A Spirit of Fear

While researching tomorrow's blog entry, I came across this verse. Paul famously wrote, "God has not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind." (2 Tim 1:7). We like that one. We really do. It resounds with us. Like Nike's "Just do it" or the ever present, "You do you," or the very popular idea of "Don't let anyone get in the way of your dreams." We like that. There is only one problem. Paul wasn't talking about that.

Fear is not all bad. In fact, there are things that should be feared. There is the obvious. Don't be fearless in front of an oncoming bus. That kind of thing. There is the really problematic. "There is no fear of God before their eyes" (Rom 3:18) was regarded as a real problem. So what was the point of "God has not given us the spirit of fear"?

Paul was writing to Timothy. Remembering his sincere faith that was passed down from his mother and grandmother, Paul told him, "For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands." (2 Tim 1:6). Now, I put a period just there, but my version has a comma; there's more to the thought. But Paul's point here is to urge Timothy "to fan into flame the gift of God." What was holding Timothy back? Apparently it was this "fear" he references in verse 7.

The word is interesting. Throughout the New Testament the Greek word translated fear is some form of φόβος -- phobos -- from which we obviously get our own "phobias." The word refers to that which strikes terror (or, in one, single translated instance, "respect" (Eph 5:31)). When Paul bemoaned the fact that "There is no fear of God before their eyes," he used that word, phobos. This is not that word. The word translated "fear" here occurs in the New Testament only in this text. Nowhere else. Its root occurs 4 times (Matt 8:26; Mark 4:40; Heb 12:28; Rev 21:8). It most correctly means "cowardly" or "timid." So in this verse in 2 Timothy the KJV translates it as "fear" while the NAS prefers "timidity" and Interlinear goes with "cowardice." Clearly these are all related and somewhat similar, but phobos -- terror -- and "timidity" or "cowardice" are not quite the same.

So what is Paul's point here? Paul is not saying, "There's nothing to fear." Clearly, there are lots of things we should fear, beginning with God. What Paul is saying here is "In those things that God has given you to do, don't be timid. That's not why God gave them to you. That's not what God empowered you to be. In those things God has given you to do and be, He has given you power and love and a sound mind. Don't be timid, then, but be powerful, loving, and thinking clearly."

All of the sudden it doesn't seem to be nearly as much about "Don't be afraid" and about a whole lot more, doesn't it?

News Weakly - 10/30/21

2nd Hand Social Media
Doctors around the world are reporting a new pandemic, a rapid rise in teenage girls developing Tourette-like tics from Tik Tok. Tik Tok is a Chinese social networking service primarily for sharing videos. Trump was worried about national security over Tik Tok. Now it's addiction, pornographic content, privacy concerns, cyberbullying, and, this latest, sudden-onset-Tik-Tok-induced Tourette Syndrome. What could go wrong? We've loved the affects of cigarettes and all that. Let's keep this thing going, too!

You Keep Using That Word
The Tennessean reports "Conservative Southern Baptist leader Mike Stone sues Russell Moore." The problem is a claim of "defamation, false light invasion of privacy, and emotional distress" against Russell Moore, former president of the Southern Baptist's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. Moore quit that job and leaked documents against a variety of Southern Baptist leaders. Without defending Moore or any Southern Baptist leaders, I'd really like to get the media to stop using terms like "conservative" when describing a Southern Baptist leader openly and intentionally taking a believer to court in direct and clear violation of the Scriptures (1 Cor 6:1-6) that a true conservative Christian would uphold. Stop it. Both of these men have opted to drag the name of Jesus through the mud for all to see. Please don't refer to them as "conservative."

Honest Evil
New Zealand's prime minister was in an interview talking about a new traffic light system they were going to adopt. She said they would move forward when each District Health Board has 90 per cent of its population with both doses of the vaccine." The reporter asked if she wasn't creating two different classes of people -- the vaccinated and the unvaccinated. She unapologetically agreed, "That it is what it is. So, yep. Yep." But, please, let's not have any of those stupid comparisons to the Jews in Nazi Germany and the like, okay?

Strange Definition of "Irreparable Harm"
Days before some new Oklahoma life-saving laws were supposed to go into effect, the Oklahoma Supreme Court issued a temporary stay to allow the ongoing murder of babies. "'The Oklahoma Supreme Court recognized that these laws would cause irreparable harm to Oklahomans,' Center for Reproductive Rights President and CEO Nancy Northup said." Right. Because if an Oklahoman can't be killing an "unauthorized" baby, it will do them "irreparable harm." I'm sure the baby would like to contest that analysis.

Almost Right
I complain so much about the media that I thought it only fair to point to one story someone almost got right. All the outlets were reporting about the Texas transgender law that Governor Abbott signed, but I only saw one that intentionally made the salient point. "LGBT advocates say it will prevent transgender athletes from participating on teams designated for their gender identity," the story says. However, CBS also points out that the "bill's text states it will address past discrimination against girls in athletics." Despite the loud complaints from the media and the LGBT crowd, the bill is not about transgender, but about protecting girls from sports injuries incurred by playing against biological males. Now if only they got the "transgender" thing right. (I still haven't figured out what a "gay transgender" is.)

The Importance of Words
Last year during the riots in Kenosha, WI, around the shooting of Jacob Blake, Kyle Rittenhouse shot and killed two people and wounded another. His trial is going on now. A Wisconsin judge decided that those who died in the shooting could not be termed "victims" because Rittenhouse has not been convicted. Now, the simple fact that these dead men were unquestionably victims of a shooting is irrelevant here because if the prosecuters call them "victims," that would prejudice the jury. The defense can call them "looters, rioters, arsonists, or any other pejorative term" because that is definitely not yet determined. Tell me again why we put our trust in "the justice system."

Not News
The story says the White House will not be giving out any treats this year. Well, that's not really news, is it? Oh, for Halloween. Okay. But still ...

The Friendly Skies?
If you travel ... anywhere -- "passenger railroads, intercity bus services, and other public transportation" -- the Department of Homeland Security's Transportation Security Administration (TSA) now promises to fine you from $500 to $3,000 for failing to wear a mask. Vaccination status is irrelevant because we all know the vaccine doesn't protect you from getting or spreading COVID. I just love the comment of the TSA Administrator. "By doubling the range of penalties, we seek to reinforce the importance of voluntary adherence." "Voluntary adherence"? Is it voluntary when it's forced? "Have a nice flight ... just ... you know ... without sufficient air." Friendly skies indeed.

Unequal Justice
During the Obama presidency illegal immigrant families were separated at the border. Crickets. No one cares. During the Trump presidency illegal immigrant families were separated at the border. Outrageous! So now the Biden administration wants to make amends and provide an estimated $450,000 per person compensation. Mind you, many of the separations were because the family relationship was unclear or even nonexistent. Mind you, these people were coming into the country illegally. Mind you, we don't care. It was Trump! Please pay out the $1 billion and charge it to our account.

The New "Fake News"
From the UK Health Security Agency, there is a disturbing report. The report is an examination into the effectiveness of the COVID vaccine. Important question. The report says that the effectiveness of the Pfizer vaccine against infection is between 75% and 85% and against symptomatic disease is between 80% and 90%. In the last 5 weeks for everyone above the age of 30 those who have been vaccinated with at least 2 doses outpace the COVID cases of those who are unvaccinated (pg. 17). That is, currently, in the UK, more fully vaccinated people are getting COVID than unvaccinated people. We will, of course, have to suppress this as "misinformation."

Beagle Outrage
You may have heard about Fauci and his puppy experimentation, not only infecting beagles with diseases to test for remedies, but also cutting their vocal cords so they wouldn't have to hear them whimper. Fodder for the satire sites. Genesius Times says that the FDA has agreed to use children ages 5-11 in deadly experiments instead of beagles. The Bee suggests Dr. Fauci is hoping that the beagle story will distract from the fact that he has been performing experiments on humanity for the past 18 months.

Must be true; I read it on the internet.

Postscript: I had to laugh at the "Coronavirus has died after infecting Chuck Norris" story.

Lies and Statistics

Normally this would have been on my News Weakly for this week, but it was a bit too long for that vehicle.

The story is out. A report released by a group called the Arizona Public Health Association claims that COVID is now the leading cause of death in Arizona. The report is based on the Arizona Department of Health Services Data Dashboard for COVID deaths and the CDC WONDER page for causes of death. Beware, Arizonans; COVID is lurking at your door.

As it turns out, the CDC does not have data for 2020 (or 2021), so the report based its evaluation on earlier data, assuming no change. Of course, lots of sources are reporting that deaths from these other causes (like heart disease, cancer, suicide, and drug overdose) skyrocketed in 2020 largely because of COVID fear. The CDC itself had a report on that. The CDC reported a 15.9% increase in deaths in 2020 in all areas. That information didn't make it to this analysis. I wonder why?

