There is a principle known as Christian Liberty, the idea that we are free to submit to our own conscience on matters not commanded or forbidden by God. Paul addresses this concept in Romans 14, but covers it much more completely in 1 Corinthians. From chapter 8 through chapter 10 (and most argue up to chapter 11 verse 1), Paul lays out the truth and danger of Christian Liberty. We're pretty familiar, it seems, with the first part -- "meat sacrificed to idols." Paul explains on one hand that idols are nothing so eating meat sacrificed to nothing isn't a problem. Go ahead. But he warns, "If food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble" (1 Cor 8:13). That is, if we use our Christian Liberty and it causes a problem for a fellow believer, we must limit our own liberty. In the next chapter, Paul uses himself as a prime example. As an Apostle, shouldn't he have all these rights? And, yet, he limited himself (1 Cor 9:15). "For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them" (1 Cor 9:19).
A lot of us miss the fact that chapter 10 is still on this same topic -- Christian Liberty -- but Paul takes it from a different direction. The idea he offers in 1 Corinthians 8 and 9 (and, for that matter, Romans 14) is that we should limit our freedoms for the sake of others. We shouldn't cause other people problems because we're exercising our liberty. In chapter 10, though, he offers another concern. There he describes Israel in the Exodus. They had many of the same characteristics that we do. They had "baptism" (1 Cor 10:1-2) and "Communion" (1 Cor 10:3-4), but they failed. Why? They had problems with idolatry and sexual immorallity, with testing Christ and complaining (1 Cor 10:6-11). Paul is warning about the other side of our liberty. It is possible, by pressing our liberty, to press too far. It is possible to push the borders across the border, so to speak. He says, "Let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall" (1 Cor 10:12).
How? He uses the story of the Golden Calf as one example. The people wanted a reminder of God (Exo 32:1), so Aaron made them a golden calf (Exo 32:2-4) and declared feast to YHWH (Exo 32:5). The result, the linguists tell me, was an orgy (Exo 32:6). You see, worshiping God was good, but how they did it was not, and, pushing that boundary, they plummeted off the edge of sin. Three thousand people died from that (Exo 32:28). Paul uses other examples. There was the merging of Israelite men with Moabite women that ended up with 23,000 dead (1 Cor 10:8; Num 25:1ff). They complained about God and died from serpents (1 Cor 10:9; Num 21:4-6). They complained about Moses and 14,700 died from a plague from God (1 Cor 10:10; Num 16:41-49). Israel pushed their borders and got caught in their own sin.
We often ask, "Is it okay for me to do such and such?" where "such and such" is a questionable behavior. Generally we ask because we don't see a clear command from God, but, also, generally we ask because we want our liberty. We don't want to do too much for God. We don't want to give up too much fun. We don't want to cut ourselves short from pleasure in life if we don't have to. Paul warns on two fronts. You may be free to do what you ask, but first ask yourself, is it profitable? Does it edify (1 Cor 10:23)? Is it beneficial for the people in my life (1 Cor 10:24)? Most importantly, does it glorify God (1 Cor 10:31)? Because it's easy for us to latch onto our own Christian Liberty, but it can be harmful to others ... and it can be harmful to ourselves. Beware of that liberty.
Tuesday, November 30, 2021
Monday, November 29, 2021
Key Question
If you've read my blog much, you know me; I'm concerned about words. Words are the symbols we use to transmit ideas from one brain to another. As such, we need to have shared symbols. If you say "bleevil" and I say "bleevil" and we mean something different by the term, we will not be communicating because we're thinking of something completely different. (I know, I know, some of you don't believe in "bleevil." That's not the point.) So we need to share symbols, whatever they may be, so we can exchange ideas and information. In the last year or more I've been aware of a prime example of this concept thanks to COVID. You would think that we'd all be clear and in agreement on this, but, as it turns out, we aren't. The question is "immunity." What does it mean? Turns out we are not in agreement.
Immunity refers to being protected from something. It might be disease or legal action or even emotional response. (Think, "Sticks and stones ...") So in terms of COVID immunity it means you can't get COVID ... right? And the correct answer to that is "Not right." In fact, science can't even figure out how to measure immunity, let alone just what they mean by it. In the U.S. the prevalent definition currently is "the presence of COVID antibodies." Mind you, if you, like most of us, are immune to, say, measles or polio after all these years, it is not because you have antibodies for those diseases. That immunity is elsewhere. And it is measured primarily by you not getting measles or polio. But for COVID they check to see if you have antibodies, declare you immune if you do, then warn that you can surely still get, spread, and even die from this antigen to which you are "immune."
Perhaps this wasn't the best example. I'm sure both sides will have an emotional response to that last paragraph, one way or another. But your strong emotional response illustrates the problem I'm talking about. We're not communicating. We all use "immunity" and we all assume we agree on what it means and we all draw conclusions and make decisions from that "agreement," all the while barely noticing that we don't agree. "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." That's us ... from both sides.
My point, then, is our failure to communicate. (Has anyone been keeping track of movie quotes I've used? I haven't.) I use "marriage" and you use "marriage" and it may not mean the same thing. I use "love" and you use "love" and we sound alike, but we might mean something totally different. I use "Christian" and you use "Christian" and we may mean radically different things. Hey, I use "Jesus" and you use "Jesus" and we may not even be talking about the same person ... even if we're talking about the same historical person. We aren't communicating. And we end up in disagreements. And we end up in fights. And we end up in hate. ("I wonder what he means by that word?" Very good question.)
All this to say we're missing the key question. All this to urge us all, including me, to start asking it. "What do you mean by that?" We think we're using the same terms in the same way and we think we're understanding each other and ... we're not. But, like the COVID "immunity" question, our emotional reaction to what is actually misunderstood terms is already kicking in before we ever find out that we simply don't understand each other. So this will not end well.
I've been trying to learn this myself in recent years. "They said something I think I understood, but what do they mean by it?" And I'm finding large gaps in our mutual understanding based largely on gaps in our mutual symbols for ideas. Don't misunderstand. I know that once we dig down and find out what I meant by "bleevil" and what you meant by "bleevil" actually means, we're still possibly going to have a disagreement over the whole "bleevil" concept, but wouldn't it be better if we were discussing our actual disagreements rather than our red herrings and rabbit trails that ... oh, wait, perhaps I'd better better define those terms. Oh, well, you get what I mean, right? Sadly, I can't be sure you do. Not because you're stupid, but because none of us are really accomplished at figuring it out, at asking the key question, "What do you mean?".
Immunity refers to being protected from something. It might be disease or legal action or even emotional response. (Think, "Sticks and stones ...") So in terms of COVID immunity it means you can't get COVID ... right? And the correct answer to that is "Not right." In fact, science can't even figure out how to measure immunity, let alone just what they mean by it. In the U.S. the prevalent definition currently is "the presence of COVID antibodies." Mind you, if you, like most of us, are immune to, say, measles or polio after all these years, it is not because you have antibodies for those diseases. That immunity is elsewhere. And it is measured primarily by you not getting measles or polio. But for COVID they check to see if you have antibodies, declare you immune if you do, then warn that you can surely still get, spread, and even die from this antigen to which you are "immune."
Perhaps this wasn't the best example. I'm sure both sides will have an emotional response to that last paragraph, one way or another. But your strong emotional response illustrates the problem I'm talking about. We're not communicating. We all use "immunity" and we all assume we agree on what it means and we all draw conclusions and make decisions from that "agreement," all the while barely noticing that we don't agree. "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." That's us ... from both sides.
My point, then, is our failure to communicate. (Has anyone been keeping track of movie quotes I've used? I haven't.) I use "marriage" and you use "marriage" and it may not mean the same thing. I use "love" and you use "love" and we sound alike, but we might mean something totally different. I use "Christian" and you use "Christian" and we may mean radically different things. Hey, I use "Jesus" and you use "Jesus" and we may not even be talking about the same person ... even if we're talking about the same historical person. We aren't communicating. And we end up in disagreements. And we end up in fights. And we end up in hate. ("I wonder what he means by that word?" Very good question.)
All this to say we're missing the key question. All this to urge us all, including me, to start asking it. "What do you mean by that?" We think we're using the same terms in the same way and we think we're understanding each other and ... we're not. But, like the COVID "immunity" question, our emotional reaction to what is actually misunderstood terms is already kicking in before we ever find out that we simply don't understand each other. So this will not end well.
I've been trying to learn this myself in recent years. "They said something I think I understood, but what do they mean by it?" And I'm finding large gaps in our mutual understanding based largely on gaps in our mutual symbols for ideas. Don't misunderstand. I know that once we dig down and find out what I meant by "bleevil" and what you meant by "bleevil" actually means, we're still possibly going to have a disagreement over the whole "bleevil" concept, but wouldn't it be better if we were discussing our actual disagreements rather than our red herrings and rabbit trails that ... oh, wait, perhaps I'd better better define those terms. Oh, well, you get what I mean, right? Sadly, I can't be sure you do. Not because you're stupid, but because none of us are really accomplished at figuring it out, at asking the key question, "What do you mean?".
Sunday, November 28, 2021
Faithful
One of God's characteristics is faithfulness (Deut 7:9; 1 Thess 5:23-24; 1 Cor 1:9; 2 Tim 2:13; 1 Cor 10:13; 1 John 1:9; 2 Thess 3:3; Lam 3:22-23; Psa 36:5; Psa 86:15; 1 Peter 4:19 and more). Faithfulness. He is constant. He is completely trustworthy. He always does the right thing ... every time.
Most Christians will nod and agree. In theory. We'll sing along with songs about His faithfulness and be glad. In theory. We will extol the virtues of God's faithfulness. In theory. I say "in theory" because we're pretty good at it right up until something occurs that causes us to question it. He is faithful ... until something unpleasant happens. I use "unpleasant" there when most will use "bad" because if God is faithful, nothing actually "bad" can happen to us (Rom 8:28). So the simple fact that we refer to these types of things as "bad" argues against our confidence in His faithfulness.
The Bible argues that we aren't always clear thinkers. We aren't always truthful, aren't always understanding, aren't always aligned with God's truth. As such, we are constantly in need of "remodeling" -- being transformed by the renewing of our minds (Rom 12:2). So we have to try to figure out some standard of what is True and then align ourselves with that rather than vice versa. We need to recognize, "Regardless of what else I see or feel or think, this is true, so I can rely on this."
So the question now becomes, "Is God truly faithful?" If we say, "Yes," then we also need to adjust our thinking to align with that. We need to be evaluating all of life from that Truth. We need to shape our understanding of reality to Truth rather than perception. We all suffer hardships. We all endure trials. We all have doubts, large and small. We need to find an anchor with which we can weather the storms. I'm convinced that the character of God as revealed in His Word is the best anchor you can find. One of the best links in the chain on that anchor is His faithfulness. Hold on to that one.
Most Christians will nod and agree. In theory. We'll sing along with songs about His faithfulness and be glad. In theory. We will extol the virtues of God's faithfulness. In theory. I say "in theory" because we're pretty good at it right up until something occurs that causes us to question it. He is faithful ... until something unpleasant happens. I use "unpleasant" there when most will use "bad" because if God is faithful, nothing actually "bad" can happen to us (Rom 8:28). So the simple fact that we refer to these types of things as "bad" argues against our confidence in His faithfulness.
The Bible argues that we aren't always clear thinkers. We aren't always truthful, aren't always understanding, aren't always aligned with God's truth. As such, we are constantly in need of "remodeling" -- being transformed by the renewing of our minds (Rom 12:2). So we have to try to figure out some standard of what is True and then align ourselves with that rather than vice versa. We need to recognize, "Regardless of what else I see or feel or think, this is true, so I can rely on this."
So the question now becomes, "Is God truly faithful?" If we say, "Yes," then we also need to adjust our thinking to align with that. We need to be evaluating all of life from that Truth. We need to shape our understanding of reality to Truth rather than perception. We all suffer hardships. We all endure trials. We all have doubts, large and small. We need to find an anchor with which we can weather the storms. I'm convinced that the character of God as revealed in His Word is the best anchor you can find. One of the best links in the chain on that anchor is His faithfulness. Hold on to that one.
Saturday, November 27, 2021
News Weakly - 11/27/2021
No Justice
Kamala Harris is miffed about the Rittenhouse verdict. A jury of his peers decided that the facts of the case would not allow them to convict him because it was reasonable to assume he was defending himself. Please note: This case was not a case about race. There were no race charges, no hate charges. No person of color was injured in the making of this case. It was one white kid shooting a few other white folk in what might have been construed as an emotionally-charged (on both sides) self-defense situation. The question before the court was not, "Was Rittenhouse a white supremacist?", but "Did he shoot and kill these people as an act of malicious murder or in self-defense?" See? The vice president thinks we've got a long way to go to make the justice system more equitable (her word). The only way that this case could have been more "equitable" would be if he was convicted ... likely with a largely multiracial jury ... mostly because he was white and armed and present in the vicinity of a racial protest, apparently. That would be "equitable." You keep using that word; I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Redefined
Dr. Fauci answered a pending question this week. "What is 'fully vaccinated'?" He said that "fully vaccinated" still means two shots (or one if J&J) ... while indications are that the immunity can drop to 58% (for the two-shot forms) to 13% (in the case of J&J). So he didn't redefine "fully vaccinated" as we thought ... but did redefine "immune." Now, don't you feel safer? I suppose it could be worse.
I Think Not
They're building a new school a short distance from where I live. The sign says, "Building a foundation for inclusion." And I thought schools would be a foundation for education. Silly me. So I guess I shouldn't be surprised abou the story that relates, "'This is horrible,' wrote Olympia Stroud, a program coordinator at the Massachusetts department of elementary and secondary education (DESE). 'How long have these books been in the curriculum?'" What horrible book has been in the cirriculum? Well, that awful The Adventures of Tom Sawyer classic, of course. How long indeed! Our current aim is to be sure to repeat history by refusing to learn from it. If we can't teach our kids how to evaluate literature, we should probably not be teaching our kids. Schools like those that ask for such awful reading as Tom Sawyer are "unsafe environments," so I'd suggest they close them. All schools. Because we won't teach our kids to think. (Interesting note. The "evil" school in question is known for serving "disproportionately lower-income kids from communities of color, yet its test scores and graduation rates routinely rank among the state's best." Definitely gotta go.)
