world parasite, a "virus." It's not the same thing. Okay, there are similarities, but ... it's not the same thing. We're hoping to "mark" the unvaccinated and get them "better" so we can all be better.
"Hey, haven't you heard the reports about blood clots from the vaccine?" Conspiracy theories and fearmongering won't help. "The CDC is reporting the possibility of blood clotting, inflammation of the heart muscle, even Guillan-Barré syndrome." Now, now, don't let those very, very small numbers frighten you. "Why is it that the percentage of people who had COVID and get it again is as low as the number of people who get the vaccine and get COVID?" Now, look, if you're going to keep asking these irrational questions, we'll just have to get you shot (vaccine or otherwise) and shut you up. You nut cases and your conspiracy theories ...
Tuesday, August 10, 2021
Glory Be
We met with a couple whose missionary work was to minister to university students in Tucson, AZ. Interesting stuff and all, but it struck me. There is a fundamental difference between their mode of living and ours. They survive financially off gifts from supporters; we survive by our hard-earned dollars. They are constantly reminded that they live off God's grace. The temptation for us is to think, "I've earned mine." We're tempted to think that we survive on our own merits. It just isn't true.
James wrote, "Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow." (James 1:17) Everything good comes from God. Including my hard-earned paycheck. Perhaps this is one of the reasons we are exhorted to "give thanks in all circumstances." (1 Thess 5:18). It's because everything (Remember, all things work together for good (Rom 8:28).) comes from God. It isn't our own.
Turns out that everything God does He does for His own glory. He made everything to declare His glory (Col 1:16; Psa 19:1-4). He made humans for His glory (Isa 43:7). He works every day to make His power known (Exo 9:16). He saves us for His glory (Ezek 36:22-32). Do you want to know what makes Him happy? To magnify His glory (Isa 42:21). Disabilities (John 9:3) and even death (John 11:4) glorify God. The blessings He gives us are to magnify His glory (Eph 1:3-14). And on and on. So that paycheck I "earn" -- actually a gift from God -- is a gift from God for God's glory.
If our primary concern was God's glory (1 Cor 10:31), how would that change our direction in life? How would it change our motivations? Our actions? Our attitudes? How would it change what we do and how we do it (Matt 5:16)? If we understood that all of life is aimed not at us, but at God and His glory, what would be different? Perhaps the better question might be what wouldn't be different?
James wrote, "Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow." (James 1:17) Everything good comes from God. Including my hard-earned paycheck. Perhaps this is one of the reasons we are exhorted to "give thanks in all circumstances." (1 Thess 5:18). It's because everything (Remember, all things work together for good (Rom 8:28).) comes from God. It isn't our own.
Turns out that everything God does He does for His own glory. He made everything to declare His glory (Col 1:16; Psa 19:1-4). He made humans for His glory (Isa 43:7). He works every day to make His power known (Exo 9:16). He saves us for His glory (Ezek 36:22-32). Do you want to know what makes Him happy? To magnify His glory (Isa 42:21). Disabilities (John 9:3) and even death (John 11:4) glorify God. The blessings He gives us are to magnify His glory (Eph 1:3-14). And on and on. So that paycheck I "earn" -- actually a gift from God -- is a gift from God for God's glory.
If our primary concern was God's glory (1 Cor 10:31), how would that change our direction in life? How would it change our motivations? Our actions? Our attitudes? How would it change what we do and how we do it (Matt 5:16)? If we understood that all of life is aimed not at us, but at God and His glory, what would be different? Perhaps the better question might be what wouldn't be different?
Monday, August 09, 2021
Sin
For those of you who are unfamiliar, the Westminster Shorter Catechism ... is a misnomer. A catechism is a text summarizing principles of Christian doctrine in the form of questions and answers. The Catholics have their own; the Westminster version is primarily a Presbyterian catechism. "Shorter" is questionable; it consists of 107 questions. The object is to catechize each generation of Presbyterians (and anyone who concurs with the doctrines) so they can answer "basic" questions about the faith. "Basic questions?" Yes, like Question #1: "What is the chief end of man?" Get that? The first question they ask these, say, 12-year-olds is the purpose of life. Nice. (In case you were curious, the answer is "Man's chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy Him forever.") One of the questions they ask is, "What is sin?" Answer: "Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God." The catechism includes proof texts, so this one refers to Leviticus 5:17; James 4:17, and 1 John 3:4. The first generalizes that anyone who commits anything that the Lord says they shouldn't, whether they know it or not, has sinned. That's the sin of commission -- doing anything that we are commanded not to. The second says that anyone who knows what is right to do and doesn't is sinning. That is the sin of omission -- failing to do what is commanded. The last says simply, "Sin is lawlessness," anything that violates God's law, positive or negative. So I think the catechism is fairly good. I'm not sure it is comprehensive enough. But, then, it's the shorter catechism, right?