So, while the CDC still lists heart disease as the #1 cause of death in Arizona (and the U.S.), this report is much more reliable. Why? As it turns out (buried in the story above), the executive director of the Arizona Public Health Association has been a staunch opponent of Arizona's handling of the pandemic. Is it possible there is an ulterior motive for this report?

The actual data available says that in 2019 Arizona saw 12560 deaths from heart disease alone and 24500 with heart disease as a contributor. In 2019, there were 12485 cancer deaths in Arizona. Moving to 2020, Arizona saw 13237 deaths from COVID. If the CDC is right and there was a 15% increase in deaths in 2020, that would put heart disease deaths around 14500 and cancer deaths upwards of 14400, both more than COVID. (If we just used a 10% increase, those numbers would be 13800 and 13700 respectively, still more than COVID.) Taking into account the CDC reports and the Arizona Department of Health Services data and so forth -- you know, actual facts -- it turns out that the Arizona Public Health Association is fibbing. It turns out that this story is a lie and those who are propogating it are propogating a lie. You can pick a possible motive for the lie, but it appears to be a lie.

I don't suppose anyone might think there was ulterior motives in this report, would they? Nah! That can't be. This wouldn't fall under the category of "misinformation," would it? Surely not! "Misinformation" is defined today as "the stuff that contradicts what we claim to be facts." Ultimately, what they are not telling anyone is that the leading cause of death worldwide is actually abortion, accounting for 42 million unborn babies in 2020. But, sure, let's go with COVID on this. Much better press.

Far from Center

By default, human beings operate on the basis, "I will be like the Most High." We spend a lot of time training the youngest not to, with questionable success. With the advent of helicopter parents and the "global good" of "just be yourself" and "don't let anyone stop your dreams," the latest generation is being called the "me generation" because they have been taught to embrace "me first." But pointing at them doesn't help; we all do it.

When it comes, then, to being a Christian -- a follower of Christ -- we find a rearranged world. We find that we are not the center. On one hand, the sooner we learn that, the better off we are. On the other hand it's such a foreign concept that many of us struggle with it.

Take, for instance, the "cheerful giver." The term isn't obscure. We all know "God loves a cheerful giver." (2 Cor 9:7). We all know, "It is more blessed to give than to receive." (Acts 20:35). But for most of us giving doesn't come naturally. Consider. The common question among Christians is "How much am I required to give?" One statistic says that if Christians tithed -- gave 10% -- there would be an additional $165 billion available for churches to use. But what do we see? Christians on average give 2%. Wait! What did we likely hear as you were reading these last two sentences? Someone has likely countered, "Christians aren't required to tithe!" The statement is true. There is no New Testament command to for Gentile believers to tithe. And that, dear reader, is why we Christians like to ask, "How much am I required to give?"

You will note that the question is, at its core, wrong headed. It comes from "I" and assumes "me" at the center. It begins with the premise, "What I have is mine." Scripture, on the other hand, asks, "What do you have that you did not receive?" (1 Cor 4:7). David declares, "The earth is the LORD's and the fullness thereof, the world and those who dwell therein." (Psa 24:1). God's Word is not unclear; everything belongs to God. Applying that fact to the question at hand, it would seem that the proper question would be, "How much do I actually need to keep?" Instead of "How much stuff can I accumulate? How much pleasure can I purchase? How much comfort in life can I buy?", we should be asking, "What does the Owner of these funds want me to do with them for His glory?" Instead of "How much am I required to give?" it should be "How little can I keep?"

But that's not us, is it? Surrendering all like that seems ... unnatural. So we try to determine how little we have to give up or how far we can go toward sin or how much time do we actually need to spend in prayer and God's Word? We have lives. We have concerns. We are people on the go and we are, beyond all that, very important. Some of us where better masks over our "me first" attitudes, but not one of us is free of it. So Jesus's "If anyone would come after Me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow Me" (Matt 16:24; Mark 8:34; Luke 9:23) seems pretty harsh. And that's simply because we are still people in sinful flesh (Rom 7:22-24) who forget that we are far from the center. The world does not revolve around "me."

Inciting Terror

This could be the most outlandish thing I've heard to date. Based on a report from the Yale School of Public Health, the headline reads "Unvaccinated people should expect to catch COVID every 16 months." Mind you, COVID has infected 10% of the population. Mind you, the vaccination lasts 6 months and needs to be boosted, from all appearances, every 6 months, so the immunity acquired from catching COVID is, according to Yale, more than 3 times as long as the vaccinated immunity. But the real problem is only 10% have been infected with COVID. So why would they decide to state that all unvaccinated people should expect to be infected every 16 months? This is why we hear people tell us, "We're all going go die!" (And I haven't heard that from only one.) This is why people are so terrified of COVID. This is why people have lost their minds to so much fear that they believe that any unvaccinated need to be quarantined, locked up, or worse. This is absolutely intended to produce terror. (And what they're not saying but must if they're going to stand by this headline is that every vaccinated person will need continuous, 6-month boosters ... for life.)

Read the Yale report. What they said was the immunity for those who recovered from COVID wanes, on average, after 16 months. The report did not say people should expect to get it. Statistically, no one should expect to get it. You have a 90% chance of not getting it. But that doesn't matter anymore. The media, the government, and now the populace have lost their minds to this virus. We happily surrendered freedom for security after 9/11. We surrendered far more freedom when this virus came out in 2020. We're being conditioned to surrender freedom for safety like so many sheep. And we're thanking them for it. Just shut your mouths, roll up your sleeves, take the continuous shots, and thank the government and Big Pharma for their kindness. Whatever you do, don't THINK.

When Words Fail

I have been complaining for a long time about the dissolution of language. It doesn't take a super genius or even a conservative to see that our world appears to be in the business of rewriting the way we communicate with each other. From less books and more internet to radical language revision to ... fill in your own example ... we're working harder than ever to change how people think by altering how we communicate (a la 1984). Do I think it's a conspiracy? Of course! But not one of human origin. This one comes from the father of lies.

In my short lifetime we've seen the end of "marriage" as a reasonable term, the shift of "love" to "sex," and whole lot of "alternative definitions" in the same sense as the ludicrous "alternative facts." These new definitions include defining "inclusiveness" to include exclusiveness, "tolerance" to embrace intolerance, and "equality" to begin to mean inequality. "Racism" no longer means "believing a particular race is superior to others" and now means "white people." "Sexism" once referred to the parallel of "racism" -- the belief that a particular sex was better than another. Now "sexism" is defined as "males." No one ever questioned "gender" before and now we've decided it has no actual meaning at all. One site, a "gender wiki," lists 249 different genders. Absolute nonsense.

How is this possible? How can we slip into such insanity? Oh, that's easy. Sin rots the brain. The more we embrace sin, the more our brains rot. Today we classify sin -- especially sexual immorality -- as perhaps the highest good. So it is no surprise that we can't even define simple terms or communicate properly. We live in a crazy world.

Some would like me to believe that what is needed is more careful reasoning and clearer logic. That might work in a sane-but-misguided world, but that's not the world in which we find ourselves today. I think the better option is elsewhere. I've noticed that, when I offer Scripture, opponents just dodge it. When I show "this verse" and "that passage," they certainly don't agree, but neither do they offer answers ... to those passages. "Oh, that's not true," they'll tell me. "That's just your opinion," they'll assure me. but what they don't do is tell me what those passages actually mean. Why? Because "the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart." (Heb 4:12). Because God says that His Word "shall not return to Me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it." (Isa 55:11).

Maybe you disagree. Maybe you have a better plan. I'm beginning to see that this is a problem stirred up by the prince of the power of the air -- you know, the one whose path is followed by those dead in their sins (Eph 2:1-3). I'm beginning to see that it's the work of the god of this world who "has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God." (2 Cor 4:4). Trying to do battle in logic and reason and facts with a people who have little use for any of that becomes pointless. I think it's time to let a God capable of making live people out of dead people and open blind eyes do the work. As for me, I'll take that better "sword."

Strategy

When we were young church-going boys, we loved the Old Testament. So many stories of war and battles and all. Of course, later it became very interesting to see the strategies employed. Many times an opponent of Israel would send overwhelming forces to wipe out this little nation only to get defeated. Then there was Israel vs Ai when Israel sent underwhelming forces because "this will be easy" and got sent packing. In the Bible, battle plans often went sideways. In the Bible, it was always because God was in charge. So it made me wonder; what about us today? We have battles today -- primarily political and social and such. Are we employing good strategies? How do our strategies compare with the Old Testament ones?