Cover Up
It's not just California, but a county near San Francisco has mandated masks again for all indoor spaces ... including your home. California has one of the lowest infections rates and one of the highest vaccination rates, but Thanksgiving is upon us, so Santa Cruz County residents will need to wear masks to eat their Thanksgiving meals if they have it with anyone who doesn't normally live there. After all, you can't trust them to not have COVID and you certainly can't trust the vaccine to keep you or others safe, so ... Happy Thanksgiving! Keep masked. (Good luck enforcing that one.)
Fixation
If it worked, I might get it. It doesn't. So why is the president so fixated on vaccines? He is asking the court to reinstate his employer mandate and now requiring all border crossers to get vaccinated. If the science didn't show that the vaccinated are 6 to 13 times more likely to get COVID than the naturally immune or that COVID is on the rise among the vaccinated, perhaps I'd see the point. If the constant increase in the number of people vaccinated equated to a drop in COVID cases, I'd understand. None of this is the case. It looks like an irrational fixation ... at best.
TMI -- Too Much Information
They tell us that the polyp in Biden's colon was benign. Too much information. We don't care. They didn't mention that 85,000 Trump votes were also found there. Again, TMI.
Must be true; I read it on the internet.
Kamala Harris is miffed about the Rittenhouse verdict. A jury of his peers decided that the facts of the case would not allow them to convict him because it was reasonable to assume he was defending himself. Please note: This case was not a case about race. There were no race charges, no hate charges. No person of color was injured in the making of this case. It was one white kid shooting a few other white folk in what might have been construed as an emotionally-charged (on both sides) self-defense situation. The question before the court was not, "Was Rittenhouse a white supremacist?", but "Did he shoot and kill these people as an act of malicious murder or in self-defense?" See? The vice president thinks we've got a long way to go to make the justice system more equitable (her word). The only way that this case could have been more "equitable" would be if he was convicted ... likely with a largely multiracial jury ... mostly because he was white and armed and present in the vicinity of a racial protest, apparently. That would be "equitable." You keep using that word; I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Redefined
Dr. Fauci answered a pending question this week. "What is 'fully vaccinated'?" He said that "fully vaccinated" still means two shots (or one if J&J) ... while indications are that the immunity can drop to 58% (for the two-shot forms) to 13% (in the case of J&J). So he didn't redefine "fully vaccinated" as we thought ... but did redefine "immune." Now, don't you feel safer? I suppose it could be worse.
I Think Not
They're building a new school a short distance from where I live. The sign says, "Building a foundation for inclusion." And I thought schools would be a foundation for education. Silly me. So I guess I shouldn't be surprised abou the story that relates, "'This is horrible,' wrote Olympia Stroud, a program coordinator at the Massachusetts department of elementary and secondary education (DESE). 'How long have these books been in the curriculum?'" What horrible book has been in the cirriculum? Well, that awful The Adventures of Tom Sawyer classic, of course. How long indeed! Our current aim is to be sure to repeat history by refusing to learn from it. If we can't teach our kids how to evaluate literature, we should probably not be teaching our kids. Schools like those that ask for such awful reading as Tom Sawyer are "unsafe environments," so I'd suggest they close them. All schools. Because we won't teach our kids to think. (Interesting note. The "evil" school in question is known for serving "disproportionately lower-income kids from communities of color, yet its test scores and graduation rates routinely rank among the state's best." Definitely gotta go.)
Cover Up
It's not just California, but a county near San Francisco has mandated masks again for all indoor spaces ... including your home. California has one of the lowest infections rates and one of the highest vaccination rates, but Thanksgiving is upon us, so Santa Cruz County residents will need to wear masks to eat their Thanksgiving meals if they have it with anyone who doesn't normally live there. After all, you can't trust them to not have COVID and you certainly can't trust the vaccine to keep you or others safe, so ... Happy Thanksgiving! Keep masked. (Good luck enforcing that one.)
Fixation
If it worked, I might get it. It doesn't. So why is the president so fixated on vaccines? He is asking the court to reinstate his employer mandate and now requiring all border crossers to get vaccinated. If the science didn't show that the vaccinated are 6 to 13 times more likely to get COVID than the naturally immune or that COVID is on the rise among the vaccinated, perhaps I'd see the point. If the constant increase in the number of people vaccinated equated to a drop in COVID cases, I'd understand. None of this is the case. It looks like an irrational fixation ... at best.
TMI -- Too Much Information
They tell us that the polyp in Biden's colon was benign. Too much information. We don't care. They didn't mention that 85,000 Trump votes were also found there. Again, TMI.
Must be true; I read it on the internet.
Friday, November 26, 2021
Humble
We know that a fundamental Christian virtue is humility. We know that Christ humbled Himself and we ought to do the same. And, if we're honest, we admit that we think that it's a lousy command and we aren't really interested in following that one. It is a violation of basic human nature that tells us to look out for #1 and a contradiction of everything we see around us. Few there are that are truly humble and, while we almost universally admire those few, we'd prefer not to be one of them. Here's the problem. If it is true that "whoever says he abides in Him ought to walk in the same way in which He walked" (1 John 2:6), we're going to need to pick a different attitude.
Paul says, "Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus" and goes on to describe a particular mindset -- humility (Php 2:5-8). Jesus said, "Take My yoke upon you, and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls" (Matt 11:29). He was the Lamb of God who went meekly to His death, the personification of humility. If we are show ourselves to be His followers, humility is not an option; it is a mandate.
So how do we do that?
Jesus said, "Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls" (Matt 11:29). What do we learn about humility from that? First, Jesus -- our Lord and Savior, our guide, our example, the One we follow -- is humble in heart. If we want to be Christians -- Christ followers -- so should we. But He doesn't simply make a statement about Himself. He gives a direction. 1) "Take My yoke upon you" and 2) "Learn from Me." So, it takes work (yoke) but we learn it from Him. Just as important, a yoke is a tool that binds two together to do a task. Jesus is there. We learn from Him by doing for Him with Him. So it's not ME doing it, it's WE, and it's not on my own. He aids and guides. The outcome is a bit odd to the natural ear. "You will find rest for your souls." "Come and work," Jesus says. "Learn from Me how to be humble and gentle. It will give you rest."
Jesus said, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me" (Matt 16:24). That is, if we want to be a Jesus follower ("come after Me"), this is necessary. Step One: Deny yourself. There you have it; the first step to humility. The primary mindset. Deny self. Step Two: Take up your cross. Die to self. Now, with self denied and self crucified, where do we go? Wherever He leads.
This theme -- humility -- is throughout Scripture, but perhaps the clearest description is in Philippians.
Can you imagine? How would our relationships change if we lived that way? What would our marriages look like if we lived that way? What would our conversation sound like if we thought that way? How would our priorities change? How would our motivations change? How would our conflicts change? How would our entire mode of operation change?
We Christians look around and see things we know to be wrong among ourselves. There are divorces and conflicts, hard feelings and anger, selfishness and dissension, greediness and division. None of that makes any sense in light of Jesus's clear commands to learn humility from Him. Not one iota is reasonable for followers of Christ if we're supposed to have the mind of Christ in ourselves. Humility is hard, no doubt, but it's not optional. We need to learn it. We need to team up with Christ and practice it. We need to deny self, die to self, and be living examples of our Savior. Too much of the time it doesn't look like we're doing well with that, and Jesus seems to consider it basic, fundamental. We need to turn (repent) and pursue His command and His example. And, look, isn't "rest for your souls" at a premium in today's world?
Paul says, "Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus" and goes on to describe a particular mindset -- humility (Php 2:5-8). Jesus said, "Take My yoke upon you, and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls" (Matt 11:29). He was the Lamb of God who went meekly to His death, the personification of humility. If we are show ourselves to be His followers, humility is not an option; it is a mandate.
So how do we do that?
Jesus said, "Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls" (Matt 11:29). What do we learn about humility from that? First, Jesus -- our Lord and Savior, our guide, our example, the One we follow -- is humble in heart. If we want to be Christians -- Christ followers -- so should we. But He doesn't simply make a statement about Himself. He gives a direction. 1) "Take My yoke upon you" and 2) "Learn from Me." So, it takes work (yoke) but we learn it from Him. Just as important, a yoke is a tool that binds two together to do a task. Jesus is there. We learn from Him by doing for Him with Him. So it's not ME doing it, it's WE, and it's not on my own. He aids and guides. The outcome is a bit odd to the natural ear. "You will find rest for your souls." "Come and work," Jesus says. "Learn from Me how to be humble and gentle. It will give you rest."
Jesus said, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me" (Matt 16:24). That is, if we want to be a Jesus follower ("come after Me"), this is necessary. Step One: Deny yourself. There you have it; the first step to humility. The primary mindset. Deny self. Step Two: Take up your cross. Die to self. Now, with self denied and self crucified, where do we go? Wherever He leads.
This theme -- humility -- is throughout Scripture, but perhaps the clearest description is in Philippians.
Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,who, though He was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, He humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. (Php 2:3-8)Unity is the goal (Php 2:1-2). Humility is the theme. Humility is described as no selfish ambitions or conceit. Humility is described as "count others more significant than yourselves." That's interesting. It does not say, "Count yourself as worthless." It doesn't demean you; it elevates them. "I'm important; they are more." Humility is described as looking out for the interests of others. But, ultimately, our prime description of humility is our Lord Jesus. "Be like Him," Paul urges. What did He surrender to be humble? The immediate presence of the Father. The unmitigated glory of being God the Son. And how far did He go to do it? He became a servant to the point of death. "Have that mind in yourself," Paul urges. "Follow Christ in that way."
Can you imagine? How would our relationships change if we lived that way? What would our marriages look like if we lived that way? What would our conversation sound like if we thought that way? How would our priorities change? How would our motivations change? How would our conflicts change? How would our entire mode of operation change?
We Christians look around and see things we know to be wrong among ourselves. There are divorces and conflicts, hard feelings and anger, selfishness and dissension, greediness and division. None of that makes any sense in light of Jesus's clear commands to learn humility from Him. Not one iota is reasonable for followers of Christ if we're supposed to have the mind of Christ in ourselves. Humility is hard, no doubt, but it's not optional. We need to learn it. We need to team up with Christ and practice it. We need to deny self, die to self, and be living examples of our Savior. Too much of the time it doesn't look like we're doing well with that, and Jesus seems to consider it basic, fundamental. We need to turn (repent) and pursue His command and His example. And, look, isn't "rest for your souls" at a premium in today's world?
Thursday, November 25, 2021
Thanksgiving
It's Thanksgiving Day and a significant number of us will gather with family and friends to be ... thankful. The real question is "Will we?"
One of the primary problems of the sinful human is the fundamental condition of ingratitude (Rom 1:21). Oh, we might be grateful. (I say "might.") We might be grateful that a friend did something nice or a loved one was kind. It's not that gratitude that's lacking so much. It's gratitude towards God, from whom and through whom and to whom are all things (Rom 11:36).
"Being a little over-dramatic, Stan?" some may ask. No, not really. The sin nature does not acknowledge God. So we have atheists who celebrate "Thanksgiving" without giving thanks to God. Now, that's a given; atheists by definition can't give thanks to God. But, just as prevalent, we have people who do claim to believe in God giving too little thanks to the God in whom they believe. We're grateful to friends and family. We're grateful for "warm and pleasant." We're less aware of the vast, overarching reality of all that God supplies and how really good it is -- how really good He is. We rarely say, "The Lord gives and the Lord takes away; may the name of the Lord be praised" (Job 1:20).
James tells us, "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights" (James 1:17). And Paul assures us that "for those who love God all things work together for good" (Rom 8:28). Therefore, on this Thanksgiving Day, let us recognize and thank God for every good and perfect gift we have and for all things (1 Thess 5:18). May we today and every day be truly grateful.
One of the primary problems of the sinful human is the fundamental condition of ingratitude (Rom 1:21). Oh, we might be grateful. (I say "might.") We might be grateful that a friend did something nice or a loved one was kind. It's not that gratitude that's lacking so much. It's gratitude towards God, from whom and through whom and to whom are all things (Rom 11:36).
"Being a little over-dramatic, Stan?" some may ask. No, not really. The sin nature does not acknowledge God. So we have atheists who celebrate "Thanksgiving" without giving thanks to God. Now, that's a given; atheists by definition can't give thanks to God. But, just as prevalent, we have people who do claim to believe in God giving too little thanks to the God in whom they believe. We're grateful to friends and family. We're grateful for "warm and pleasant." We're less aware of the vast, overarching reality of all that God supplies and how really good it is -- how really good He is. We rarely say, "The Lord gives and the Lord takes away; may the name of the Lord be praised" (Job 1:20).
James tells us, "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights" (James 1:17). And Paul assures us that "for those who love God all things work together for good" (Rom 8:28). Therefore, on this Thanksgiving Day, let us recognize and thank God for every good and perfect gift we have and for all things (1 Thess 5:18). May we today and every day be truly grateful.
Wednesday, November 24, 2021
Heretical
Our word, "heresy," comes originally from the Greek hairesis which referred primarily to "choice." The word (in some form) occurs most famously in the Bible in Titus when Paul warns Titus to "Reject a factious man after a first and second warning" (Titus 3:10 NAS), translated in the King James Version as "heretic" (or "heretick") but as something like "a man that stirs up division" in other translations. Paul uses a similar term in 1 Corinthians 11:19 and Galatians 5:20, translated "heresies" in King James and something like "divisions" or "factions" in more modern versions. The idea, then, is one of personal choice. It refers primarily to positions taken as a matter of self-chosen opinion or that of a sect. (I so much wanted to use "sectual," but, alas, the word doesn't actually exist.) So the Bible has multiple warnings against taking positions defined by personal choice rather than ... what? Biblical truth? Sure, but how much of that is "personal choice"? "God's truth"? Sure, but I think we all agree that we can't all agree on what that is. "Historical orthodoxy"? Maybe better, but still ... perhaps you begin to see the problem. So perhaps we ought to try to eliminate the obvious.