What else does the Bible say about sin? Well, the primary words tell us something. In Hebrew, chattath refers to "an offense" -- general enough -- and chata means "to miss." To miss the goal, the path, the way ... God's law. We get it. The primary Greek word is used in a variety of forms. The word "hamartia" appears 174 times and means, basically, the same as chata -- to miss the mark. So sin is "an offense" and "missing the mark."
The Bible says a lot more than that, though. There is everything from specifics like Jesus's redefinition of adultery to include lust (Matt 5:27-28), for example, all the way to the expansive "whatever is not from faith is sin." (Rom 14:23). That one actually exceeds the "violation of God's law" concept. If I am not convinced it is God's values, it's sin for me to do it. In this case, then, something like smoking can be labeled an actual sin, even though Scripture does not address it, because someone thinks it is. In that case, though, it is an individual sin, not a universal one. The one in Romans 3 is particularly instructive. Most of us can quote it. "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (Rom 3:23) Our problem is that we use it (correctly) to point out the universality of sin -- "all have sinned" -- and appear to miss the parallel statement about sin -- "fall short of the glory of God." Sin, at its core, is falling short of God's glory.
That's where it gets interesting. Let me say it again. Sin, at its core, is falling short of God's glory. Thus, sin, at its core, is a violation of God. Remember what David wrote about his sin with Bathsheba. "Against You, You only, have I sinned and done what is evil in Your sight." (Psa 51:4). We know sin to often be an offense against others, but, at its root, sin is first and foremost an offense against God. If that is true, in the example of a failure to provide for one's family (1 Tim 5:8), it is a sin which is certainly a violation of one's family, but is first an offense to God. Essentially, it's "God said to do this ... and I said, 'No.'"
God went to a great deal of trouble to emphasize the hugely costly nature of sin. Starting in the garden, he warned that the most seemingly innocuous sin would result in death (Gen 3:3). Really? Eating a piece of fruit? That only makes sense if the sin in question was more than merely eating fruit. It was. It was an offense against God. He went on to prescribe a massive system of sacrifices of plants and animals (see, for instance, Numbers 28:1-8) because "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins." (Heb 9:22). "Why?" we might reasonably ask. "Sin is just missing the mark." It is the mark that is missed that is significant -- the glory of God. It is the mark that is missed that makes sin the egregious offense Scripture describes as requiring God's wrath (e.g., Rom 1:18). And, if what Jesus said was true (Luke 7:47), we will only love greatly when we really grasp the enormity of sin -- our own sin.
What else does the Bible say about sin? Well, the primary words tell us something. In Hebrew, chattath refers to "an offense" -- general enough -- and chata means "to miss." To miss the goal, the path, the way ... God's law. We get it. The primary Greek word is used in a variety of forms. The word "hamartia" appears 174 times and means, basically, the same as chata -- to miss the mark. So sin is "an offense" and "missing the mark."
The Bible says a lot more than that, though. There is everything from specifics like Jesus's redefinition of adultery to include lust (Matt 5:27-28), for example, all the way to the expansive "whatever is not from faith is sin." (Rom 14:23). That one actually exceeds the "violation of God's law" concept. If I am not convinced it is God's values, it's sin for me to do it. In this case, then, something like smoking can be labeled an actual sin, even though Scripture does not address it, because someone thinks it is. In that case, though, it is an individual sin, not a universal one. The one in Romans 3 is particularly instructive. Most of us can quote it. "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (Rom 3:23) Our problem is that we use it (correctly) to point out the universality of sin -- "all have sinned" -- and appear to miss the parallel statement about sin -- "fall short of the glory of God." Sin, at its core, is falling short of God's glory.
That's where it gets interesting. Let me say it again. Sin, at its core, is falling short of God's glory. Thus, sin, at its core, is a violation of God. Remember what David wrote about his sin with Bathsheba. "Against You, You only, have I sinned and done what is evil in Your sight." (Psa 51:4). We know sin to often be an offense against others, but, at its root, sin is first and foremost an offense against God. If that is true, in the example of a failure to provide for one's family (1 Tim 5:8), it is a sin which is certainly a violation of one's family, but is first an offense to God. Essentially, it's "God said to do this ... and I said, 'No.'"
God went to a great deal of trouble to emphasize the hugely costly nature of sin. Starting in the garden, he warned that the most seemingly innocuous sin would result in death (Gen 3:3). Really? Eating a piece of fruit? That only makes sense if the sin in question was more than merely eating fruit. It was. It was an offense against God. He went on to prescribe a massive system of sacrifices of plants and animals (see, for instance, Numbers 28:1-8) because "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins." (Heb 9:22). "Why?" we might reasonably ask. "Sin is just missing the mark." It is the mark that is missed that is significant -- the glory of God. It is the mark that is missed that makes sin the egregious offense Scripture describes as requiring God's wrath (e.g., Rom 1:18). And, if what Jesus said was true (Luke 7:47), we will only love greatly when we really grasp the enormity of sin -- our own sin.