Almost without exception the one expected to win the battle in the Bible and in today's world is the one with the biggest numbers, the best weapons -- the biggest force. That was the Old Testament view, too. "We're under threat! Let's get some help ..." from Egypt or others. Ahab enlisted Jehoshaphat's aid (2 Chron 18:3). Israel went to Egypt for assistance (Isa 31:1). The Scriptures warn not to put our "trust in princes" (Psa 118:9; Psa 146:3) when clearly "princes" are the power we should enlist to help. And we do it today, don't we? We form coalitions to affect voters and public opinion. We urge people to vote the way we want to protect our rights and our freedoms. We even join with spiritual opponents who share our political views to protect ourselves from "the Left" or "socialists" or whatever other political evil is right around the corner ... or currently in our faces. It's interesting, then, that 1) we tend toward the same strategies that they did in the Old Testament stories and 2) God so often disdains those strategies.

I like some of the strategies we find in Scripture. God told Joshua to "march around the city 7 days in a row and then blow trumpets." Um ... right, God. But they did, and the results are remembered to this day. Gideon gathered a large army to fight the Midianites and ended up taking only 300 into battle at God's instructions to keep Gideon and Israel from saying, "My own power has delivered me" (Judges 7:2), and it was a rousing victory. My favorite, though was Jehoshaphat's battle plan. He heard that "A great multitude is coming against you from beyond the sea" and was rightly terrified, so he "turned his attention to seek the LORD" (2 Chron 20:3), him and all his people. God told him, "The battle is not yours but God's." (2 Chron 20:15). So Jehoshaphat put together his battle plan. He took his people to the place where the battle would occur. He put the choir out front. And they sang hymns and watched God annihilate the enemy (2 Chron 20:20-23).

I wonder sometimes if we couldn't pick up a few pointers from these stories. We wring our hands or get ourselves worked up into a fighting mood over all the evils and inequities and injustices we see around us. And we set up committees and form unions and prepare strategies. "This means war!" And all along God is standing by. "The battle is not yours but God's." I wonder if sometimes we might not be better off if we put the choirs out in front and worshiped God rather than fretting over our trials. Well, it's a thought. It might be difficult since we rarely use choirs anymore, right?

Free from Anxiety

In 1 Corinthians Paul famously addresses the married (1 Cor 7:1-15) with some controversial stuff, so, many of us miss his comments to the single (1 Cor 7:25-40). In particular, he gets a little odd there:

This is what I mean, brothers: the appointed time has grown very short. From now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none, and those who mourn as though they were not mourning, and those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing, and those who buy as though they had no goods, and those who deal with the world as though they had no dealings with it. For the present form of this world is passing away. (1 Cor 7:29-31)

Okay, let's see ... "Let those who have wives live as though they had none ..." Umm, right. Paul, is this kind of like "the sound of one hand clapping or something? What is he talking about here?

The topic is "If you're married, stay that way; if not, stay that way." (1 Cor 7:27-28) Why? Because "the appointed time has grown very short." Right. Wait, what? "The present form of this world is passing away." Oh, okay. So how do we make sense of this?

Paul already made it clear that husbands and wives had responsibilities to each other (1 Cor 7:3-5). He's not saying, "Cease your relationships." What, then? He's saying that this world system is on its way out. He's saying that it's on its way out soon. In fact, it is an unavoidable reality that we are closer than ever to Christ's return. "In light of this," Paul is saying, "live for eternity." How? Don't be so attached to the things of this world. Don't make your spouse your sole focus. Don't make your emotional journey your primary concern. Don't live for "stuff" ("those who buy"). Don't live for pleasure ("use the world"). "All this," Paul is saying, "is temporary." It's a vapor, a mere moment in time. In view of eternity, it's a blip. "And," he says, "it will be trouble." (1 Cor 7:28).

Paul says, "I want you to be free from anxieties." (1 Cor 7:32). How? Don't be so tied to this world. Don't make this world your home. We're just, as Peter puts it, "sojourners and exiles." (1 Peter 2:11). We're just passing through. Look, you know us. You know how we are. We get wrapped up in our surroundings. What will we eat? What will we wear? What will we do? Paul says to let it go. Yes, love your spouse, weep and rejoice, buy, and even enjoy what God gives us to enjoy in the world, but don't get caught up with it. Like he said previously, "All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything." (1 Cor 6:12). Do those things, but do them in a helpful way and not under their control. Live for Jesus.

News Weakly - 10/23/21

Sad Passing
Colin Powell died due to complications from COVID-19 after being fully vaccinated. Sad for him and his family and friends. A warning note for those who are placing their hope in a vaccine.

Powell's death was a sad passing. The Arizona Cardinals, on the other hand, have some pretty good passing. They are undefeated this year so far. In mid-July they were 50% vaccinated, but by September they were at 100%. It's odd, then, that the Cardinals lead the league in COVID cases -- 23 so far. Six just this last week. Odd how "fully vaccinated" seems to be losing its force.

California Again
Californian parents, kids, and school employees protested the statewide vaccine mandate for school employees and kids. In California school-age children (5-17) constitute 12% of the COVID cases and 0.037% of the deaths from COVID. For that age group, COVID is a nonentity. But let's get all those kids jabbed and now because ... well ... we know better. "Can I avoid this shot?" the little boy asks. "No! You're a minor!" "Can I be a girl?" "Sure! You know best!"

In related news, thank goodness the White House is on the job. They're finally planning to roll out COVID vaccinations for the least threatened, least impacted people on the planet -- the children. Soon children from 5-11 will be able to get vaccinated against a disease that has hardly disturbed the waters of this age group. File that under "protecting the well-defended." Of course, science is still not sure whether that's actually a good idea, but Biden promised to "believe science" ... unless, of course, he chooses not to. In the meantime, killing the unborn remains a high priority.

Politics as Usual
Everyone knows that churches cannot promote political candidates or they risk the loss of their tax-exempt status. Apparently over 300 black churches across Virginia have nothing to fear on that score when they air their video featuring Kamala Harris encouraging viewers to vote for Terry McAuliffe for governor. That old "No politics in the pulpit" doesn't apply to pulpits that agree with the party in power, I suppose

SIWs?
The "great Howard Stern" took on a black NBA player for his position on the vaccine. Of Kyrie Irving he said, "In terms of idiots, he’s got to be the top idiot in the country right now." He sprinkled in some other descriptives I won't reprint. Luckily, all the Social Justice Warriors jumped on him instantly, warning Stern to be less intolerant, less judgmental, less racist. Oh, wait, no. I guess as long as you're saying what the SJWs like, it's okay to be all that and more. Does that make them Social Injustice Warriors in this case?

Juxtaposition
The "ACLU" (I put it in quotes because they have demonstrated that the will pick and choose which "American civil liberties" they will defend) is suing Oklahoma because they have outlawed curriculum that teaches that "an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex" or that "an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously." The lawsuit is over free speech. In stark contrast, then, Netflix employees walked out in protest of Dave Chappelle's humor because no one has the right to make jokes about anything LGBTQ+. And a top Berkeley physicist has resigned because his colleagues refuse to allow a geophysicist speak because of his views on merit-based college admissions. Dear ACLU, "free speech" is under attack in much more prevalent places than this. Oddly, you oppose it in cases that you oppose the speech. Isn't that a bit hypocritical?

What it Ain't
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez waved her superior education on Twitter defining capitalism as "a system that prioritizes profit at any & all human/enviro cost." There are, apparently, no dictionaries or internet where AOC lives. The accusation is that she is using capitalism to push socialism, "investing heavily in her online store, selling T-shirts, sweatshirts and other merchandise with her name ..." Yes, that is capitalism. Unless, of course, we've redefined "capitalism" like we have "marriage," "racism," "sexism," "inclusion," "tolerance" ... oh, a long list.

Satire That Makes You Want to Cry
In a tragic event, Alec Baldwin fired a prop gun that killed a cinematrographer and injured the director on the set of his current movie. (If you want a laugh, the Bing news feed headline for that story read, "Prop gun kills one." Mean ol' prop gun.) Clearly accidental. Clearly sad. One might wonder, however, why the media isn't jumping on this "mass shooting."

In other news, given Terry McAuliffe's position that guys who consider themselves girls should be allowed to use the girls' bathroom laid alongside the reported rape of a teenage girl in a high school bathroom by a boy dressed as a girl, it might not seem a leap to conclude that churches in Virginia will be interrupting worship for a brief message from Satan. I'm just sayin'.

DEIty

Forbes complained about Netflix's CEO and his "non-apology apology" around Dave Chappelle. Some of the comments in the story are enlightening. Let's take a look.

"Inclusion," writer Davia Temin said, "means that you really have to listen and be sensitive to diverse voices." Sure. But "inclusion" also means "inclusion," and the point of what is termed the "culture wars" is that inclusion now includes exclusion. Temin went on to say that Ted Sarandos's decision to run Chappelle's special "put Netflix smack between artistic freedom/freedom of speech and progressive values around inclusion and sensitivity to previously marginalized groups." So now values that oppose "artistic freedom/freedom of speech" are considered "progressive." We're movin' on. No more of that "free speech" stuff around here.