Heresies have existed in the Church from the beginning. Indeed, much of the New Testament was written to counter such heresies, such divisions, such personal choices. Paul's first epistle to the church at Corinth dealt with division, sexual immorality, Christian liberty, complementarianism, the Lord's Supper, spiritual gifts, those who argued that resurrection was a myth, and more. His letter to Galatians took on those who argued for salvation by works. His letter to the Colossians dealt with the Gnostics with their "special knowledge." And so on. Lots of deviations from God's truth. So while we 21st century Christians may see plain "heresies" in the church today, be assured that they're not new. Deviation by personal or sectual (I just like the word) choice has always been the case. Gnosticism, Montanism, Docetism, Arianism, Marcionism, Pelagianism, and so on. Historical heresies. Deviations from God's truth.
The decline of truth among those who claim to be believers is not new. In fact, it is common and often hard to detect. The origin of these deviations is disturbing. John says they come "from us" (1 John 2:19). They can be identified because they "went out from us." They "left the beaten path," so to speak. John says we know the truth because we have the Spirit, but, of course, they claim the same, so objectively fighting it can be difficult. Why? Because the standard of truth in our case -- the Bible -- is not an acceptable standard to too many of us. So we can run into problems by taking Scripture in a personal way to mean this when it has historically always meant that but we're pretty sure we've figured out this "new and improved" approach and we "go out."
It's the same today. Within the church we have those who lean away from biblical truth. They lean toward "systemic racism" or "woke theology" or "the new sexual morality" that would include the concept of "gay Christians" or whatever else is new and "forward thinking." They will warn that you are on "the wrong side of history" and caution that "your view will end" and tell you theirs is a better way. Jesus warned about it (Matt 7:15-16). Paul predicted it (Acts 20:29-30). And we have two possible directions we can take on these things that are not the best options. One is to ignore it. When the church at Corinth ignored the sin in their midst, Paul was dismayed (1 Cor 5:1-2). Ignoring it won't make it better. The other is the opposite. "Here is the way!" some declare and then start picking targets and plinking away. "Well, that Christian leader isn't a Christian." Why? "Because he didn't vote the way I think he should have." Really? "And this guy is clearly a false teacher." Oh? Why? "Because he didn't say it the way he should have." And rather than seeking to restore people (Gal 6:1), we seek to cut them off ... at the neck. So ignoring it isn't right and neither is head-hunting.
We do need to be aware of wolves in sheep's clothing. (You know we get that idiom from Jesus Himself, don't you?) We need to watch from within. We need to stick to the truth, stand by the standard, and avoid personal interpretations -- "my truth" theology. The decline and fall of Israel in the Exodus came from within Israel in the Exodus, but keep in mind -- God always keeps a remant. We don't have to worry about being on "the wrong side of history" or "being left behind" when we stand on God's truth and God's Word following God's Spirit. We can count on being ridiculed, but that's not our problem, is it. When those within the church stand and declare to be good that which God's Word clearly declares to be sin, "you shall know them by their fruits" (Matt 7:16). When we are making "progress" by declaring to be true what Scripture calls false and false what God's Word declares to be true, we should know that it is not progress. And, dear readers, we ought to know our bibles well enough to recognize the difference.
Heresies have existed in the Church from the beginning. Indeed, much of the New Testament was written to counter such heresies, such divisions, such personal choices. Paul's first epistle to the church at Corinth dealt with division, sexual immorality, Christian liberty, complementarianism, the Lord's Supper, spiritual gifts, those who argued that resurrection was a myth, and more. His letter to Galatians took on those who argued for salvation by works. His letter to the Colossians dealt with the Gnostics with their "special knowledge." And so on. Lots of deviations from God's truth. So while we 21st century Christians may see plain "heresies" in the church today, be assured that they're not new. Deviation by personal or sectual (I just like the word) choice has always been the case. Gnosticism, Montanism, Docetism, Arianism, Marcionism, Pelagianism, and so on. Historical heresies. Deviations from God's truth.
The decline of truth among those who claim to be believers is not new. In fact, it is common and often hard to detect. The origin of these deviations is disturbing. John says they come "from us" (1 John 2:19). They can be identified because they "went out from us." They "left the beaten path," so to speak. John says we know the truth because we have the Spirit, but, of course, they claim the same, so objectively fighting it can be difficult. Why? Because the standard of truth in our case -- the Bible -- is not an acceptable standard to too many of us. So we can run into problems by taking Scripture in a personal way to mean this when it has historically always meant that but we're pretty sure we've figured out this "new and improved" approach and we "go out."
It's the same today. Within the church we have those who lean away from biblical truth. They lean toward "systemic racism" or "woke theology" or "the new sexual morality" that would include the concept of "gay Christians" or whatever else is new and "forward thinking." They will warn that you are on "the wrong side of history" and caution that "your view will end" and tell you theirs is a better way. Jesus warned about it (Matt 7:15-16). Paul predicted it (Acts 20:29-30). And we have two possible directions we can take on these things that are not the best options. One is to ignore it. When the church at Corinth ignored the sin in their midst, Paul was dismayed (1 Cor 5:1-2). Ignoring it won't make it better. The other is the opposite. "Here is the way!" some declare and then start picking targets and plinking away. "Well, that Christian leader isn't a Christian." Why? "Because he didn't vote the way I think he should have." Really? "And this guy is clearly a false teacher." Oh? Why? "Because he didn't say it the way he should have." And rather than seeking to restore people (Gal 6:1), we seek to cut them off ... at the neck. So ignoring it isn't right and neither is head-hunting.
We do need to be aware of wolves in sheep's clothing. (You know we get that idiom from Jesus Himself, don't you?) We need to watch from within. We need to stick to the truth, stand by the standard, and avoid personal interpretations -- "my truth" theology. The decline and fall of Israel in the Exodus came from within Israel in the Exodus, but keep in mind -- God always keeps a remant. We don't have to worry about being on "the wrong side of history" or "being left behind" when we stand on God's truth and God's Word following God's Spirit. We can count on being ridiculed, but that's not our problem, is it. When those within the church stand and declare to be good that which God's Word clearly declares to be sin, "you shall know them by their fruits" (Matt 7:16). When we are making "progress" by declaring to be true what Scripture calls false and false what God's Word declares to be true, we should know that it is not progress. And, dear readers, we ought to know our bibles well enough to recognize the difference.
Deviant
There's a word. Try that on for size. "Deviant." Just makes you shiver a little, doesn't it? "Ewww, deviant." Not a positive thing. Funny how some words produce a gut response like that. So when I say that homosexual behavior or transgender stuff is "sexually deviant," I manage to produce just such a response, right? For one side, it's "Hey! Who are you calling 'sexually deviant'?" For the other it's "Oh, yeah, that is seriously deviant." And it's a little bit funny because all I actually said was that homosexual behavior or transgender behavior are things that are "differing from a norm." If "norm" is the general level or average and less than 5% of the population are homosexual or transgender, it is an unavoidable conclusion that 5% falls outside of "average" and must be said to be differing from the norm. And since both are sexual in nature, they should be understood as "sexually deviant." So it's only that gut response of ours that makes it a point of contention.
Of course, whether or not LGBT(etc) is regarded as "sexually deviant" is not my point. My point is that "deviant," while almost universally regarded as "evil," is not, by definition, the case. If "deviant" simply means "outside the norm," I would argue that in some cases it would actually be good. I believe it would even commanded by God.
"Uh, oh," I can hear some saying, "Stan has gone around the bend. God commands us to be sexually deviant?" Well, no, that's not what I said. And, yes, He commands us to be deviant. Jesus said, "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the way that leads to life, and only a few find it" (Matt 7:13-14). Do you see that word "few"? That equates to "not average; not normal." "Many" means that a large number go one way while "few" says that a small number go the other. That is a deviation from the norm. Be deviant. Paul, quoting God in the Old Testament, told the Corinthians, "Go out from their midst, and be separate from them" (2 Cor 6:17). That's not the norm; that's a deviation from the norm. Be deviant. Jesus said, "If anyone would come after Me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow Me" (Matt 16:24). That is definitely not normal. Be deviant. John warned, "Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him" (1 John 2:15). That is definitely not mainstream. Be deviant. We are commanded, "Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves" (Php 2:3). That's barely even human. Humans are by nature all about "looking out for #1." Well, don't. Be deviant.
There is so much of this in Scripture that it's impossible to avoid. We who follow Christ are not supposed to be like everyone else. We're supposed to be distinct, different. We're supposed to be deviant ... in a good way. We're supposed to not be like the world that hates God (Rom 8:7). We're supposed to deviate from those norms of sin and depravity. So, it doesn't always hold true that "deviant" means "evil." Christians, if they follow Christ, must be deviant. If you're not, you're not following Christ.
Of course, whether or not LGBT(etc) is regarded as "sexually deviant" is not my point. My point is that "deviant," while almost universally regarded as "evil," is not, by definition, the case. If "deviant" simply means "outside the norm," I would argue that in some cases it would actually be good. I believe it would even commanded by God.
"Uh, oh," I can hear some saying, "Stan has gone around the bend. God commands us to be sexually deviant?" Well, no, that's not what I said. And, yes, He commands us to be deviant. Jesus said, "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the way that leads to life, and only a few find it" (Matt 7:13-14). Do you see that word "few"? That equates to "not average; not normal." "Many" means that a large number go one way while "few" says that a small number go the other. That is a deviation from the norm. Be deviant. Paul, quoting God in the Old Testament, told the Corinthians, "Go out from their midst, and be separate from them" (2 Cor 6:17). That's not the norm; that's a deviation from the norm. Be deviant. Jesus said, "If anyone would come after Me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow Me" (Matt 16:24). That is definitely not normal. Be deviant. John warned, "Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him" (1 John 2:15). That is definitely not mainstream. Be deviant. We are commanded, "Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves" (Php 2:3). That's barely even human. Humans are by nature all about "looking out for #1." Well, don't. Be deviant.
There is so much of this in Scripture that it's impossible to avoid. We who follow Christ are not supposed to be like everyone else. We're supposed to be distinct, different. We're supposed to be deviant ... in a good way. We're supposed to not be like the world that hates God (Rom 8:7). We're supposed to deviate from those norms of sin and depravity. So, it doesn't always hold true that "deviant" means "evil." Christians, if they follow Christ, must be deviant. If you're not, you're not following Christ.
Tuesday, November 23, 2021
Tricky God
Just to clear something up at the outset, that title is not about God, the Most High. It refers to the god of this world (2 Cor 4:4), the prince of the power of the air (Eph 2:2), the spiritual forces of evil (Eph 6:12), your adversary, the devil (1 Peter 5:8).
Think about it for a minute. Have you noticed how just about every virtue that God established is now regarded as evil? Let's look at some examples.
The Bible repeatedly extols the virtue of humility. Jesus blessed the poor in spirit (Matt 5:3) and the meek (Matt 5:5). He said, "Everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted" (Luke 14:11). "He said, "Take My yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls" (Matt 11:29). He told His disciples, "If anyone would be first, he must be last of all and servant of all" (Mark 9:35). He said, "The Son of Man came not to be served but to serve" (Mark 10:45). Jesus was abundantly clear that He was under the Father. And so much more. Proverbs is full of the call for humility (Prov 22:4; Prov 11:2; Prov 15:3; Prov 18:12; Prov 3:34; Prov 29:23; Prov 16:19, etc.). We are told "Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves" (Php 2:3) followed by "Have this mind among yourselves" -- humility (Php 2:5-8). Over and over, and, yet, the virtue of the day is pride, not humility. The god of this world has managed to convince us that humility is humiliation (a lie) and pride is a lofty goal. Pride was the cause of the first sin (Gen 3:5) and continues to be our primary motivation for sin. But humility is looked down on and pride is exalted.
How about love? Everyone thinks that love is a virtue ... until you look at definitions. Love once meant being concerned for the well-being and best interests of another. We've managed to shift it to warm feelings and mainly a sexual content, as if it is no possible to love someone without having sex with them. Nonsense when I put it here in print, but it appears to be the general concensus in practial living. So "love" shifts to "lust" and we've made that a primary good.
It is an interesting fact that just about everything that we recognize as sin can be viewed as not sin. Here's what I mean. Food is not sin, but gluttony is. Taking things is not sin, but stealing is. Sex as God intended it is not sin, but sex outside of marriage is. All the good things that God has provided are good right up until we take them beyond their intended purpose. We make them idols or masters or passions. We allow them to replace God in our hearts. It can be a spouse or a child, a job, a possession, an ambition ... just about anything at all. These things are not evil in and of themselves; we just make them that way when they become more than God is. Years ago someone asked me, "Do dogs go to heaven?" followed by "Because, if my dog isn't going to be in heaven, I don't want to go." More recently, a parent told me, "If my child isn't in heaven, I don't want to be there." Dogs and children are good, but when they become more important than God, they are idols. The god of this world is very adept at turning the good things of God into idols.
These are just examples. The prince of the power of the air is keen on turning that which God describes as good into that which is evil and vice versa. And even we Christians can have a hard time recognizing it. God said that He designed men to be the responsible party in a marriage (1 Cor 11:3) and we're outraged. God tells us to bear one anothers burdens (Gal 6:2) and we're lackadaisical. God commands humility and we see it as an offense. God limits our sexual expressions and we think maybe He's on "the wrong side of history." That's because we have a tricky god, and he's no friend of God. He's also no friend of those of us who wish to worship the true God. Watch out (1 Peter 5:8).
Think about it for a minute. Have you noticed how just about every virtue that God established is now regarded as evil? Let's look at some examples.
The Bible repeatedly extols the virtue of humility. Jesus blessed the poor in spirit (Matt 5:3) and the meek (Matt 5:5). He said, "Everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted" (Luke 14:11). "He said, "Take My yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls" (Matt 11:29). He told His disciples, "If anyone would be first, he must be last of all and servant of all" (Mark 9:35). He said, "The Son of Man came not to be served but to serve" (Mark 10:45). Jesus was abundantly clear that He was under the Father. And so much more. Proverbs is full of the call for humility (Prov 22:4; Prov 11:2; Prov 15:3; Prov 18:12; Prov 3:34; Prov 29:23; Prov 16:19, etc.). We are told "Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves" (Php 2:3) followed by "Have this mind among yourselves" -- humility (Php 2:5-8). Over and over, and, yet, the virtue of the day is pride, not humility. The god of this world has managed to convince us that humility is humiliation (a lie) and pride is a lofty goal. Pride was the cause of the first sin (Gen 3:5) and continues to be our primary motivation for sin. But humility is looked down on and pride is exalted.