Sunday, August 08, 2021
Solid
When Jude, the brother of James and Jesus, wrote his letter, he had intended ("I was very eager") to write about "our common salvation." But ... he didn't. He wrote about something else.
Jude refers to it as "the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints." Do you sense how solid that is? Do you see how timeless, how sure? He's not talking about shifting ground, new and improved discoveries, a new slant on an old faith. He's talking about "that old time religion." When Paul wrote, sometimes he'd refer to "my gospel" (Rom 2:16; Rom 16:25; 2 Tim 2:8). Some have understood that to mean that Paul's gospel was different than, say, Jesus's gospel or Peter's gospel. It wasn't. He also referred to it as "the gospel of God" (Rom 1:1, et. al.) and "the gospel of Christ" (Rom 15:19; et. al.). Paul's gospel wasn't a new revelation, a different gospel (Gal 1:6-9). It was the gospel that he carried to the Gentiles from long before (e.g., Rom 15:8-12). It was the faith once for all delivered to the saints.
I use Paul as an illustration. My point is very practical. We live in a changing world. In 2008 California voted twice to retain the "longstanding, traditional" definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman. In the blink of an eye, that definition has been erased. It is not beyond living memory that "gay" meant "happy" or "cheerful." When the old movies talked about "making love" they are talking about doing things that stir up romance; not today. Things are changing fast. We no longer have a clear idea of things like "male" or "female," "racism," or a growing number of concepts as our world seeks to manipulate our thoughts to arrive at new and different conclusions. So where can we go for stability? Paul told us, "Take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm." (Eph 6:13). Stand firm where? How? On what?
Jude's words come echoing down the corridors of time. "Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints." Yes, "our common salvation" would be a sweet discussion. But right now, we need to contend. Contend for what? Not modern ideas. Not current social themes. Not even yesterday's principles. We need to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. It was once for all. It doesn't shift. It doesn't change. If someone comes up with a new version, it is not that faith. If someone makes a new discovery that differs with it, it is not that faith. What I'm saying is, we who stand on that faith once for all delivered to the saints have firm footing, a solid foundation. It's important in a world shifting as rapidly as ours.
Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. (Jude 1:3)Now, this text serves as a call for Apologetics, a defense of the faith, and many people (including me) have focused on that. But I was caught by a trailing hook, so to speak. Yes, yes, by all means, contend for the faith. But I was struck by the nature of that faith.
Jude refers to it as "the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints." Do you sense how solid that is? Do you see how timeless, how sure? He's not talking about shifting ground, new and improved discoveries, a new slant on an old faith. He's talking about "that old time religion." When Paul wrote, sometimes he'd refer to "my gospel" (Rom 2:16; Rom 16:25; 2 Tim 2:8). Some have understood that to mean that Paul's gospel was different than, say, Jesus's gospel or Peter's gospel. It wasn't. He also referred to it as "the gospel of God" (Rom 1:1, et. al.) and "the gospel of Christ" (Rom 15:19; et. al.). Paul's gospel wasn't a new revelation, a different gospel (Gal 1:6-9). It was the gospel that he carried to the Gentiles from long before (e.g., Rom 15:8-12). It was the faith once for all delivered to the saints.
I use Paul as an illustration. My point is very practical. We live in a changing world. In 2008 California voted twice to retain the "longstanding, traditional" definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman. In the blink of an eye, that definition has been erased. It is not beyond living memory that "gay" meant "happy" or "cheerful." When the old movies talked about "making love" they are talking about doing things that stir up romance; not today. Things are changing fast. We no longer have a clear idea of things like "male" or "female," "racism," or a growing number of concepts as our world seeks to manipulate our thoughts to arrive at new and different conclusions. So where can we go for stability? Paul told us, "Take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm." (Eph 6:13). Stand firm where? How? On what?
Jude's words come echoing down the corridors of time. "Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints." Yes, "our common salvation" would be a sweet discussion. But right now, we need to contend. Contend for what? Not modern ideas. Not current social themes. Not even yesterday's principles. We need to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. It was once for all. It doesn't shift. It doesn't change. If someone comes up with a new version, it is not that faith. If someone makes a new discovery that differs with it, it is not that faith. What I'm saying is, we who stand on that faith once for all delivered to the saints have firm footing, a solid foundation. It's important in a world shifting as rapidly as ours.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)