You can clearly see what's at stake here. In order to be "inclusive," it is necessary to exclude people who say what we, the powers that be, deem "offensive" in a very specific way. It's okay to offend those who don't agree with us. It's "progressive" to exclude those who don't agree with our "inclusiveness." And if you try to defend such things as genuine inclusiveness or free speech or artistic freedom, you are, in Temin's words, a bully. Standing for freedoms like that is now "a controversial stance."

Temin urged Sarandos to lead with "humanity, empathy, and compassion" and not to "reduce them to buzz words" as she reduced inclusion, tolerance, and freedom to buzz words. Currently "diversity, equity, and inclusion" is god. It even has its own acronym: DEI. A kind of "DEIty," I suppose. I can only dream that the DEI people could learn to be more diverse, equal, and inclusive in their efforts. While those are good things to pursue, doing so at the cost of the very things they are pursuing makes no sense. And what will they do when they find themselves no longer in power, excluded, marginalized, and no longer free to speak?

In Case There Were Questions

After my thoughts on the vaccine earlier this week, I got some very helpful inputs. Some were helpful like "I'll be praying" or "Trust God" or the like. Some were helpful like "You're an idiot" and "How could you even question the science?" kind of "helpful." Thanks to all. While I have probably come to my own conclusion on this (bearing in mind lots of good input), I thought I'd develop the thinking a little further so that people might be able to examine it for themselves.

There are lots of people who oppose the COVID vaccine. There are lots of reasons. They range from the legitimate to the absurd. Some have religious objections (valid or not). Some have medical objections. Some don't trust the government. Some question the science. Some are opposed on principle to the mandate. Some think it's an attempt to control us or kill us or some such. Lots and lots of reasons. Some of those reasons would, if carried to their logical conclusion, require other right-thinking people to also oppose the vaccine. Others take a more "libertarian" approach. "I oppose it for me. You are certainly free and even advised to get the vaccine."

I oppose the vaccine. I'm one who opposes it for personal reasons in contrast to sounding the alarm: "It's evil! Run!" I don't look down on anyone who has taken or is considering taking the vaccine. I don't think this falls in a "universal" status. I don't have a religious objection and I am saddened that Christians would try to use the Bible to prove that God is opposed to the vaccine. First, let me be clear. I am not working off of "misinformation" or "conspiracy theories." My sources are places like the CDC, the NIH, medical laboratories, and major news outlets. So ... what kind of objections do I have?

Since the Bible says nothing on the topic -- you know, my "go to" source of truth -- I'm forced to consider other things. First and foremost, there's the science. "That's settled!" they tell me. Really? In the news this week, Colin Powell died from complications from COVID-19 after being fully vaccinated. The CDC says, "No vaccine is 100% effective at preventing illness." We got that. We all agree. People with no immunity are the highest risk for contracting and dying from COVID. This is no surprise and no debate. People with the vaccine can still get, spread, and even die from COVID. We've also heard and agree to that. According to the CDC, the unvaccinated are 6 times more likely to get COVID and 11 times more likely to die from COVID. According to the CDC, the vaccine is between 86% and 89% effective against hospitalization from COVID. All scientific facts. But ...

What about those who have had COVID? Typically, scientists refer to those who recover from COVID-19 as having "natural immunity." (I object to the term. I think "natural immunity" should refer to those who have immunity prior to getting exposed. According to some studies up to 60% of us have that form of natural immunity. I would call immunity from having recovered from COVID "acquired immunity" and immunity from the vaccine as "injected immunity", but, hey, no one cares what I think.) Going with their term, studies have been ongoing regarding how long natural immunity lasts. Back in January of 2021, the National Institutes of Health determined that "The immune systems of more than 95% of people who recovered from COVID-19 had durable memories of the virus up to eight months after infection." A more recent study put it out to 15 months. Both numbers are longer than the 6 months that they're telling us the vaccine gives us. And how effective is natural immunity? One large study said that the reinfection rate of those who have recovered from COVID was on the order of 0.7%. That is, 99.3% effective … versus 89% effective for the vaccine (or less).

Let's review. Science tells us that the vaccine is not failsafe. (Nothing is.) You can still get, spread, and even die from COVID whether or not you're vaccinated. Science tells us the vaccinated are less likely to be hospitalized or die from it than those who have not been immunized, but they also have a higher rate of infection ("breakthrough cases") than those who have had COVID and recovered. Breakthrough cases are as high as 14% while reinfection is less than 0.7%. Science tells us that the vaccine-acquired immunity is good for 6 months, but the immunity from having recovered from COVID is 18 months or more. So why are we not including those who have recovered from COVID among the "immunized"?

The effectiveness of the vaccine compared to the risk of the vaccine is an issue. This week New Zealand -- the land of the COVID-protection overkill, with major lockdowns and more than 75% vaccinated -- had its highest single day number of cases since COVID began. How can that be? Six months ago the prediction was that the vaccine immunity would lose 50% of its effectiveness every 108 days. One study indicated that antibody levels dropped after 12 weeks. Yale Medicine reports that CDC data indicates the vaccine effectiveness is dropping from 92% to 75% effectiveness. Isn't it interesting that one of the largest spikes occurred after the vaccines were rolled out? The government and the media are telling us it's an "unvaccinated epidemic" while they scurry about making sure people get their boosters because, well, it doesn't appear to be doing its job as well as it had before.

Something else science tells us is that there are lots of variables in here. All those percentages show that the realities vary from person to person. Age makes a difference. A person's immune system makes a difference. There are people who have died from the vaccine, for instance. What I want to know, then, is why it is that we're taking this "one size fits all" approach? Is it laziness? Is it apathy? Is it expediency? I'll tell you what it is not; it's not science.

I have another real concern here, and it, too, is science. Science tells us that we don't know the long-term effects of this vaccine. That's no fault of the vaccine, of course. It hasn't been around long-term, so we can't know. That's just the way things are. We could have a reasonable guess if this vaccine was a standard vaccine because we've tried lots of those before -- mumps, measles, chicken pox, polio, smallpox, the flu ... on and on and on. But this is not that. This is brand new. So here we are mandating that everyone submit themselves as guinea pigs for this grand experiment we call an "mRNA vaccine" and nod with confidence without cause that it will all be okay. Really? Then why are we giving Big Pharma a free pass and not holding them responsible for their product? It started for the emergency sake, but now that the FDA has approved it, why are we not holding their feet to the fire? Because they know that there could be problems Look, we just found out that the phthalates that have been in use since the 1920's are killing us , so, hey, let's jump on this "new vaccine" regimen without the slightest hesitation or concern. Well, I'll tell you what; I'll volunteer to be part of the "control group." We need some to not be vaccinated to compare with the vaccinated to see, long term, what the outcome is. I'll be that "not vaccinated" group ... for science.

Currently there are about 240 million cases worldwide and 45 million cases in the US (which leads the world in cases). Currently there have been about 5 million deaths worldwide and 725,000 deaths in the US. Let's do the math. In the US, that's a 13.5% infection rate with a case-fatality ration of 1.6%. Roughly 1 in 10 have been infected and less than 2% of those have died. Worldwide, it's only 3% who have been infected and 2% of those have died. In terms of overall fatality from COVID, Around 0.2% of the American population have died from COVID and something like 0.06% of the world population. Deaths are sad. Sickness isn't good. It's not good news. I think we're all agreed. But it's not the end of the world. We're not all gonna die (as I have actually been told by multiple sources). More than 85% of Americans have not been infected. Almost none of those who have died from it. Oh, by the way, roughly 95% of the deaths from this virus are 50 years old and older. The under-50 crowd make up less than 5% of the deaths. But, by all means, let's panic. Let's run around trying to solve a problem that is nowhere near as big as the government and the media and the alarmists at large are making it out to be. Where is the sanity in all of this?

One other factor. We live in America, the land of the free and the home of the brave. Oh, hold on. No. Not in this instance. In this instance you will submit. In this case you will bow the knee to your lord and master, Big Pharma. Oh, no, that's not fair. Big Government. Alright, not entirely. The tide of public opinion. In fact, I suspect it's all that and more. We here in America prize individuality, equality, and liberty. Except here and now. Women shout from the highest rooftops (like the Supreme Court), "My body! My choice!" and we applaud them. "Yes!" we cry, "You should be allowed to kill your baby if you so choose!" I whisper from my little blog, "My body, my choice," and they want to pin me down ... with a needle. "Shut up and take your medicine." Never mind that I find it morally objectionable. Never mind that I find it legally questionable. Never mind that I have rational, scientific questions and concerns. Never mind that I've been immunized by nature itself. As I said in my earlier entry, "This is America! We do not 'freedom' here!"