How about love? Everyone thinks that love is a virtue ... until you look at definitions. Love once meant being concerned for the well-being and best interests of another. We've managed to shift it to warm feelings and mainly a sexual content, as if it is no possible to love someone without having sex with them. Nonsense when I put it here in print, but it appears to be the general concensus in practial living. So "love" shifts to "lust" and we've made that a primary good.
It is an interesting fact that just about everything that we recognize as sin can be viewed as not sin. Here's what I mean. Food is not sin, but gluttony is. Taking things is not sin, but stealing is. Sex as God intended it is not sin, but sex outside of marriage is. All the good things that God has provided are good right up until we take them beyond their intended purpose. We make them idols or masters or passions. We allow them to replace God in our hearts. It can be a spouse or a child, a job, a possession, an ambition ... just about anything at all. These things are not evil in and of themselves; we just make them that way when they become more than God is. Years ago someone asked me, "Do dogs go to heaven?" followed by "Because, if my dog isn't going to be in heaven, I don't want to go." More recently, a parent told me, "If my child isn't in heaven, I don't want to be there." Dogs and children are good, but when they become more important than God, they are idols. The god of this world is very adept at turning the good things of God into idols.
These are just examples. The prince of the power of the air is keen on turning that which God describes as good into that which is evil and vice versa. And even we Christians can have a hard time recognizing it. God said that He designed men to be the responsible party in a marriage (1 Cor 11:3) and we're outraged. God tells us to bear one anothers burdens (Gal 6:2) and we're lackadaisical. God commands humility and we see it as an offense. God limits our sexual expressions and we think maybe He's on "the wrong side of history." That's because we have a tricky god, and he's no friend of God. He's also no friend of those of us who wish to worship the true God. Watch out (1 Peter 5:8).
Monday, November 22, 2021
The Exam
Paul wrote to the church at Corinth,
What are we supposed to test for? "To see whether you are in the faith." Notice the definite article, "the." There is a difference between "faith" and "the faith." "Faith" simply refers to belief, confident assurance, "to be convinced." "The faith" refers to a specific body of beliefs -- the beliefs that constitute genuine Christianity. Jude uses the phrase when he writes, "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).
Scripture speaks of faith as a gift (2 Peter 1:1; Php 1:29; Acts 3:16; Rom 12:3). Paul said, "The gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable" (Rom 11:29), so it is not possible to lose a gift from God. Clearly, then, the verse in 2nd Corinthians is not a warning about losing your faith. It's a warning about failing to remain in the faith -- the true Christian doctrine.
So, what do we know about "the faith"? We know "the faith" is the body of doctrine and practices we get from God's Word. If your version of the Christian faith differs from God's Word, I'm concerned that it might be off base. We know it is what was provided "once for all" to the saints (Jude 1:3). If you're version of the Christian faith differs from the original, you can be pretty sure there is a problem. We know that the faith is predicated on "saved by grace through faith" and not of works (Eph 2:8-9), so if your Christian faith is based on works or any other method, you are certainly in the realm of "another gospel" which is not a gospel (Gal 1:6-8) and that's a dangerous place to be (Gal 1:8-9).
We each need to examine ourselves to see if we're in the faith. Not "Do I have faith?", but "Is my theology in line with 'the faith once for all delivered to the saints'?" A little bit out of that can be harmful. Very far out of that can be spiritually fatal (if Christ Jesus is not in you). It's an important question to ask yourself.
Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Or do you not realize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?—unless indeed you fail to meet the test! (2 Cor 13:5)First, we must note the personal nature of this text. "Examine yourselves," it says. Not "Check out your neighbor" or anything like that. "Test yourselves." Not someone else.
What are we supposed to test for? "To see whether you are in the faith." Notice the definite article, "the." There is a difference between "faith" and "the faith." "Faith" simply refers to belief, confident assurance, "to be convinced." "The faith" refers to a specific body of beliefs -- the beliefs that constitute genuine Christianity. Jude uses the phrase when he writes, "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).
Scripture speaks of faith as a gift (2 Peter 1:1; Php 1:29; Acts 3:16; Rom 12:3). Paul said, "The gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable" (Rom 11:29), so it is not possible to lose a gift from God. Clearly, then, the verse in 2nd Corinthians is not a warning about losing your faith. It's a warning about failing to remain in the faith -- the true Christian doctrine.
So, what do we know about "the faith"? We know "the faith" is the body of doctrine and practices we get from God's Word. If your version of the Christian faith differs from God's Word, I'm concerned that it might be off base. We know it is what was provided "once for all" to the saints (Jude 1:3). If you're version of the Christian faith differs from the original, you can be pretty sure there is a problem. We know that the faith is predicated on "saved by grace through faith" and not of works (Eph 2:8-9), so if your Christian faith is based on works or any other method, you are certainly in the realm of "another gospel" which is not a gospel (Gal 1:6-8) and that's a dangerous place to be (Gal 1:8-9).
We each need to examine ourselves to see if we're in the faith. Not "Do I have faith?", but "Is my theology in line with 'the faith once for all delivered to the saints'?" A little bit out of that can be harmful. Very far out of that can be spiritually fatal (if Christ Jesus is not in you). It's an important question to ask yourself.
Sunday, November 21, 2021
When My People Pray
That verse in 2nd Chronicles is easy to misuse.
Here's the thing. The text as it is commonly understood urges us to humble ourselves, pray, and seek His face, and those are good things for us. More to the point, shouldn't they be primary, basic, ongoing? Shouldn't we people whose lives are marked by this continually? If we serve our Lord Jesus Christ, shouldn't we be humble, prayerful seekers of His face.
We are God's people. We are joint heirs with Christ. We are His holy ones, His saints. Why is it that Christianity is not memorable for the humility of its adherents? Our primary leader -- Jesus Christ -- was the model of humility, and we are constantly reminded in Scripture to be humble ... like Him. How is it that we are not primarily pray-ers? Why would it be that prayer comes hard to us? "No, it doesn't," some might object, but look at the facts. Prayer meetings in churches, once a staple, have been largely discontinued ... for poor attendance. Why would we not be marked as people seeking God's face? But, we're not. We're pretty well known as the keepers of morality or the self-righteous (an actual contradiction of Christianity) or the like, but we are not best known for our devotion to all things "God." Why not?
The verse in 2nd Chronicles is easily misunderstood, but it's a good one. No, we don't get a promise we can save America if we pray. No, our forgiveness is not contingent on our humility. But if we are His people, we ought to be pursuing humility, ought to be praying, ought to be seeking His face. A good reminder, then. Direction is helpful. Conviction, too, if necessary.
If My people who are called by My name humble themselves and pray and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land" (2 Chron 7:14)"Misuse?" you may ask. Yes. The text was to Israel who had a Promised Land. We don't. "I will ... heal their land" is a promise to Israel, not us. Further, Israel was promised here that if they did what He said, "then I ... will forgive their sin," and we have a better promise. Our sin is forgiven already (Rom 6:10; Heb 10:10). If we -- believers -- fail to humble ourselves, pray, and seek His face, we're still forgiven.
Here's the thing. The text as it is commonly understood urges us to humble ourselves, pray, and seek His face, and those are good things for us. More to the point, shouldn't they be primary, basic, ongoing? Shouldn't we people whose lives are marked by this continually? If we serve our Lord Jesus Christ, shouldn't we be humble, prayerful seekers of His face.
We are God's people. We are joint heirs with Christ. We are His holy ones, His saints. Why is it that Christianity is not memorable for the humility of its adherents? Our primary leader -- Jesus Christ -- was the model of humility, and we are constantly reminded in Scripture to be humble ... like Him. How is it that we are not primarily pray-ers? Why would it be that prayer comes hard to us? "No, it doesn't," some might object, but look at the facts. Prayer meetings in churches, once a staple, have been largely discontinued ... for poor attendance. Why would we not be marked as people seeking God's face? But, we're not. We're pretty well known as the keepers of morality or the self-righteous (an actual contradiction of Christianity) or the like, but we are not best known for our devotion to all things "God." Why not?
The verse in 2nd Chronicles is easily misunderstood, but it's a good one. No, we don't get a promise we can save America if we pray. No, our forgiveness is not contingent on our humility. But if we are His people, we ought to be pursuing humility, ought to be praying, ought to be seeking His face. A good reminder, then. Direction is helpful. Conviction, too, if necessary.
Saturday, November 20, 2021
News Weakly - 11/20/21
Big Enough
Former presidential candidate Beto O'Rourke has decided to run for governor of Texas. "Together," he says, "we can push past the small and divisive politics ... and get back to a big, bold vision ... A Texas big enough for all of us." All of us unless you're a gun owner, not inclined to get vaccinated, make your money from oil, or anything else he doesn't approve. So ... small ... a small Texas will work.
The Devil You Say
Reuters has a story on the upcoming hearing on multiple lawsuits filed against OSHA's vaccine mandate for employers of more than 100 people. All well and good. We'll see how that comes out. The bias in the story is interesting, though. In the story it says, "There are 13 federal appeals courts and the rule has been challenged in at least 10 of them by business groups, Republican-led states, employers and unions." (Emphasis mine.) Now, according to Business Insider, more than half the states are suing and "three Democrat-led states are among the 26." And Forbes offered a story declaring, "Here are the GOP-led states fighting the Biden Administration." Time also offers just "Republican-led states." There are plenty of voices declaring opposition to the mandate to be "Republican" and "political" as if there are no other reasons. That, dear reader, is what we call a lie. Now, who was it that said, "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."?
New Math
It just doesn't add up. In all nations around the world more and more people are getting vaccinated for COVID or even have had it. If the "math" is right, that should mean less people available to get COVID. But after the vaccinations took off at the beginning of 2020, a surge cranked out more COVID cases. Now, as we edge up above the 70% vaccinated range, Dr. Fauci is warning, as case rates are rising again even among the vaccinated, that we may see a "double whammy" affecting "even the vaccinated people." Now, hang on! I thought this vaccine was our salvation. I thought that the only real threat was the unvaccinated. I thought ... okay, I suppose I didn't. The math isn't adding up. Vaccinations at an all-time high and surging COVID even among the vaccinated do not add up to a good solution. What they do add up to is someone is lying to us.
Unjust
Why do we bother anymore? Why even try? When the judge in the Ahmaud Arbery trial allowed a nearly all white jury, the public was assured there would be no fair trial. White people cannot give fair rulings. Now Time is reporting that Biden may lose his vaccine mandate because the case will be heard by "the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, where a majority of the justices have been appointed by Republican presidents." And everyone knows you can't expect Republican-appointed judges to give a fair ruling. These days politics and polemics rule even the courts and, it seems, we all believe that the court will rule by its bias rather than by law. So why bother? If "No justice, no peace" is a real thing and we can expect no real justice, it doesn't look good for our future.
Strange Standards
In this world where "same-sex" can be an adjective for "marriage" and women should have the right to kill babies if it means they can have sex whenever they want and using the wrong pronouns can be a jailable offense, we find this objection. An assistant professor at Old Dominion University used the term "minor-attracted persons" to suggest that we shouldn't stigmatize adults who are sexually attracted to children. "Pedophile," you see, is an insult. The school distanced themselves from the (transexual) professor and people are miffed because that kind of sexual deviation* is protected and ought to be embraced, but this kind is evil and wrong. I want to know who is making the standards.
*Groan all you want about my use of the term "sexual deviation," but you know that "same-sex attraction" is by far not the statistical norm. That is, it is undoubtedly a deviation from the norm.
Don't Bother Me With Facts
A Florida teacher died of COVID after her husband sued the hospital to treat her with ivermectin. They refused. Ivermectin, as we all know, has no effect on COVID. It is misinformation that has produced some interest in using the drug to treat COVID. In 2015 the Nobel Committee for Physiology or Medicine awarded the prize to the discoverers of ivermectin for treating some of the most devastating tropical diseases. In March of 2020, researchers tracked patients treated with ivermectin for COVID. "Six of seven meta-analyses of IVM treatment RCTs reporting in 2021 found notable reductions in COVID-19 fatalities." The researchers believed "that the evidence to date supports the worldwide extension of IVM treatments for COVID-19, complementary to immunizations." But, look, if we're not going to listen to science, neither should science listen to science.
Making No Sense
So, in light of the court putting OSHA's "Employers over 100 employees" vaccination rule on hold, OSHA is suspending enforcement pending the next ruling (which was what the court required). But employment attorneys are recommending complying immediately just in case. In effect, then, the court will have nothing to rule on because the deed will be done. Nicely played, employment attorneys. "Non-compliance is not an option ... even if the court rules otherwise."
Good News!
Well, it's not a surprise, I suppose, but this just in from the media. The Democrats have approved another $1.75 trillion to throw at our problems. The CBO (Congressional Budget Office) says it's going to cost us all in taxes, inflation, national debt ... you name it. (And by "all" I include future generations. (The White House told Democcrats, "Just ignore them; they don't know what they're talking about.") The government is promising that all the people and corporations that pay people to work will be losing more money for this, and you know that won't hurt anyone in the bottom rungs, right? Given the current price increases for everyday things, no, that's not right. This won't be good.
The Cost of Believing in Science
According to People magazine, J.K. Rowling, the author of the Harry Potter series, has not been invited to take part in a Harry Potter reunion. Why? She believes that males and females are different. Nice. Canceled for believing the science.
Bee Low
We had some interesting news this week from the Babylon Bee. One headline read, "Fauci: 'Individual Rights Are Not As Important As The Needs Of The Borg Collective'," but you'd have to be a fan of Star Trek to get that. Another stated, "Kyle Rittenhouse Asked To Step Outside And Defend The Courthouse While Verdict Is Being Read," but that only works if you're up on the Kyle Rittenhouse case. I laughed at this one, too. The Babylon Bee reported that Kenosha residents were painting their doorposts with "Black Lives Matter" in preparation for the verdict. I guess you'd have to know about the original Passover to get that (Exo 12:22). Maybe it has been a more specialized news week?