I believe that Science says that I am just as safe with natural immunity for myself and for others as any vaccinated person is. I believe that Science says that between me and the vaccinated, I am safer for me and those in my sphere than the vaccinated are. I think that Science agrees with me that we still don't know long-term effects. I believe that legally and morally forcing this one-size-fits-all medical experiment on everyone is wrong. What's most disturbing to me is this prevailing sense that anyone who has these science-based, unanswered concerns is an idiot at best and certainly morally reprehensible. It looks a lot like the end of a lot that once made America great, doesn't it? It certainly makes me wonder why they keep saying, "Trust science!" when what they mean is "Listen to ME when I find some science that agrees with me." All this to say I object, and I'll just have to trust God with the outcome.

The Awful Alternative

Traditional, biblical Christianity has claimed from the beginning that the Bible teaches that Jesus died for our sins, that with His blood He paid the price that justice demanded and bought our forgiveness by taking our sins on Himself. Traditional, biblical Christianity then holds that we can be justified by grace through faith apart from works. The first version ("traditional") of this concept was called "the Ransom Theory." (Mark 10:45; 1 Tim 2:5-6). This view says just this: By His death, Jesus paid the ransom price for us. He redeemed us (Rom 3:24-25; Eph 1:7). Other theories rose around (not apart from) this one. Jesus came to have a moral impact (the "Moral Theory") and to be victorious over Satan ("Christus Victor"), but all through these others the Ransom Theory was fundamental. These others didn't deny or replace that basic claim of the Church and the Scriptures. Other theories emerged later. Anselm suggested that Jesus satisfied the demands of a Just God (the "Satisfaction Theory") -- that Jesus satisfied God's just wrath for our sin (1 John 2:2; ; Rom 3:25) -- but you can see that's just an expansion or clarification for the Ransom Theory. The Reformers put forth the "Penal Substitutionary Theory" as a refinement of the Satisfaction Theory, again an expansion and/or clarification of the Ransom Theory. Of course, to this day alternate views abound. He did not die to pay for sin. He did not redeem us. He did not become sin for us (2 Cor 5:21). From there they branch out. Some say He simply died as an example of what love looks like. Others say, "He died so everyone would be saved." (Universalism) At the core of these objections to the traditional, biblical view is just this: The cross is an offense. "God would never demand such a thing. That's not right."

Setting aside the argument for a moment, let's just take up the possibility that traditional, biblical Christianity has, for all this time, been wrong. Jesus died, sure, but He didn't "pay the price." He didn't "satisfy God's wrath." He didn't "fulfill the demands of justice." He died ... for some other purpose. What can we conclude? I think there are a few clear things.

First, clearly God is not "just and justifier" (Rom 3:26). The Ransom Theory and its sequels start with the premise that sin demands justice. Jesus did not satisfy that demand, so God is not just. Abraham asked, "Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?" (Gen 18:25). No, Abe, He won't. Second, while those opposed to the Ransom Theory et al. agree that Jesus died, they also must agree that He died unjustly. We all agree that what was done to Jesus was not just, certainly not in human terms. But Scripture is clear that God planned it (e.g., Acts 2:23; Acts 4:27-28). Thus, God's plan was not to satisfy the demands of justice for sin, but to perpetuate injustice on the person of His Son.

There are, of course, other losses. All those believers for all those centuries were wrong. All those fine hymns -- Nothing but the Blood, When I Survey the Wondrous Cross, Beneath the Cross of Jesus, and so on -- are all bad, evil, offensive. Well, of course, and the Holy Spirit failed to bring so many of His own to the truth. Sure, to many, the cross is an offense. Well, Paul said it would be (1 Cor 1:18). To me a God who does not seek justice -- who does not provide what is right either for Himself, for His Son, or for His creation -- is not a God I can worship. Fortunately for me, the Bible portrays Him as that just, righteous, wrathful-while-forgiving, justifying God. That is indeed "Amazing grace." The Bible says that Christ died for our sins, ransomed us, redeemed us, paid the price for us (1 Cor 6:20). I know. Even some self-professed Christians find that offensive. Jesus isn't surprised (1 John 2:19).

Loving Yourself

Even those in the world know the command: "Love your neighbor as you love yourself." They may not do it or even like it, but we all know it. But for some there is an easy answer. "Oh, that's easy. I can't stand myself. I can do that toward others, too."

Famed theologian Whitney Houston sang, "Learning to love yourself, It is the greatest love of all." Why? Well, because we all know that low self-esteem is a pandemic in its own right. There is a dearth of self-love. Just look around you. There are hoards of humans who fail to harbor warm affection for themselves. It's a real problem.

Which brings me to my point. I have argued much that "love" in the modern culture is not "love" in the Bible. Love in the vernacular is "warm affection," but in the Bible it is a choice we make to seek the best for others. So when I came across this concept of "love yourself," it occurred to me that this perfectly illustrates what I'm trying to say. The world tells us that too many of us don't love ourselves (warm affection). It's true ... if you accept that love is defined as "warm affection." Paul says, "No one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it." (Eph 5:29). "Now, hang on, Paul. Are you not aware of the self-esteem crisis?" Paul, here, is presenting the biblical version of love. He is not talking about "warm affection" for self; he is talking about "seeking the best for" self. That's the love he says we all have for ourselves.

This concept does not negate the emotions we equate with love. It simply shifts the original concept of love -- a choice to seek the best for. If I am seeking the best for someone, it is inevitable that warm affection will follow. I am not trying to deny that emotions are part of love. I'm simply pointing out that warm affection that springs from efforts to seek the best for the one you intend to love has more depth, more constance, more durability, and more value. This love can survive emotional valleys and carry to the next emotional peak. Because this love has its footing in choice, not feeling. Learning to love yourself in this sense is simply the survival instinct. We all have it. Now, can we seek that best for others? That is a higher calling.

Vaccination Ruminations

I've got this issue right now and I'm just going to lay it out here with my own ruminations on the topic because it's weighing heavily. Back in January my wife and I both had COVID. It was really pointless in our case. She had a fever for a day and lost her sense of taste and smell for a few months and nothing more. In my case I was completely and totally asymptomatic. I was tested afterward and had the antibodies, but that was the only effect. So she and I are both immune to COVID ... the natural way. Get the vaccine? Why? We already know how it works. Our bodies already have better immunity than the vaccine could provide. Why? No thanks.

Well, you've been watching things progress, I'm sure. The prevailing winds are that you either get vaccinated or just plan to die. No work, no food, no medical care, nothing. Loser. No, not all, but it is not a small number and it is not declining. People are outraged that Texas Governor Abbott said we should all get vaccinated, but it shouldn't be forced. "Shouldn't be forced??!! Yes, it should!" The president's plan is to do an end-around on the law and get OSHA to require all companies with at least 100 employees to require vaccinations. He's already mandated that all federally connected employers vaccinate 100%. But I live in Arizona and Governor Ducey outlawed mandating masks or vaccines, so I was fine here. Or so I thought.

It came down last week that since I work for an organization that has some contracts with the federal government, everyone connected with this organization can either get vaccinated or go find a job elsewhere, thank you very much. "But, I'm already immune!" Nope, we'll have none of that. "But, what about exemptions?" Yes, they are allowing exemptions. If you can show (with doctor's proof) that you physically cannot tolerate the vaccine or can give a religious reason you shouldn't have to take it, there will be unnamed "accommodations."

Here's my problem. I have no medical reasons and I don't have a religious reason not to get vaccinated. I've looked in my Bible and it's not there. I've seen others' arguments and they fall woefully short of "biblical." Now, I could use one of theirs, perhaps, but then I'd violate several biblical principles (like honesty, integrity, etc.), so that makes no sense. And my sharp misgivings about the safety and effectiveness of this vaccine compared to its potential harm is not allowed. "We don't care what facts you bring or what convictions you have. You either bow the knee or go hungry." And that's a problem for me on its own. I know some who are "bravely" saying, "Well, if that's the way it is, then I'll go hungry." They're counting on the kindness of others to get them through. But wouldn't that put me in the "If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat" (2 Thess 3:10) category? Great! Violating another biblical principle.

Now, I could retire from this job (at about 2/3rds of what I'm currently making) and hope to find another that doesn't require vaccines, but that's a hope, not a certainty. "God will protect you." Well, maybe, except that I can't point to anything that says, "God doesn't want you to get vaccinated," so I can't conclude that God will protect me for obeying Him rather than men since He didn't tell me not to get vaccinated.

Scripture doesn't help. Nothing tells me anything about this vaccine. Science doesn't help. Science tells us, "It's our best hope" even though only about 10% of the population have gotten sick and less than 2% of those have died and science indicates that immunity from having recovered from COVID lasts potentially years while the vaccine offers maybe 6 months before you get your next booster. (What's the plan - biannual boosters for life?) We don't know the long term effects and the whole thing is a grand new experiment on how to vaccinate and we all know that you can still get COVID and you can still spread COVID and you can still die from COVID, but all of that means nothing. Shut up and take this shot ... or else.

Well, I'm still not settled. I don't know what to do. I've been considering retirement for a couple of years. Maybe God is telling me, "Now!" I've had difficulties with this job for years and maybe God is telling me, "I've got something better for you. Go!" I'm tired of asking questions like "Why?" and "What about these concerns and those studies and all the disclaimers?" and "Why can't Big Pharma be held responsible?" and so on. There are legal questions and science questions and questions of liberty and ... but, I may just have to get used to questions in life that won't be answered and realize that I no longer live in a free country. Get over it. I don't know. I just don't know.

Fearfully and Wonderfully Made

When I was young, my parents thought it was important for their children to memorize Scripture. They tried all sorts of things. One that worked was to actually pay us. So they paid us a dollar to memorize. Okay, well, it wasn't that liberal. We would get a dollar to memorize a chapter, and the chapters that were available were of their choosing. So I memorized texts like Psalm 1 and James 1 and the like. And they have served me well. I found, later in life, that memorizing Scripture gives God a vocabulary, so to speak. On many occasions He has answered a question or prayer of mine by bringing to mind this passage or that verse.

One of my favorite chapters was Psalm 139, and, given my problems with self-image, I suspect my mother chose that one specifically for that purpose. There are important themes in this psalm. There is the absolute confidence that God is present and personal (Psa 139:1, 3-5). There is a broad assertion of God's Omnipresence (Psa 139:7-12). There is the very personal "O LORD, you have searched me and known me!" (Psa 139:1). This is bolstered by the reminder that God thinks of you (Psa 139:17-18) and the prayer, "Search me, O God, and know my heart! Try me and know my thoughts! And see if there be any grievous way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting!" (Psa 139:23-24).

In the middle is this glorious concept, "I am fearfully and wonderfully made." (Psa 139:13-18). David claims that God Himself "knitted me together in my mother's womb." (Psa 139:13). (Why that doesn't give self-identified Christians pause regarding abortion eludes me.) Perhaps you can see why this chapter would have something to say about self-image. David claims, "Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in Your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them." (Psa 139:16) Think about that for a moment. Before you were born, God already had your days written down. He already knew what your life would look like. He already knew your choices, your successes, your failures, your idiosyncrasies, your strengths and weaknesses, your talents and shortcomings. He knew who your spouse would be and if you would have kids and ... it was already all written down.

For some people that's not helpful. They don't believe it or they don't like it. They don't want to think that God, like a Divine Author, wrote it all down before I ever made a single choice. They think it's a violation of my free will. Maybe it's infringement on my right to privacy or something? Me? I love it. In a world like ours when things look bad or things go bad, I love it. When a president I like or a president I don't like gets elected, I want to know that God wasn't left out of the loop. When a daughter comes down with cancer or a loved one dies suddenly, I want to know that it wasn't a surprise to my God. When I'm facing a challenge, I want to know that God isn't puzzled about the situation or the outcome. I want to know that a good God is there all the time and nothing eludes Him. We are indeed complex creations -- fearfully and wonderfully made -- and I am delighted to know that even though my doctors can't tell me what's causing this problem or that effect, God knows intimately and will always do what's best. Some may not like this; I find it immensely comforting.

News Weakly - 10/16/2021

Only in California
California is requiring insanity from all large department stores. The law now dictates what stores can sell and how. They must sell toys and toothbrushes and the like in "gender-neutral ways." They must sell these items with "a reasonable selection." Why? Because the daughter of a staffer of the guy who authored the bill asked why certain items in the store were "off limits" to her because she was a girl. The proper, parental answer should have been, "They're not." Instead, the answer is, "Let's dictate what stores believe and can sell." The problem is, of course, that California is not Vegas. What happens in California doesn't stay in California.

Who Determines "Misinformation"?
On Face the Nation, foreign affairs and national security expert Fiona Hill is warning that the January 6 debacle was a "dress rehearsal" for a government takeover. Never mind that the FBI informant said there was no plan at all. She knows, so we need to be afraid. And if you disagree, you're just a conspiracy theorist ... or something.

RIP
I'm sorry to report the death of humor. I grew up in a different era. Perhaps a different nation. The one I grew up in loved the union of a man and a woman, sought to tolerate differences among people, and even laughed at itself. We had humor like Polish jokes and "dead baby" jokes and "Your mama" jokes. Comedian Dave Chappelle got himself in trouble recently by making jokes about transgender (that I can't repeat here). Labeled "anti-trans," "homophobic," and "mysogynistic." Without addressing anything he said (because I know very little of what he said), let me just say, if joking about something equates with hate, then we were in a lot of trouble in my earlier era (as in "anti-mama," for instance) and we will need to apply the same standard to everyone who ever tells any joke. I'll wait ...

The New America
Texas Governor Abbott took a bold step issuing an executive order banning all COVID vaccine mandates. "No entity in Texas can compel receipt of a COVID-19 vaccine by any individual, including an employee or a consumer, who objects to such vaccination for any reason of personal conscience, based on a religious belief, or for medical reasons, including prior recovery from COVID-19." (I particularly appreciate that "including prior recovery from COVID" line which is something I've been asking for months and months.) He says, "The COVID-19 vaccine is safe, effective, and our best defense against the virus, but should remain voluntary and never forced." He isn't anti-vax; he's just standing squarely on the principle of American freedom. I'm pretty sure the government won't let that stand. "This is America! We do not 'freedom' here!"

File Under "Misrepresentation"
North Carolina Lieutenant Governor Mark Robinson is being asked to resign after a June video in a speech at a church surfaced showing him calling transgenderism and homosexuality "filth." Oh, no, I'm sorry, that's not the story. He was "likening gay and transgender people" to "filth." Now, without even trying to justify the man -- I have no information about his character or the background of his story (or why someone decided to broadcast in public a speech made in church) -- I have to point out that Mr. Robinson did not liken gay and transgender people to "filth." The quote was regarding the "isms," the concepts of transgender and homosexuality. He wasn't opposing people; he was opposing concepts. And, if you're paying attention, his real concern was teaching it to children. If you don't see the difference, I'm not sure I can be more helpful. But what we have here is a man -- a black man -- being asked to step down for his beliefs. The message is clear. "If you believe what we deem unacceptable, you should not work." Like, "If Paul believed that homosexual behavior was a sin (1 Cor 6:9-10), then Paul should have had to cease being a tentmaker and Apostle."

Long Term
A new study suggests that exposure to phthalates may lead to over 100,000 premature deaths per year among older Americans. Phthalates are synthetic chemicals found in lots of stuff from plastics to soap, and they may be killing you. Mind you, these things have been around a long time and it's only now that they're starting to think they might be bad for us. Why, then, do people hate it when I ask, "What are the long term effects of the COVID vaccine?" as if that's a pointless question?

Equity Issues
The story goes that Mt. Bachelor near Bend, Oregon, is instituting a new "fast pass" where skiers can pay extra to bypass certain chairlift lines and get up quicker and down faster and have so much more fun than those ... who don't. Well, we'll have none of that if you please. Oregon Senator Ron Wyden is asking them to delay it until they can look at "equity issues." People with money should not be allowed to spend that money for better conditions than those who don't have so much. Expect more shenanigans to follow as some have discovered that people with more money can, for instance, stay in nicer hotels than those with less money, a clear equity issue.

Equality Fail
A school administrator in Fort Worth suggested that if a classroom has a book about the Holocaust, it would have to have a book with "opposing views." A Texas law "requires teachers to present multiple perspectives when discussing 'widely debated and currently controversial' issues.'" Now, if a school has a book on Evolution, there is no need to have an "opposing view" on that, and if a school has a book on gender or LGBT issues, any books with "opposing views" would be banned, but this one ... settled historic fact (not controversial) ... should have "opposing views" offered to students. You know, for the sake of equality.

In Other News
Perhaps you've heard that they are planning to make a Superman movie with a bisexual Superman. (No joke.) Well, for the sake of diversity, DC comics is introducing a straight Christian Robin. (In your dreams.) In another story, a boy who tweeted that the emperor had no clothes was banned from Twitter for misinformation.

Must be true; I read it on the internet.

No, Lord

In Acts we have the story of Peter praying on the roof (Acts 10:9-16). God shows him some food he was not supposed to eat and told him, "Rise, Peter; kill and eat." (Acts 10:13). In Peter-fashion we hear Peter saying, "By no means, Lord." (Acts 10:14). "No, Lord"? Really, Peter? But it's what we do. We see a command with which we do not concur and we say, with great love for God, "No, Lord."

There is simple stuff like, "Love your enemies." "No, Lord." There is the obvious "erroneous" stuff like, "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord." "No, Lord." Or, to be equitable, "Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church." "No, Lord." There is obvious stuff like "Flee sexual immorality." "No, Lord."