Former presidential candidate Beto O'Rourke has decided to run for governor of Texas. "Together," he says, "we can push past the small and divisive politics ... and get back to a big, bold vision ... A Texas big enough for all of us." All of us unless you're a gun owner, not inclined to get vaccinated, make your money from oil, or anything else he doesn't approve. So ... small ... a small Texas will work.
The Devil You Say
Reuters has a story on the upcoming hearing on multiple lawsuits filed against OSHA's vaccine mandate for employers of more than 100 people. All well and good. We'll see how that comes out. The bias in the story is interesting, though. In the story it says, "There are 13 federal appeals courts and the rule has been challenged in at least 10 of them by business groups, Republican-led states, employers and unions." (Emphasis mine.) Now, according to Business Insider, more than half the states are suing and "three Democrat-led states are among the 26." And Forbes offered a story declaring, "Here are the GOP-led states fighting the Biden Administration." Time also offers just "Republican-led states." There are plenty of voices declaring opposition to the mandate to be "Republican" and "political" as if there are no other reasons. That, dear reader, is what we call a lie. Now, who was it that said, "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."?
New Math
It just doesn't add up. In all nations around the world more and more people are getting vaccinated for COVID or even have had it. If the "math" is right, that should mean less people available to get COVID. But after the vaccinations took off at the beginning of 2020, a surge cranked out more COVID cases. Now, as we edge up above the 70% vaccinated range, Dr. Fauci is warning, as case rates are rising again even among the vaccinated, that we may see a "double whammy" affecting "even the vaccinated people." Now, hang on! I thought this vaccine was our salvation. I thought that the only real threat was the unvaccinated. I thought ... okay, I suppose I didn't. The math isn't adding up. Vaccinations at an all-time high and surging COVID even among the vaccinated do not add up to a good solution. What they do add up to is someone is lying to us.
Unjust
Why do we bother anymore? Why even try? When the judge in the Ahmaud Arbery trial allowed a nearly all white jury, the public was assured there would be no fair trial. White people cannot give fair rulings. Now Time is reporting that Biden may lose his vaccine mandate because the case will be heard by "the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, where a majority of the justices have been appointed by Republican presidents." And everyone knows you can't expect Republican-appointed judges to give a fair ruling. These days politics and polemics rule even the courts and, it seems, we all believe that the court will rule by its bias rather than by law. So why bother? If "No justice, no peace" is a real thing and we can expect no real justice, it doesn't look good for our future.
Strange Standards
In this world where "same-sex" can be an adjective for "marriage" and women should have the right to kill babies if it means they can have sex whenever they want and using the wrong pronouns can be a jailable offense, we find this objection. An assistant professor at Old Dominion University used the term "minor-attracted persons" to suggest that we shouldn't stigmatize adults who are sexually attracted to children. "Pedophile," you see, is an insult. The school distanced themselves from the (transexual) professor and people are miffed because that kind of sexual deviation* is protected and ought to be embraced, but this kind is evil and wrong. I want to know who is making the standards.
*Groan all you want about my use of the term "sexual deviation," but you know that "same-sex attraction" is by far not the statistical norm. That is, it is undoubtedly a deviation from the norm.
Don't Bother Me With Facts
A Florida teacher died of COVID after her husband sued the hospital to treat her with ivermectin. They refused. Ivermectin, as we all know, has no effect on COVID. It is misinformation that has produced some interest in using the drug to treat COVID. In 2015 the Nobel Committee for Physiology or Medicine awarded the prize to the discoverers of ivermectin for treating some of the most devastating tropical diseases. In March of 2020, researchers tracked patients treated with ivermectin for COVID. "Six of seven meta-analyses of IVM treatment RCTs reporting in 2021 found notable reductions in COVID-19 fatalities." The researchers believed "that the evidence to date supports the worldwide extension of IVM treatments for COVID-19, complementary to immunizations." But, look, if we're not going to listen to science, neither should science listen to science.
Making No Sense
So, in light of the court putting OSHA's "Employers over 100 employees" vaccination rule on hold, OSHA is suspending enforcement pending the next ruling (which was what the court required). But employment attorneys are recommending complying immediately just in case. In effect, then, the court will have nothing to rule on because the deed will be done. Nicely played, employment attorneys. "Non-compliance is not an option ... even if the court rules otherwise."
Good News!
Well, it's not a surprise, I suppose, but this just in from the media. The Democrats have approved another $1.75 trillion to throw at our problems. The CBO (Congressional Budget Office) says it's going to cost us all in taxes, inflation, national debt ... you name it. (And by "all" I include future generations. (The White House told Democcrats, "Just ignore them; they don't know what they're talking about.") The government is promising that all the people and corporations that pay people to work will be losing more money for this, and you know that won't hurt anyone in the bottom rungs, right? Given the current price increases for everyday things, no, that's not right. This won't be good.
The Cost of Believing in Science
According to People magazine, J.K. Rowling, the author of the Harry Potter series, has not been invited to take part in a Harry Potter reunion. Why? She believes that males and females are different. Nice. Canceled for believing the science.
Bee Low
We had some interesting news this week from the Babylon Bee. One headline read, "Fauci: 'Individual Rights Are Not As Important As The Needs Of The Borg Collective'," but you'd have to be a fan of Star Trek to get that. Another stated, "Kyle Rittenhouse Asked To Step Outside And Defend The Courthouse While Verdict Is Being Read," but that only works if you're up on the Kyle Rittenhouse case. I laughed at this one, too. The Babylon Bee reported that Kenosha residents were painting their doorposts with "Black Lives Matter" in preparation for the verdict. I guess you'd have to know about the original Passover to get that (Exo 12:22). Maybe it has been a more specialized news week?
Friday, November 19, 2021
Building a Church
Overheard at church. "So, where is your daughter going to church now?" "Oh, they chose a bigger church. That way they don't feel any pressure to get involved with ministry or anything." Barna is reporting that something like 1/3 of those who attended worship in person quit during COVID restrictions and haven't returned, even to the electronic version. Gallup has tracked church attendance since the late 1930's. They report that up until 1999 it remained around 70%. At the turn of the century it started declining and, in 2020, it dropped to 47% -- the lowest ever.
Concerned Christians everywhere might wonder what they need to do to bring people in again. In 2017 Gallup reported that the thing that appeals most to churchgoers was good sermons. But you can get good sermons online and people are dropping out at church and online. If church is treated like most other things, most people will do at least a kind of cost-benefit analysis. "What does it cost us to go versus what do we get out of it." And apparently it costs (in some sense or another) more to go than what (whatever that might be) they get out of it. So what are concerned Christians to do?
I think the problem is elsewhere. I think the difficulty is that we no longer have a clue about what church is for. "I don't want to feel any pressure to get involved" misses the point entirely. "Good sermons" are a good thing, but that, too, misses the point entirely. "What I get out of it" is the wrong question. The fact that we don't see that says that we don't understand church.
The Bible describes the church as "the Body of Christ" (1 Cor 12:27; Eph 4:12). We often speak of those in our church as "family." "What I get out of it" doesn't seem to factor into these kinds of images. Not getting involved doesn't make any sense if church is a body, a family. Paul describes the church as an actual body with many members (1 Cor 12:12) where each of us is important and each of us plays a critical role and the body cannot afford to lose any of those inputs (1 Cor 12:14-25). The primary aim of this body is to glorify God and to edify each other (Eph 4:12). Indeed, John argues that love of fellow believers is the central, essential mark of a Christian (1 John 4:21). If we do not love God's people, we do not know God (1 John 4:7-8). And church is designed to be a place to exercise that love. "Everyone who loves the Father," John writes, "loves whoever has been born of Him" (1 John 5:1). If we're just not that keen on loving other believers, John is suggesting we're not too keen on loving the Father. The two are irrevocably linked.
Church is more about "what I get out of it." It is more than "attractional ministry" -- "What draws me in?" It is more than good preaching and good presentation and good programs. The church is designed to be the Body of Christ, the family of God. Both are a dynamic interrelationship that is hard to fathom. Neither of these two images can successfully operate when their composing parts don't connect. We need to see a more robust image of what God intended the church to be and we need to participate in building what we have toward that .. starting with ourselves.
Concerned Christians everywhere might wonder what they need to do to bring people in again. In 2017 Gallup reported that the thing that appeals most to churchgoers was good sermons. But you can get good sermons online and people are dropping out at church and online. If church is treated like most other things, most people will do at least a kind of cost-benefit analysis. "What does it cost us to go versus what do we get out of it." And apparently it costs (in some sense or another) more to go than what (whatever that might be) they get out of it. So what are concerned Christians to do?
I think the problem is elsewhere. I think the difficulty is that we no longer have a clue about what church is for. "I don't want to feel any pressure to get involved" misses the point entirely. "Good sermons" are a good thing, but that, too, misses the point entirely. "What I get out of it" is the wrong question. The fact that we don't see that says that we don't understand church.
The Bible describes the church as "the Body of Christ" (1 Cor 12:27; Eph 4:12). We often speak of those in our church as "family." "What I get out of it" doesn't seem to factor into these kinds of images. Not getting involved doesn't make any sense if church is a body, a family. Paul describes the church as an actual body with many members (1 Cor 12:12) where each of us is important and each of us plays a critical role and the body cannot afford to lose any of those inputs (1 Cor 12:14-25). The primary aim of this body is to glorify God and to edify each other (Eph 4:12). Indeed, John argues that love of fellow believers is the central, essential mark of a Christian (1 John 4:21). If we do not love God's people, we do not know God (1 John 4:7-8). And church is designed to be a place to exercise that love. "Everyone who loves the Father," John writes, "loves whoever has been born of Him" (1 John 5:1). If we're just not that keen on loving other believers, John is suggesting we're not too keen on loving the Father. The two are irrevocably linked.
Church is more about "what I get out of it." It is more than "attractional ministry" -- "What draws me in?" It is more than good preaching and good presentation and good programs. The church is designed to be the Body of Christ, the family of God. Both are a dynamic interrelationship that is hard to fathom. Neither of these two images can successfully operate when their composing parts don't connect. We need to see a more robust image of what God intended the church to be and we need to participate in building what we have toward that .. starting with ourselves.
Thursday, November 18, 2021
We Pledge
Let's face it. America stinks. I mean, look at the (current) history reports. All of our Founding Fathers were racist, white supremacist, sexist scum. White people came to this country to kill Native Americans and enslave black people. We are the grand Imperialists, the rich, white nation ... we are evil at the core. At least, that's what they're telling us ... while they assure us they love this nation. While voices call for the end of America in its entirety, we silence those who call for traditional American values. Because America, at its core, is rotten.
During World War II, America sent her men and women to war. Americans at home willingly sacrificed for defending freedom in Europe and protecting America from Japanese aggression. Mothers went to work. Fathers went to war. People sacrificed. Historians estimate that 420,000 Americans died in that war. But Americans thought that freedom was worth it. Something changed after that. We grudginly sent troops to defend South Korea against North Korean incursion and some 54,000 Americans died. But, we tolerated it. The subsequent generation, however, would have none of the same in Vietnam. Those that went to southeast Asia to stop the spread of Communism were labeled "baby killers." We wouldn't tolerate sacrifice for the freedom of others, and America tucked her tail and ran. Freedom was no longer worth the price.
The Founding Fathers considered human rights to be a divine right. They stood up to an overwhelming force and declared independence. They said, "For the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor." Today's society belittles them, erasing them from public view. We know better now. We know that freedom isn't worth the paper it's printed on. We know that the Bill of Rights is an outdated document. They pledged their lives, fortunes, and honor in defense of mutual freedom. The rise of individual over community has given us the attitude, "I'll pry my freedoms from your cold, dead fingers." But I think that the real difference between those who sacrificed for the freedom of others and our society today is found in that first phrase. They had "a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence." If you have reliance on the Divine, sacrifice comes much easier. Not for us. We've evicted the Divine. Now all we have us our own selves. We've built a scary world.
During World War II, America sent her men and women to war. Americans at home willingly sacrificed for defending freedom in Europe and protecting America from Japanese aggression. Mothers went to work. Fathers went to war. People sacrificed. Historians estimate that 420,000 Americans died in that war. But Americans thought that freedom was worth it. Something changed after that. We grudginly sent troops to defend South Korea against North Korean incursion and some 54,000 Americans died. But, we tolerated it. The subsequent generation, however, would have none of the same in Vietnam. Those that went to southeast Asia to stop the spread of Communism were labeled "baby killers." We wouldn't tolerate sacrifice for the freedom of others, and America tucked her tail and ran. Freedom was no longer worth the price.
The Founding Fathers considered human rights to be a divine right. They stood up to an overwhelming force and declared independence. They said, "For the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor." Today's society belittles them, erasing them from public view. We know better now. We know that freedom isn't worth the paper it's printed on. We know that the Bill of Rights is an outdated document. They pledged their lives, fortunes, and honor in defense of mutual freedom. The rise of individual over community has given us the attitude, "I'll pry my freedoms from your cold, dead fingers." But I think that the real difference between those who sacrificed for the freedom of others and our society today is found in that first phrase. They had "a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence." If you have reliance on the Divine, sacrifice comes much easier. Not for us. We've evicted the Divine. Now all we have us our own selves. We've built a scary world.
Wednesday, November 17, 2021
In the Broadest Sense
When I read Scripture, I'm finding it interesting to take the long view, so to speak. We are fairly comfortable with the "read a chapter" kind of approach. I think we're missing a lot when we do that. You may not know this, but chapter and verse distinctions are not the inspired Word of God. As such, there are ... errors, so to speak.
Take, for instance, the first 4 chapters of 1 Corinthians. Paul gives an intro (1 Cor 1:1-9) and then launches into his first topic -- division in the church. Paul covers that topic for 4 chapters. The breaks at the beginnings of chapter 2 and chapter 3 and chapter 4 are artificial. If you read chapter 1 and stop, you're only at the beginning of Paul's address to the church at Corinth regarding divisions in the church at Corinth. "Hold that thought," you are saying in essence. "We can pick this up tomorrow." Who does that?