Sometimes they are "current event" kinds of things. The one I'm seeing a lot these days is, "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God." (Rom 13:1) "Oh, Lord, no," we say. "Have you seen who the authority is?" God answers back, "Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by Him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good." (1 Peter 2:13-14). "Seriously, Lord, take a look. We should not be subject to this government." How about "Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed." (Rom 13:7)? "We owe them no respect, no honor. No, Lord." And we hear again from on high, "I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way." (1 Tim 2:1-2). "Me? Pray for them? They don't even know how to come in out of the rain!!" Our own ongoing versions of "No, Lord." A genuine oxymoron.

Made For?

Paul makes a provocative statement in his first epistle to Corinth.

"All things are lawful for me," but not all things are helpful. "All things are lawful for me," but I will not be dominated by anything. (1 Cor 6:12)

Really, Paul? "All things are lawful for me"? ("Sure," Paul answers, and repeats it in 1 Cor 10:23.) No, really ... in what sense are all things lawful? Well, first, most commentators understand him to be quoting the words or at least thoughts of those who have argued for a more "embracing" kind of morality. You know, "We're forgiven, so why not sin?" Clearly, for instance, Paul does not believe "all things are lawful for me" because he just got done saying that those who are unrighteous won't inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9-10). Further, he goes on to address the problem of sexual immorality (1 Cor 6:15-16). So, no, he is not stating that all things are lawful. So, what is he saying here?

Paul is pointing to a bigger picture. We typically get caught up in the moral questions. "Is this right or wrong?" "How far can I go?" Paul is offering different questions. Is this helpful? Does this rule me? How many of us routinely ask those questions? I'd suggest it is precious few. Because "Is it helpful?" just doesn't seem to come naturally to us as humans. Because addiction is a common problem among Christians, whether it's the typical "drugs" or "alcohol" or "gambling" or "sex" kinds of things or perhaps the less obvious but very real "comfort" and "self-centeredness" and the like that we all seem to indulge.

After asking those questions, he makes a purpose statement. "The body," he says, "is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body." (1 Cor 6:13) Well, sure, the body is not made for sexual immorality. We knew that. Well, we claim to know that. Sometimes our lives don't reflect it. Sometimes our secret sins say otherwise. But, in principle, we know that, even if not always in practice. (Back to that "helpful" and "dominated" stuff.) We will at least agree that the body is not meant for sexual immorality. But did you know that the body is meant for the Lord? Did you know that your body is not your own??

Paul says, "You were bought with a price." (1 Cor 6:20). Paul is merely echoing the broader narrative of Scripture. "The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof, the world and those who dwell therein." (Psa 24:1). "The world and its fullness are Mine." (Psa 50:12). "Beware lest you say in your heart, 'My power and the might of my hand have gotten me this wealth.' You shall remember the Lord your God, for it is He who gives you power to get wealth ..." (Deut 8:17-18). A sampling. God made everything, so it stands to reason that God owns everything. Thus everything was made for the Lord. Everything.

Somehow, it seems, we miss that. We think that this little corner of creation belongs to me. "My body, my choice." We think that how we dress and what we eat and what we do with our lives is our affair. Sexual immorality? Of course! At least, for far too many of us, including us Christians. The body, according to Scripture, was made for a purpose. That purpose is not "my satisfaction." That purpose is to glorify God (1 Cor 6:20). And God is concerned about that (1 Cor 6:13). Are we? Your body was made for the Lord. Are you fulfilling your purpose?

Stewardship

Paul's epistle to the church at Corinth (the one we refer to as 1 Corinthians ... even though it wasn't his first epistle to Corinth) addresses several problems in that church. The first and foremost problem is division in the church. Paul takes 4 chapters to tackle that problem. One of his points was this:

What do you have that you did not receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if you did not receive it? (1 Cor 4:7)

Think about that for a moment. Think about that in the comfort of your home. Think about that in your relative wealth. Think about that while you enjoy your family and friends. Think about that in terms of the skills and talents you possess. Some of you have a lot more than others. Some have more comfort or more talent, more skill or more friends. Some have outstanding family while others do not. Some have good jobs and good things. What do you have that you did not receive?

Those of us with more ... more anything ... ought to feel that poke more intensely. "What do you have that you did not receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if you did not receive it?" We feel it because we do often boast as if we didn't receive it. We feel it because we are sometimes proud of what we've earned, failing to recognize that we've received it. We feel it because sometimes we are possessive of what we've received as if it is our right, and God help the person that tries to take it away. We feel it because sometimes we worry about what we've received because we forget that we received it.

How would that change your thinking if you had the constant attitude that you are a steward rather than an owner? How would that alter your perceptions if you understood you were just watching God's stuff for Him for awhile? How would it make you feel if you had always in your mind the realization that your gifts and your talents and your skills and your possessions and your friends and family and all were gifts, not rewards? Not earned. Not obtained by your diligent hard work. Gifted by God. For a time. Would that make it easier to give to the needs of others (1 John 3:17)? Would that make you more willing to take a loss for Christ's sake (1 Cor 6:7)? Would it make you any more grateful to have what you have? Here's a thought. How would that make you feel about the things in your life that you don't like very much? Because God has given you those, too.

The Anti-Racism Problem

It takes an idiot to fail to see that there are racists in 21st century America. It takes a redefinition to say that it's only white people. It takes an idiotic redefiner to determine that all white people and only white people are racists. But here we are, and simply writing that intro in America today will get me labeled as a racist just for disagreeing with the concept. My point, though, is that racism is a problem that we must address. We address it, they tell us, with antiracism. No, not just "not racist" -- antiracism. You need to oppose racism. Well, now, I suppose I'm fine with that. I am oposed to racists. Unfortunately, it appears these days that the solution is becoming the problem. It looks as if antiracism is making antiracism impossible.

Sounds silly, I know, but think about it. When antiracism meant "We need to oppose racism," just about anyone with any sense could get on board. It doesn't mean that anymore. Take, for instance, Ibram X. Kendi's book, How to Be an Antiracist. He says that the solution to racism is the elimination of democracy, capitalism, and traditional, biblical Christianity (among other things). He says that the answer to discrimination is discrimination and the answer to systemic racism is systemic racism. Take the recent example of the Libs of Tik Tok. They are a Twitter group with over 300,000 followers in less than a year and their position is if we are going to solve the racism in America, the only solution is ... the complete elimination of America. Take, for instance, the rewrite of the definition of racism. The dictionary says it means, "a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race." Do white people believe that? Some, to be sure. Do people of color believe that? Undoubtedly the same answer. So why have we redefined it to eliminate the problem on one side and not the other?

In response, of course, those people who may or may not be racist but are certainly seeing their lives, their families, their very existence being threatened feel the need to fight back. Some of those people are people of color. They believe the current "racism" definition is nonsense and the white hatred and America-hatred it breeds is nonsense and they say so. And they get categorized as racists. (Seriously, didn't we just decide that "white" was the only "racist"? And now we have people of color who are racist because they are opposed to "whites only" racism?) So the war heats up. People are forced to take positions and they end up being intractable positions. If "he" can't agree with "you," then "he" is now labeled "the enemy." If "she" doesn't say what "you" want her to, she is a traitor. If this group simply wants to defend their country, they are categorized as racist haters. These labels and their emotional baggage make it impossible to meet, to come to a conversation, to seek common ground. And the new "antiracism" becomes the killing field for anyone on either side seeking to address the real problem of racism. "No, black people cannot be racist." So that kind of hate and vitriol is good ... from that side. "Yes, all white people are racist." So those who have no racial bias can't address the problem and any attempt to do so merely confirms their racism ... which they didn't actually have. And so it goes.

I oppose racism. I am sickened when I hear of how people treat people of a different race solely because of race. I hate it when the pre-judgment is "You're evil" simply because "You're of 'that' race." And I don't care who is doing it; I hate it. But it doesn't matter. I'm a white guy, so I'm a racist and the only option for many under the current "antiracist" banner is simply that I should cease to exist. No cure. Just die. Surely you can see how that kind of thinking would be an impediment to any work on solving the problem.

From His Lips to Your Ears

Vice magazine (which, it appears, is an ironically accurate name) did a hit piece on a pastor and his church in Idaho. The problem, ostensibly, was that they taught that wives need to be led with a firm hand. The piece was horrendous to read. There was premarital sexual abuse by an elder's son and marital rape. There was cover up by church leadership (multiple churches). There was lots of undeniably horrible stuff. But you weren't expected to come away thinking, "That was undeniably horrible stuff." You were intended to come away thinking, "That church is evil ... because that biblical belief is evil ... and, therefore, the Bible is evil ... and so is anyone who believes it ... which certainly covers all Christians ..." Well, you see where this is going.