A similar situation occurs starting at chapter 8. Paul talks from chapter 8 and following on the topic of our freedom in Christ -- the doctrine we call "Christian Liberty." All well and good. But he doesn't stop at the chapter break at 9. In chapter 8 he says not to abuse your freedom because you may cause a weaker brother to stumble. In chapter 9 he uses himself as a prime example. "Am I not an apostle?" he asks (1 Cor 9:1), goes on to list all the things that apostles have the right to expect, and then explains that he hasn't claimed those rights. He surrendered his freedoms as an apostle to bring them the gospel without charge (1 Cor 9:18). Okay, then, we're done, right? No. In chapter 10 he does not change subjects. He uses the example of Israel in the desert to warn his readers about the other danger of Christian Liberty. Before, he warned that we could harm others by exercising our liberty. Now he warns that we could harm ourselves by exercising our liberty. It's too easy, walking too close to sin, to fall into it. "Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry," he says (1 Cor 10:14). He ends the chapter with the round up, so to speak. On the topic of Christian Liberty, here's the fundamental guideline: "Whatever you do, do all to the glory of God" (1 Cor 10:31).
There. That's the end of that, right? If we're guided by chapter breaks, it would seem so. But, chapter 11 begins with "Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ" (1 Cor 11:1). Chapter 11 verse 2 begins with "now," a word that seems to indicate "moving to the next topic." And that first verse seems most naturally and correctly associated with the last thoughts of chapter 10. Here, you read it.
What's my point? I am urging you not to read a verse. I'm urging you to read a text. I'm urging you to read a verse, its subtext, its context, its entire surroundings. I'm encouraging you to be a rabid consumer of Scripture. A while back I taught on the Gospel of John. The group opted next to go on to 1 John. While we were there, we just went on to cover 2 John and 3 John. Now, I've read all of that more times than I can count, but never before had I recognized the continuity. John wrote the gospel and it spilled into his other writings over and over. Key things he picked up in his experiences with Jesus colored everything else and he repeated them often, sometimes word for word. My point is that if I simply did what I was used to -- read a bit and move on -- I would have missed the broader context ... which has a broader context in the rest of the New Testament ... which has a broader context in the Bible as a whole. That's what I'm hoping you'll see and try. Don't minimize your reading and studying. Broaden it. See how it all fits together. Let God's Word teach you God's Word. Let Scripture interpret Scripture. See it as a whole. I think it will be of great benefit to you and others.
Take, for instance, the first 4 chapters of 1 Corinthians. Paul gives an intro (1 Cor 1:1-9) and then launches into his first topic -- division in the church. Paul covers that topic for 4 chapters. The breaks at the beginnings of chapter 2 and chapter 3 and chapter 4 are artificial. If you read chapter 1 and stop, you're only at the beginning of Paul's address to the church at Corinth regarding divisions in the church at Corinth. "Hold that thought," you are saying in essence. "We can pick this up tomorrow." Who does that?
A similar situation occurs starting at chapter 8. Paul talks from chapter 8 and following on the topic of our freedom in Christ -- the doctrine we call "Christian Liberty." All well and good. But he doesn't stop at the chapter break at 9. In chapter 8 he says not to abuse your freedom because you may cause a weaker brother to stumble. In chapter 9 he uses himself as a prime example. "Am I not an apostle?" he asks (1 Cor 9:1), goes on to list all the things that apostles have the right to expect, and then explains that he hasn't claimed those rights. He surrendered his freedoms as an apostle to bring them the gospel without charge (1 Cor 9:18). Okay, then, we're done, right? No. In chapter 10 he does not change subjects. He uses the example of Israel in the desert to warn his readers about the other danger of Christian Liberty. Before, he warned that we could harm others by exercising our liberty. Now he warns that we could harm ourselves by exercising our liberty. It's too easy, walking too close to sin, to fall into it. "Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry," he says (1 Cor 10:14). He ends the chapter with the round up, so to speak. On the topic of Christian Liberty, here's the fundamental guideline: "Whatever you do, do all to the glory of God" (1 Cor 10:31).
There. That's the end of that, right? If we're guided by chapter breaks, it would seem so. But, chapter 11 begins with "Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ" (1 Cor 11:1). Chapter 11 verse 2 begins with "now," a word that seems to indicate "moving to the next topic." And that first verse seems most naturally and correctly associated with the last thoughts of chapter 10. Here, you read it.
So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God, just as I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved. Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ. (1 Cor 10:31-33, 11:1)Is that not the most natural reading of the text? "In everything you do, glorify God. Don't offend anyone, just as I try to please everyone in everything I do, that they may be saved. Follow my example as I follow Christ." That makes the most sense to me.
What's my point? I am urging you not to read a verse. I'm urging you to read a text. I'm urging you to read a verse, its subtext, its context, its entire surroundings. I'm encouraging you to be a rabid consumer of Scripture. A while back I taught on the Gospel of John. The group opted next to go on to 1 John. While we were there, we just went on to cover 2 John and 3 John. Now, I've read all of that more times than I can count, but never before had I recognized the continuity. John wrote the gospel and it spilled into his other writings over and over. Key things he picked up in his experiences with Jesus colored everything else and he repeated them often, sometimes word for word. My point is that if I simply did what I was used to -- read a bit and move on -- I would have missed the broader context ... which has a broader context in the rest of the New Testament ... which has a broader context in the Bible as a whole. That's what I'm hoping you'll see and try. Don't minimize your reading and studying. Broaden it. See how it all fits together. Let God's Word teach you God's Word. Let Scripture interpret Scripture. See it as a whole. I think it will be of great benefit to you and others.
Tuesday, November 16, 2021
Make a Difference
I'm sure it's familiar to you. I'm sure you even know the common term: "The Great Commission."
The premise of the Great Commission is the Risen Lord Jesus. "Because all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me ...," He says. "On that basis, do this." Do what? There is only one actual command in this commission: "make disciples." All the other verbs are simply modifiers to that command. There is "go" and "baptize" and "teach" that modify "make disciples," but the singular command is μαθητεύω -- mathēteuō -- to be or make a disciple of one. In this case it is clearly to make (as opposed to "to be") disciples since the rest of the context of the command points out, not in -- going, baptizing, teaching. So our prime directive here is to make others into disciples "of one." Of whom? Not you and me; of Christ. How do we know that? Again, it's in the context. Teaching them "to observe all that I have commanded you." Make them disciples of Christ. Make them followers of Christ. Most literally, make them learners of Christ. Note that it doesn't say, "Make converts." It doesn't say simply, "Lead them to Jesus." It says to make them followers -- disciples.
The command is clarified. Where do we do this? As you are going. Wherever you go. Clearly not just in your home or your neighborhood (by which I mean you do indeed do it there -- just not only there). Go. Maybe you're going yourself; maybe you're sending. But the "where" is extensive.
What is a disciple? First, a follower of Christ is baptized -- baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. "You mean, use those names?" No. We've discussed this before. "In the name of" doesn't mean "using that name." There are no examples in the New Testament of anyone ever baptizing someone "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." It was always "in the name of Jesus" (Acts 2:38; Acts 8:16; Acts 10:48; Acts 10:48; Acts 19:5). More accurately it means to baptize "into" the name. And "the name" means more at "the character." So it is "Immerse them into the character of our Trinitarian God -- into all that He is." That would be a physical and a spiritual baptism. Second, a disciple is taught -- taught not only all what Christ commanded, but taught to obey all that Christ commanded. And if John was accurate -- Jesus was "the Word" (John 1:1) -- then we're talking about all of Scripture; not just the red letters.
Perhaps you can begin see the immensity of this commission. Everywhere you go. Not merely converts. Immerse them into God. Teach them to know and keep the Word. Rinse and repeat. Teach them to make disciples. Continue to immerse them into God. Continue to teach ... it just keeps going. You can see why one pastor told me, "It's just too much work." And, yet ...
Jesus said why. "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me." And Jesus said how. "I am with you always, to the end of the age." So, no, it's not a lark, a game, a breeze. It's a lot of work. But it is a command from the highest authority and it is supported by the present Lord Jesus. It's a sure thing.
So, my question is "How is that going for you?" Are you making disciples? Are you being discipled? What's keeping you from it? If it's fear or laziness or false humility, it's time to move on. It is, after all, the Great Commission. Not just some downstream recommendation. And remember, "Whoever says he abides in Him ought to walk in the same way in which He walked" (1 John 2:6). That, dear readers, is one of the ways we can know we are in Him (1 John 2:5). Make a difference. Be a disciple. Make disciples. It's not about you, your knowledge, your skills, your abilities. It's about Him.
And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age." (Matt 28:18-20)We recognize it as the Great Commission, so why don't we practice it?
The premise of the Great Commission is the Risen Lord Jesus. "Because all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me ...," He says. "On that basis, do this." Do what? There is only one actual command in this commission: "make disciples." All the other verbs are simply modifiers to that command. There is "go" and "baptize" and "teach" that modify "make disciples," but the singular command is μαθητεύω -- mathēteuō -- to be or make a disciple of one. In this case it is clearly to make (as opposed to "to be") disciples since the rest of the context of the command points out, not in -- going, baptizing, teaching. So our prime directive here is to make others into disciples "of one." Of whom? Not you and me; of Christ. How do we know that? Again, it's in the context. Teaching them "to observe all that I have commanded you." Make them disciples of Christ. Make them followers of Christ. Most literally, make them learners of Christ. Note that it doesn't say, "Make converts." It doesn't say simply, "Lead them to Jesus." It says to make them followers -- disciples.
The command is clarified. Where do we do this? As you are going. Wherever you go. Clearly not just in your home or your neighborhood (by which I mean you do indeed do it there -- just not only there). Go. Maybe you're going yourself; maybe you're sending. But the "where" is extensive.
What is a disciple? First, a follower of Christ is baptized -- baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. "You mean, use those names?" No. We've discussed this before. "In the name of" doesn't mean "using that name." There are no examples in the New Testament of anyone ever baptizing someone "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." It was always "in the name of Jesus" (Acts 2:38; Acts 8:16; Acts 10:48; Acts 10:48; Acts 19:5). More accurately it means to baptize "into" the name. And "the name" means more at "the character." So it is "Immerse them into the character of our Trinitarian God -- into all that He is." That would be a physical and a spiritual baptism. Second, a disciple is taught -- taught not only all what Christ commanded, but taught to obey all that Christ commanded. And if John was accurate -- Jesus was "the Word" (John 1:1) -- then we're talking about all of Scripture; not just the red letters.
Perhaps you can begin see the immensity of this commission. Everywhere you go. Not merely converts. Immerse them into God. Teach them to know and keep the Word. Rinse and repeat. Teach them to make disciples. Continue to immerse them into God. Continue to teach ... it just keeps going. You can see why one pastor told me, "It's just too much work." And, yet ...
Jesus said why. "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me." And Jesus said how. "I am with you always, to the end of the age." So, no, it's not a lark, a game, a breeze. It's a lot of work. But it is a command from the highest authority and it is supported by the present Lord Jesus. It's a sure thing.
So, my question is "How is that going for you?" Are you making disciples? Are you being discipled? What's keeping you from it? If it's fear or laziness or false humility, it's time to move on. It is, after all, the Great Commission. Not just some downstream recommendation. And remember, "Whoever says he abides in Him ought to walk in the same way in which He walked" (1 John 2:6). That, dear readers, is one of the ways we can know we are in Him (1 John 2:5). Make a difference. Be a disciple. Make disciples. It's not about you, your knowledge, your skills, your abilities. It's about Him.
Monday, November 15, 2021
Danger, Will Robinson
In 2001, America got smacked ... hard. More than 3,000 people died in a multifaceted attack from Islamic terrorists. They took our own aircraft and flew them into buildings. Terrorism won that round; we were terrified. So, in the name of safety, we surrendered liberty. No, not all liberty, but neither was it an insignificant amount. New agencies sprung into existence. Long lines and travel restrictions at airports became the norm. The TSA assumed greater authority and prominence. People faced arrest and detention with much less protection if they fell in the "possible terrorist" category. "No fly lists" and other measures sprung into place. Clearly there were mistakes, like citizens who were never a threat might have ended up on a "no fly list" or that kind of thing. But, we were ever reminded that safety was paramount and, as such, personal freedoms took a lower place.
That was 20 years ago now, and we haven't had a serious terrorist event since. Success! But the effect wasn't just against terrorism. As we've seen in the last nearly two years, Americans are still willing, nay, eager to surrender freedoms for safety. COVID-19 vastly supplanted our terrorist concerns. We willingly locked ourselves in our homes, lost our jobs, closed our businesses, and endured other hardships because of COVID! "We're all going to die!" was not an uncommon cry. America once again surrendered freedom for safety, and it has not been without cost. Government overreach, in the name of safety, killed unknown numbers of people who, fearing the pandemic, neglected getting life-saving treatment for fear of a pandemic. Suicides, drug overdoses, cancer deaths ... all increased from our "safety measures." But it didn't matter. We feel safer.
Now we have vaccine mandates. It cannot be argued that this is not a violation of personal rights. No one is arguing that. They're arguing, "We must surrender our right to determining what is done to our bodies in favor of safety." Again. But with gusto. Some voices are clamoring for removing the unvaccinated from medical care, from employment, from access to food and clothing and other basic needs. That is, the rights we're willing to surrender are growing if we can just achieve safety!
"Yeah? So what? We'll get past this crisis and move on." I wonder. We have already acclimated ourselves to "The premise of the American dream -- freedom -- is far less important than ... most rights." We've imbibed the Kool-Aid and we're fine with it. Terror wins again. So now comes the Health Department (generic, not specific) with the next crisis. For instance, "Racism is a public health crisis." "Oh, no! We have another safety issue! Time to impose new rules for your safety." Inequity is a danger to health. Therefore, you folks with more health care than others will need to surrender yours to share with others. You may think you have a right to whatever health care you can buy, but think again. In the name of safety, you'll need to surrender that freedom and lower your expectations. Oh, no? On what grounds would you say no? We've already decided that safety is more important than personal freedom and now the powers that be are sure that racism is a matter of health safety, so ...
For all time, the question for any society has been, "Who gets to decide what's right, what's moral?" In a religious society, the dominant religion did. In a secular society, other means are used. In a totalitarian society, the government does it. In America, it's not easy to say. Clearly religion is out. Science isn't very helpful in determining moral questions. Since "harm" is considered a valid method of deciding what is moral, safety would likely be considered a good way. If it's unsafe, it's immoral, right? But that's an extremely squishy line. Cigarettes are unsafe. Ban them? What about Twinkies? Maybe. We understand the term "safe sex," but have opted not to address the legality or freedom of "unsafe sex." And so on. Today, then, if safety is our best determination of moral, the question becomes "Who gets to decide what's unsafe?" Because that will determine what's moral and that will determine our laws and that will determine just how much (or little) freedom you end up with. Beware! Safety can be a harsh task master. It depends on who gets to decide. But your freedoms are not a consideration.
That was 20 years ago now, and we haven't had a serious terrorist event since. Success! But the effect wasn't just against terrorism. As we've seen in the last nearly two years, Americans are still willing, nay, eager to surrender freedoms for safety. COVID-19 vastly supplanted our terrorist concerns. We willingly locked ourselves in our homes, lost our jobs, closed our businesses, and endured other hardships because of COVID! "We're all going to die!" was not an uncommon cry. America once again surrendered freedom for safety, and it has not been without cost. Government overreach, in the name of safety, killed unknown numbers of people who, fearing the pandemic, neglected getting life-saving treatment for fear of a pandemic. Suicides, drug overdoses, cancer deaths ... all increased from our "safety measures." But it didn't matter. We feel safer.
Now we have vaccine mandates. It cannot be argued that this is not a violation of personal rights. No one is arguing that. They're arguing, "We must surrender our right to determining what is done to our bodies in favor of safety." Again. But with gusto. Some voices are clamoring for removing the unvaccinated from medical care, from employment, from access to food and clothing and other basic needs. That is, the rights we're willing to surrender are growing if we can just achieve safety!
"Yeah? So what? We'll get past this crisis and move on." I wonder. We have already acclimated ourselves to "The premise of the American dream -- freedom -- is far less important than ... most rights." We've imbibed the Kool-Aid and we're fine with it. Terror wins again. So now comes the Health Department (generic, not specific) with the next crisis. For instance, "Racism is a public health crisis." "Oh, no! We have another safety issue! Time to impose new rules for your safety." Inequity is a danger to health. Therefore, you folks with more health care than others will need to surrender yours to share with others. You may think you have a right to whatever health care you can buy, but think again. In the name of safety, you'll need to surrender that freedom and lower your expectations. Oh, no? On what grounds would you say no? We've already decided that safety is more important than personal freedom and now the powers that be are sure that racism is a matter of health safety, so ...
For all time, the question for any society has been, "Who gets to decide what's right, what's moral?" In a religious society, the dominant religion did. In a secular society, other means are used. In a totalitarian society, the government does it. In America, it's not easy to say. Clearly religion is out. Science isn't very helpful in determining moral questions. Since "harm" is considered a valid method of deciding what is moral, safety would likely be considered a good way. If it's unsafe, it's immoral, right? But that's an extremely squishy line. Cigarettes are unsafe. Ban them? What about Twinkies? Maybe. We understand the term "safe sex," but have opted not to address the legality or freedom of "unsafe sex." And so on. Today, then, if safety is our best determination of moral, the question becomes "Who gets to decide what's unsafe?" Because that will determine what's moral and that will determine our laws and that will determine just how much (or little) freedom you end up with. Beware! Safety can be a harsh task master. It depends on who gets to decide. But your freedoms are not a consideration.
Sunday, November 14, 2021
Voluntary
Paul's special calling -- his particular mission from God -- was to take the gospel to the Gentiles. Other Apostles were ministering the good news to Jews; Paul generally gave the Jews a shot and then moved on to the Gentiles. Because, Paul said, "The Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel" (Eph 3:6). Paul called it a "necessity" (1 Cor 6:16). It was his assignment and his reward (1 Cor 9:18).
Paul throws out an interesting insight in there. "For if I do this of my own will, I have a reward, but if not of my own will, I am still entrusted with a stewardship" (1 Cor 9:17). You see what he's saying, right? If it is voluntary, there is a reward. If not, it is still required, but don't count on a reward. Remember, that reward is in the joy of doing it (1 Cor 9:18).
I think a lot of people are unaware of this little truth. Government surely is. They think, for instance, that if they can tax us sufficiently to help the needy, we'll all be doing a good deed. If we can coerce people to "do the right thing," it will be a good thing. "Sure, you could give to charity, but wouldn't it be just as good ... perhaps even better if we just collected from your paycheck and distributed it as needed?"
"No," Paul says, "I only get a reward if I do it voluntarily." What reward? It's not entirely tangible, but it's certainly real. It is the reward of knowing that I did it, that I participated, that I chose to do it. Coersion can produce results, but doing good voluntarily rewards the one who does it as well as the one who receives it. I think that a lot of people are not conscious of that reality.
Paul throws out an interesting insight in there. "For if I do this of my own will, I have a reward, but if not of my own will, I am still entrusted with a stewardship" (1 Cor 9:17). You see what he's saying, right? If it is voluntary, there is a reward. If not, it is still required, but don't count on a reward. Remember, that reward is in the joy of doing it (1 Cor 9:18).
I think a lot of people are unaware of this little truth. Government surely is. They think, for instance, that if they can tax us sufficiently to help the needy, we'll all be doing a good deed. If we can coerce people to "do the right thing," it will be a good thing. "Sure, you could give to charity, but wouldn't it be just as good ... perhaps even better if we just collected from your paycheck and distributed it as needed?"
"No," Paul says, "I only get a reward if I do it voluntarily." What reward? It's not entirely tangible, but it's certainly real. It is the reward of knowing that I did it, that I participated, that I chose to do it. Coersion can produce results, but doing good voluntarily rewards the one who does it as well as the one who receives it. I think that a lot of people are not conscious of that reality.
Saturday, November 13, 2021
News Weakly - 11/13/2021
Open Your Wallets
The president finally won the day. The Democrats in the House, supported by 13 Republicans, finally pushed through the next big bill for your kids and grandkids to pay -- a $1.2 trillion "infrastructure" bill. And why not? Hasn't Biden demonstrated his ability to manage ... in the debacle in Afghanistan, the southern border, supply shortages, skyrocketing inflation, freedom-sapping vaccine mandates and all? Oh, but wait, this will "turn the climate crisis into an opportunity," big on my list of concerns. "Radical socialist spending spree," one Republican called it. Welcome to Soviet America.
Risk Mandate
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted an emergency stay on the vaccine mandate for larger businesses after 27 states filed lawsuits. They call it "unlawful overreach." OSHA says they have the "authority 'to act quickly in an emergency where the agency finds that workers are subjected to a grave danger and a new standard is necessary to protect them.'" Here's my question. For those who have recovered from COVID, who have, according to multiple medical reports have at least as good if not better immunity than the vaccinated, what is the "grave danger" they are being protected from? Certainly not the risks of this vaccine.
New Math
Germany has about 70% of the population vaccinated against COVID-19. (Remember the old "We need 70% to achieve herd immunity"?) Isn't it odd, then, that Germany is experiencing its highest infection rate since COVID started. Is this vaccine really helping? It just isn't adding up.
Papers, Please
It's interesting to see tourism advertisements for southern California when they are perhaps the most unwelcoming place in the country. If you'd like to go to a restaruant, a shopping mall, a theater, even hair and nail salon, don't count on it in Los Angeles without "your papers" -- your vaccine passport. The clichéd "Papers please" from totalitarian regimes is becoming the norm in parts of California.
The Short List?
According to NASA, global sea level has indeed risen since 1993 (when they started monitoring it). Currently global sea level has increased by about 100 mm. For you Americans, that is slightly less than 4 inches. So it's a bit of a surprise to see how amazingly short some people in Tuvalu really are.
Coming Soon
With heavy-handed vaccine mandates running around for the majority of Americans coming up, the government expects to rely on "a corps of informers to identify violations." Employees will need to inform on employers if co-workers fail to comply. You know, like the good ol' days in Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. Coming soon to a totalitarian-style America near you.
Diversity
In a bizarre story from Michigan, the town of Hamtramck outside Detroit became the first in the nation to elect an all-Muslim city council. The story is of mild interest, perhaps, but the commentary is stunning. It reflects, they say, a "more racially diverse landscape." "This City Council truly represents all the elements of Hamtramck history, whether they are Arabs, South Asian or European descendants," they said. How an "all-Muslim city council" "truly represents" "racial diversity" seems to be a bizarre form of diversity and inclusiveness, doesn't it? Or have we now redefined these terms, too?
Questionable Sources
The ad tells us, "Be sure to review CDC guidelines with your family." I have to wonder. Is that because they keep changing them? Or is it because they're crazy? When the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention -- a supposedly top-notch source for medical info -- can't distinguish between males and "pregnant people," why would we trust them with our health issues? (Note: There is no medical test for "people" and pregnancy. Only females who are pregnant. Only those with female organs can get pregnant. Popular lunacy aside, males lack those organs and cannot get pregnant. The CDC seems unaware of that.)
Got to Beelieve
Sesame Street sent an important message this week when they had Big Bird get vaccinated, showing children that all good puppets get vaccinated. Meanwhile, Aaron Rodgers, out of the NFL's good graces for not getting vaccinated, opted to beat his fiancé and kill a couple of guys on the street so they would embrace him again. And we have assurances from California's governor that the booster shot had "absolutely no side effects" according to Newsom's second head.
Must be true; I heard it on the internet.
___________
Postscript: I wrote last week about the president opting to have me fired for not getting the vaccine. In a surprise turnabout this week, my employers decided not to make me get vaccinated. I won't be looking for work soon, Lord willing and the federal government don't rise.
The president finally won the day. The Democrats in the House, supported by 13 Republicans, finally pushed through the next big bill for your kids and grandkids to pay -- a $1.2 trillion "infrastructure" bill. And why not? Hasn't Biden demonstrated his ability to manage ... in the debacle in Afghanistan, the southern border, supply shortages, skyrocketing inflation, freedom-sapping vaccine mandates and all? Oh, but wait, this will "turn the climate crisis into an opportunity," big on my list of concerns. "Radical socialist spending spree," one Republican called it. Welcome to Soviet America.
Risk Mandate
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted an emergency stay on the vaccine mandate for larger businesses after 27 states filed lawsuits. They call it "unlawful overreach." OSHA says they have the "authority 'to act quickly in an emergency where the agency finds that workers are subjected to a grave danger and a new standard is necessary to protect them.'" Here's my question. For those who have recovered from COVID, who have, according to multiple medical reports have at least as good if not better immunity than the vaccinated, what is the "grave danger" they are being protected from? Certainly not the risks of this vaccine.
New Math
Germany has about 70% of the population vaccinated against COVID-19. (Remember the old "We need 70% to achieve herd immunity"?) Isn't it odd, then, that Germany is experiencing its highest infection rate since COVID started. Is this vaccine really helping? It just isn't adding up.
Papers, Please
It's interesting to see tourism advertisements for southern California when they are perhaps the most unwelcoming place in the country. If you'd like to go to a restaruant, a shopping mall, a theater, even hair and nail salon, don't count on it in Los Angeles without "your papers" -- your vaccine passport. The clichéd "Papers please" from totalitarian regimes is becoming the norm in parts of California.
The Short List?
According to NASA, global sea level has indeed risen since 1993 (when they started monitoring it). Currently global sea level has increased by about 100 mm. For you Americans, that is slightly less than 4 inches. So it's a bit of a surprise to see how amazingly short some people in Tuvalu really are.
Coming Soon
With heavy-handed vaccine mandates running around for the majority of Americans coming up, the government expects to rely on "a corps of informers to identify violations." Employees will need to inform on employers if co-workers fail to comply. You know, like the good ol' days in Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. Coming soon to a totalitarian-style America near you.
Diversity
In a bizarre story from Michigan, the town of Hamtramck outside Detroit became the first in the nation to elect an all-Muslim city council. The story is of mild interest, perhaps, but the commentary is stunning. It reflects, they say, a "more racially diverse landscape." "This City Council truly represents all the elements of Hamtramck history, whether they are Arabs, South Asian or European descendants," they said. How an "all-Muslim city council" "truly represents" "racial diversity" seems to be a bizarre form of diversity and inclusiveness, doesn't it? Or have we now redefined these terms, too?
Questionable Sources
The ad tells us, "Be sure to review CDC guidelines with your family." I have to wonder. Is that because they keep changing them? Or is it because they're crazy? When the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention -- a supposedly top-notch source for medical info -- can't distinguish between males and "pregnant people," why would we trust them with our health issues? (Note: There is no medical test for "people" and pregnancy. Only females who are pregnant. Only those with female organs can get pregnant. Popular lunacy aside, males lack those organs and cannot get pregnant. The CDC seems unaware of that.)
Got to Beelieve
Sesame Street sent an important message this week when they had Big Bird get vaccinated, showing children that all good puppets get vaccinated. Meanwhile, Aaron Rodgers, out of the NFL's good graces for not getting vaccinated, opted to beat his fiancé and kill a couple of guys on the street so they would embrace him again. And we have assurances from California's governor that the booster shot had "absolutely no side effects" according to Newsom's second head.
Must be true; I heard it on the internet.
___________
Postscript: I wrote last week about the president opting to have me fired for not getting the vaccine. In a surprise turnabout this week, my employers decided not to make me get vaccinated. I won't be looking for work soon, Lord willing and the federal government don't rise.
Friday, November 12, 2021
What About Me?
I wrote this week about our purpose. We were made for God (1 Cor 8:5-6). It's not about us. I think it's clear from Scripture. "You are not your own; you were bought with a price" (1 Cor 6:19-20). The psalmist says, "The heavens are Yours; the earth also is Yours; the world and all that is in it, You have founded them" (Psa 89:11). It's clear, but it's not easy to swallow. The question, varying in content, is always something like, "What about me??" It might sound like "Aren't we supposed to have blessing?" or "Can't we have some pleasure in life?" or ... you get the idea. The question is valid. When we hear, "It's not about you," it sounds like the biggest killjoy you've ever heard. Yet, Jesus said, "I came that they may have life and have it abundantly" (John 10:10). Joy is listed as a fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22-23). We are commanded to rejoice (1 Thess 5:16). Shouldn't we expect good things from God?
Yes. Emphatically, yes! The truth is I don't have to tell you that. You assume it. Remember, the problem is that when He does not supply the good we expect, we have a problem. We know we should expect good things from God. So my point was not that that's a false idea.