I read it. I came away thinking, "This is exactly what I have been mulling over lately." I wrote recently how we are happily discarding biblical principles because of sinful abuse of biblical principles. Your Honor, I'd like to submit this article as Exhibit A. The reader in this case is not allowed to think, "That's a biblical principle being abused by unbiblical people." They are mandated to think, "That stuff is clearly wrong. Since it is clearly wrong and it is attributed to Christ and His biblical principles, then Christ and the Bible are clearly wrong." Now, of course, this has been going on for millennia. Think "the Crusades." Without even attempting to defend the Crusades (because I wouldn't), we have been told over and over, "Look what was done in the name of Christ. Christianity is evil." A fundamental failure to think. You see, just because it is done in the name of Christ doesn't mean that it has any connection to Christ. And if, in fact, Christ taught against such things, then you will need to assume that the accuser is lying and not the Christ-follower.

That's where we find ourselves in this hit piece. If it is true, ungodly men in positions in the church where they should not have been (1 Tim 3:2,4; Titus 1:6) did things they should not have done (1 Cor 7:4; Eph 5:25-27; 1 Peter 3:7) all falsely in the name of Christ and His Word. The fault here is not Christ and His Word. The fault is the ungodly men (and women who perpetuated it; I want to be fair here). The principles weren't wrong; the practices were. The Scriptures weren't wrong; the people that failed to practice them were. You can't "love your wives" (Eph 5:25) by abusing them. You can't "live with your wife in an understanding way" (1 Peter 3:7) by ignoring their thoughts and feelings. You can't assert your sexual desires thinking, "My body is my own." (1 Cor 7:6). Church leadership that ignores all this cannot be said to be shepherding the flock (1 Peter 5:2) while remaining "above reproach" (1 Tim 3:2; Titus 1:6). An elder who covers up this kind of activity for his children cannot be said to have children who "are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery" (Titus 1:6) or who manages "his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive." (1 Tim 3:4). In that text, Paul says, "If someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church?" (1 Tim 3:5). Excellent question!

The article, as I said, described horrible stuff done in the name of church leadership with the protection of church leadership and a protective mantle of "thus saith the Lord." I offer no defense for the behaviors or abuses in that story. I might question the veracity of the accusations and I would certainly want to know what those accused have to say before passing judgment (Prov 18:13). Scripture requires "two or three witnesses" against church leadership and does not allow for "trial by public opinion" (1 Tim 5:19-21), but I'm pretty sure the public and the Christians that follow them will call for public hangings here. The truth is, despite the wisdom and reliability of a report from Vice from people who already hate the church, we don't actually know how much of this story was true. However, we need to avoid perpetuating the error from Vice by assigning those behaviors and abuses to biblical principles and, therefore, throw out God's Word as reliable or authoritative. That is the primary aim of the story. There is no excuse from a biblical perspective for what is described in that article, but we must not make the mistake of assigning that sin to God's account or to His Word. That would be the aim of the father of lies and his followers. We all choose to listen to voices from others. Whose voice will you listen to? The god of this world or the God whose word is truth? If the latter, my prayer is "From His lips to your ears."

Not Fast Enough

There are things in each of our lives that we need to toss. No, eradicate. Burn out. Kill. Sins, you know? Pet sins. Things we run to and then regret. Things we do then repent and then we do again and can't figure out, "How did I end up here again?" Those things are obvious. You know what you have to do. Kill it. Cut it off. Tear it out.

There are other things that don't fall in that category. There are things that aren't evil on the face, but they distract. Facebook is not listed in Scripture as a sin, for instance, but you know you can become addicted, overcome, distracted. When you could be praying or reading God's Word or meeting with a brother or sister in need, you're ... distracted. Maybe your distraction isn't Facebook. Or Twitter. Or Instagram. Or whatever other social media distraction we might list. Maybe it's television. Maybe it's games. Entertainment in general. You know, the root of the word "amuse" is "muse," meaning "to think," coupled with "a," meaning not. Amusement is intended to make us not think. And while a brief rest from thinking might be okay, sometimes we can, as Neil Postman put it, amuse ourselves to death. Distractions. Things that aren't bad in and of themselves, but can be made to be that way.

Scripture lists "the fruit of the Spirit," things you would expect to see if you are filled with the Spirit (Gal 5:22-23). We like the "love, joy, peace" start, but it feels like Paul listed "self-control" last because that's not really a joy for many of us. God appears to think it ought to be. So how do we apply "self-control" to the things that distract to come up with a helpful approach to those things which keep us from paying attention to the things Christ would have us attend to?

Scripture also talks about fasting. We all know that's about not eating for a period of time. Why not other things? Fasting is voluntarily going without food or other good things from God for some spiritual purpose. Fasting exercises self-control. It removes distractions for a period of time -- distractions of food or whatever else you're fasting from -- and focuses your attention elsewhere. God's Word recommends fasting. So, why not put these two concepts together? Why not do a fast ... from Facebook or television or computers? Why not set your phone aside for a day and use it for only necessary phone calls and nothing else? Or maybe it is food that distracts you. Stop that for a day. Use the time you would have spent on whatever it is you're fasting from to pray, to read God's Word, to minister to someone else -- something that would glorify God.

I'm not suggesting that you eliminate Facebook (or whatever) from your life because it's a sin. I'm suggesting that each one of us has distractions in life that are not sin but can become sin if they take us away from God. So why not exercise self-control (something recommended by God) and learn to control those things that take our attention from Christ? Like Paul's suggestion that a married couple might "fast" from sex "for a limited time that you may devote yourselves to prayer." (1 Cor 7:5). Surely exercising self-control to focus attention on Christ would be a good thing. Surely you can think of some things in your life that aren't sin on the face of it but can, indeed, divert your attention from your Lord. Maybe you might try a fast of this. Maybe you might make it a practice. Maybe we don't fast enough. Maybe.

News Weakly - 10/9/2021

Democrat Economy
"If you don’t want to help save the country," President Biden berated Republicans, "get out of the way so you don't destroy it." What destructive evil are Republicans doing in Congress? They aren't willing to allow the government -- already way beyond any sort of financially reasonable debt -- to raise their debt ceiling. You see, if you want to "save the country," you need to do all you can to bankrupt it or, at least, make sure our kids will never be able to survive the debt we lay on them. Get on it, Republicans!

Earning a Voice
You've heard about Senator Krysten Sinema being confronted in the bathroom for standing for what she believes is right. They demanded she vote for Biden's "Build Back Better" plan that would push the nation closer to bankruptcy. Why would she do that? "We knocked on doors for you to get you elected," they said, "and just how we got you elected, we can get you out of office if don't support what you promised us." Got it? Special interest groups saying, "We made you; you need to do what we say. If you don't, we'll take you out." But it's okay, I guess. President Biden called it "part of the process." Nice. And, of course, top democrats made one more plea to Sinema to knuckle under while she was in her shower. At least, so says the Bee.

Thou Shalt Not
Senator Grassley put his foot in his mouth. He said nice things about judicial nominee Lucy Koh, of Korean descent. "Korean people," he suggested, "have a hard work ethic and can make a lot out of nothing." Evil man. Never say nice things. Avoid stereotypes of any sort ... well ... of course ... unless it's "all whites are racist" or "all men are sexist"... you know, the approved, hateful stereotypes. But never think nicely of someone just because of some questionable stereotypes.

Loud and Clear
You may have thought that Democrats were a freedom-loving people. You may have been mistaken. President Biden continues to push for vaccine and testing mandates. Why? Because everyone knows that the COVID vaccine doesn't necessarily prevent you from getting COVID and it doesn't prevent you from spreading COVID and it doesn't necessarily keep you from dying of COVID and it doesn't last much more than 6 months, but it is our one and only glorious salvation from the evil COVID virus in our midst. And while abortion is a constitutional right (I'm still looking for that one), your freedom of choice is not. Thank you, Mr. President. We hear you loud and clear.

Meanwhile ...
California's governor -- he who shall not be named -- is requiring all school children to be vaccinated for COVID before they can come to school. Of course, the vaccine is not yet approved for 12-15 year olds except on a emergency basis and Pfizer has submitted approval for 5-12 year olds. but it's not yet done. And all the data says that people ages 0-18 have the least effects from COVID, including the lowest risk of death, but, hey, we don't care. Let's protect our children from the remote risk of death ... unless, of course, if the mother chooses otherwise. The Babylon Bee sees it as a ploy to promote homeschooling. Not sure how much of a joke that will turn out to be. Could be absolutely true.

Congratulations!
Women in America are rejoicing. "We can go back to killing our babies now!" A judge has blocked the Texas pro-life law as expected. Children are not to be protected by the courts. What kind of crazy constitutional right would that be? Fortunately, Target is launching a new "clump of cells" registry for the distressed bearer of cells on their way to the birth canal. Nice.

(A postscript for my regular readers. If you're looking for the humor at the end, you'll have to go back and read. I sprinkled it in the stories themselves. Kind of like an Easter egg hunt, you know?)