What was my point? Simple. If God made us for a purpose -- "for Him" -- wouldn't it stand to reason that we would find our highest joy and fulfillment acting in our designed purpose? On the other hand, if we don't know our actual purpose, wouldn't you expect us to have a hard time finding that joy and fulfillment? If this is true, it seems perfectly obvious that God's explanation as to our real purpose -- for Him and through Him -- would be aimed at providing us the best. If we had that laid out for us clearly -- as it is -- then we couldn't miss it. If we aimed our lives at that purpose, we could expect joy, fulfillment, peace, love ... all that and more.
You see, God commands for His glory, but we are made for His glory, so in those commands He provides for us the ultimate good, the highest pleasure, abundant joy, and real comfort. The more of Him that we encounter, the more of the actual good life we experience. We ask, "What about me?" God answers, "Yes! That's in view!" "This is the way, walk in it" (Isa 30:21). It is, gloriously, all about God and for our best. It's not an "either/or." It's both.
Yes. Emphatically, yes! The truth is I don't have to tell you that. You assume it. Remember, the problem is that when He does not supply the good we expect, we have a problem. We know we should expect good things from God. So my point was not that that's a false idea.
What was my point? Simple. If God made us for a purpose -- "for Him" -- wouldn't it stand to reason that we would find our highest joy and fulfillment acting in our designed purpose? On the other hand, if we don't know our actual purpose, wouldn't you expect us to have a hard time finding that joy and fulfillment? If this is true, it seems perfectly obvious that God's explanation as to our real purpose -- for Him and through Him -- would be aimed at providing us the best. If we had that laid out for us clearly -- as it is -- then we couldn't miss it. If we aimed our lives at that purpose, we could expect joy, fulfillment, peace, love ... all that and more.
You see, God commands for His glory, but we are made for His glory, so in those commands He provides for us the ultimate good, the highest pleasure, abundant joy, and real comfort. The more of Him that we encounter, the more of the actual good life we experience. We ask, "What about me?" God answers, "Yes! That's in view!" "This is the way, walk in it" (Isa 30:21). It is, gloriously, all about God and for our best. It's not an "either/or." It's both.
Thursday, November 11, 2021
Thank a Vet
Veterans Day can be a little confusing to many Americans. "Wait, didn't we already have Memorial Day? Didn't we already honor the fallen?" Yes, we certainly did. Veterans Day is not about the fallen. "Oh," some might realize, "it's to honor those who fought whether or not they survived." Yes, it is, but not that alone. The purpose of Veterans day is to commemorate those who served.
Currently we have something like 1.4 million active duty personnel plus another 845,000 reserve personnel. Of those, roughly 40% never get deployed to a combat zone. Most of those who end up in a combat zone never actually encounter the enemy. In the end, then, maybe 10% of the military personnel actually fire a weapon in combat. Veterans Day, then, is aimed at commemorating those who were killed in combat to a small degree -- that's primarily the aim of Memorial Day -- but more so to commemorate those who fought and those who served but didn't fight. Those who fed troops and served in medical capacities, who moved boxes, maintained weapons systems, fixed the motor pool vehicles, managed the massive bureaucracy that the miitary requires ... all of it. It is a big "Thank You" to all who served and not just those who fought. Because all were important and all sacrificed for something bigger than themselves.
We honor mothers on Mothers Day because mothers are important and deserve our thanks. We honor fathers on Fathers Day because fathers are important. We honor those who gave the ultimate sacrifice in defending freedom because they are important. Veterans Day has the same intent for veterans. Now, where is the "Brothers Day" and "Sisters Day", the "Pastors Day" and the "Volunteer Workers Day"? Just a few who deserve our thanks and our recognition. In this way, then, these special days might serve, also, as a reminder than we can be a bit ungrateful at times for all the people in our lives and the blessings we've been given in them. So I'll use this day as a reminder to thank veterans on Veterans Day ... and to thank those who serve anywhere the rest of the year.
Currently we have something like 1.4 million active duty personnel plus another 845,000 reserve personnel. Of those, roughly 40% never get deployed to a combat zone. Most of those who end up in a combat zone never actually encounter the enemy. In the end, then, maybe 10% of the military personnel actually fire a weapon in combat. Veterans Day, then, is aimed at commemorating those who were killed in combat to a small degree -- that's primarily the aim of Memorial Day -- but more so to commemorate those who fought and those who served but didn't fight. Those who fed troops and served in medical capacities, who moved boxes, maintained weapons systems, fixed the motor pool vehicles, managed the massive bureaucracy that the miitary requires ... all of it. It is a big "Thank You" to all who served and not just those who fought. Because all were important and all sacrificed for something bigger than themselves.
We honor mothers on Mothers Day because mothers are important and deserve our thanks. We honor fathers on Fathers Day because fathers are important. We honor those who gave the ultimate sacrifice in defending freedom because they are important. Veterans Day has the same intent for veterans. Now, where is the "Brothers Day" and "Sisters Day", the "Pastors Day" and the "Volunteer Workers Day"? Just a few who deserve our thanks and our recognition. In this way, then, these special days might serve, also, as a reminder than we can be a bit ungrateful at times for all the people in our lives and the blessings we've been given in them. So I'll use this day as a reminder to thank veterans on Veterans Day ... and to thank those who serve anywhere the rest of the year.
Wednesday, November 10, 2021
Lacking Strength
Most Christians I know are diests to some degree. Very few are actually full-blown theists. Deism as a group died out in the 18th century, but practical deism lives on. Deism holds, essentially, that God spun up the universe, so to speak, and then took His hands off and let it go. Now, most Christians these days don't buy that ... overtly ... but a large number do in practice and demonstrated belief. That is, if I were to watch what they do to determine what they actually believe, they hold to some form of a "hands off" God.
This idea is prevalent. Christians, on the whole, ascribe "sovereignty" to God because, well, it says so in the Bible. Good! But when pressed, they also assign sovereignty to our free wills. God, they tell me, is a gentleman and He would never override us. So, they tell me, in cases that we have no faith to believe what He wants to accomplish or do what He commands, God loses out. I've asked some, "Do you see God in heaven, wringing His hands, bemoaning His inability to accomplish His will because you've failed to believe?" No, no, they assure me, but can't offer a more correct image. God cannot, they assert, work if I don't pray or believe or obey. Further, most believe, in this present evil, for instance, that God's hands are tied. The government is doing this evil and the sinful forces on this earth are doing that evil and God is powerless to stop it. "My boss just did this bad thing to me," they might say, and conclude, "Satan is blocking God."
I am here to offer my confession. I lack the strength to survive that world. I lack the fortitude to face the evils of our day (of any day) with the belief that God's hands, as good and as powerful as He might be, are tied, at least to some extent. The idea that we are at the whim of sinful people driven by a sinful devil without the guidance or controlling force of God is unbearable to me.
Some time ago a skeptic asked me, "Do you believe this is the best of all possible worlds?" No unbeliever would say it is. No practical deist would say it is. But I ... I would say it is. Why? Because I believe in a Sovereign God who is the definition of Love and the definition of Good and who does whatever pleases Him. I believe in a God who works all things after the counsel of His will, who works all things together for good. We give lipservice to "everything happens for a reason," but I believe everything happens for God's purpose. I think Scripture teaches this. I think, further, that my sanity requires it. And this weakness of mine resting on a God of this magnitude of Strength, Power, Grace, and Love (all capitalized for emphasis) gives me a peculiar peace (Php 4:6). Which is good because I lack the strength so many others seem to possess that allows them to function in a Satan-wracked world.
This idea is prevalent. Christians, on the whole, ascribe "sovereignty" to God because, well, it says so in the Bible. Good! But when pressed, they also assign sovereignty to our free wills. God, they tell me, is a gentleman and He would never override us. So, they tell me, in cases that we have no faith to believe what He wants to accomplish or do what He commands, God loses out. I've asked some, "Do you see God in heaven, wringing His hands, bemoaning His inability to accomplish His will because you've failed to believe?" No, no, they assure me, but can't offer a more correct image. God cannot, they assert, work if I don't pray or believe or obey. Further, most believe, in this present evil, for instance, that God's hands are tied. The government is doing this evil and the sinful forces on this earth are doing that evil and God is powerless to stop it. "My boss just did this bad thing to me," they might say, and conclude, "Satan is blocking God."
I am here to offer my confession. I lack the strength to survive that world. I lack the fortitude to face the evils of our day (of any day) with the belief that God's hands, as good and as powerful as He might be, are tied, at least to some extent. The idea that we are at the whim of sinful people driven by a sinful devil without the guidance or controlling force of God is unbearable to me.
Some time ago a skeptic asked me, "Do you believe this is the best of all possible worlds?" No unbeliever would say it is. No practical deist would say it is. But I ... I would say it is. Why? Because I believe in a Sovereign God who is the definition of Love and the definition of Good and who does whatever pleases Him. I believe in a God who works all things after the counsel of His will, who works all things together for good. We give lipservice to "everything happens for a reason," but I believe everything happens for God's purpose. I think Scripture teaches this. I think, further, that my sanity requires it. And this weakness of mine resting on a God of this magnitude of Strength, Power, Grace, and Love (all capitalized for emphasis) gives me a peculiar peace (Php 4:6). Which is good because I lack the strength so many others seem to possess that allows them to function in a Satan-wracked world.
Tuesday, November 09, 2021
Honor
In Romans Paul writes, "Outdo one another in showing honor." (Rom 12:10) It is part of "Let love be genuine" (Rom 12:9) and "Love one another with brotherly affection" (Rom 12:10), but in this phrase, Paul focuses on "honor." The concept is premised on the principle of presenting your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God," (Rom 12:1) (that concludes with "which is your spiritual (or reasonable) worship.") So, on the basis of living the Christian life as a sacrifice to God, love. Love big time. Love genuinely. Love your fellow believers. And, love by showing honor. So, what is this thing called "honor"?
The Greek word is τιμή -- timē -- which is based on the concept of payment and refers first to the idea of valuing something or someone. God commanded that we honor our parents (Exo 20:12; Eph 6:2-3). Paul urges is to "pay to all what is owed to them" and includes, among other things, "honor." (Rom 13:7) Peter warned husbands to show honor to their wives "so that your prayers may not be hindered." (1 Peter 3:7) Peter also says we should "Honor everyone" including "the emperor" (1 Peter 2:17). The dictionary says that the verb "to honor" means to treat someone with "honesty, fairness, or integrity," to give "high respect." Perhaps in that you can see the same concept as the root word from Greek. To honor someone is to treat them with the honesty, fairness, integrity, and respect that they deserve. And, lest we get tripped up on that concept of "deserve," remember that "deserve" is built in. God is the Creator that made us in His image (Gen 1:27; Gen 9:6) and made us "a little lower than the angels." (Psa 8:5-6) All humans deserve some measure of honor. So, honor is an internal attitude of respect, courtesy, and reverence and everyone deserves it.
It gets interesting, then, when we consider how Paul makes it a kind of competition: "Outdo one another in showing honor." "See which of you can be more honest, fair, and respectful to others. See who is best at courtesy and reverence, especially among fellow believers." And when you consider the meaning of honor, it precludes dishonorable competition to show honor, doesn't it? "I win! I showed more honor than you! Neener, neener." That doesn't work at all. So it's a friendly, honest, fair, respectful competition in which the only losers are the ones that don't "play."
It is sad, then, when genuine Christians seem to lack this drive. Jesus said we would be known as His by our love for one another (John 13:35). John wrote, "Everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of Him." (1 John 5:1) Outdoing one another in showing honor is part of love. But not us. We're standing firm on not showing honor. We're stingy with our respect and short on courtesy. By our actions and attitudes we declare to one another frequently, "I do not find you worth my showing you the honor that God commands." To our own disgrace.
When Peter urged his readers to always be prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you, he included the guidance, "Yet, with gentleness and respect." (1 Peter 3:15) Believers especially, but even skeptics and other unbelievers, simply as humans, deserve to be honored. We can disagree, even strongly, over ideas, principles, doctrines, and practices, but we must do so while giving people the honor God has indicated they are due. We may not even choose to "agree to disagree." We still need to outdo one another in showing honor to all those whom God has made. It should be a hallmark of every believer.
The Greek word is τιμή -- timē -- which is based on the concept of payment and refers first to the idea of valuing something or someone. God commanded that we honor our parents (Exo 20:12; Eph 6:2-3). Paul urges is to "pay to all what is owed to them" and includes, among other things, "honor." (Rom 13:7) Peter warned husbands to show honor to their wives "so that your prayers may not be hindered." (1 Peter 3:7) Peter also says we should "Honor everyone" including "the emperor" (1 Peter 2:17). The dictionary says that the verb "to honor" means to treat someone with "honesty, fairness, or integrity," to give "high respect." Perhaps in that you can see the same concept as the root word from Greek. To honor someone is to treat them with the honesty, fairness, integrity, and respect that they deserve. And, lest we get tripped up on that concept of "deserve," remember that "deserve" is built in. God is the Creator that made us in His image (Gen 1:27; Gen 9:6) and made us "a little lower than the angels." (Psa 8:5-6) All humans deserve some measure of honor. So, honor is an internal attitude of respect, courtesy, and reverence and everyone deserves it.
It gets interesting, then, when we consider how Paul makes it a kind of competition: "Outdo one another in showing honor." "See which of you can be more honest, fair, and respectful to others. See who is best at courtesy and reverence, especially among fellow believers." And when you consider the meaning of honor, it precludes dishonorable competition to show honor, doesn't it? "I win! I showed more honor than you! Neener, neener." That doesn't work at all. So it's a friendly, honest, fair, respectful competition in which the only losers are the ones that don't "play."
It is sad, then, when genuine Christians seem to lack this drive. Jesus said we would be known as His by our love for one another (John 13:35). John wrote, "Everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of Him." (1 John 5:1) Outdoing one another in showing honor is part of love. But not us. We're standing firm on not showing honor. We're stingy with our respect and short on courtesy. By our actions and attitudes we declare to one another frequently, "I do not find you worth my showing you the honor that God commands." To our own disgrace.
When Peter urged his readers to always be prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you, he included the guidance, "Yet, with gentleness and respect." (1 Peter 3:15) Believers especially, but even skeptics and other unbelievers, simply as humans, deserve to be honored. We can disagree, even strongly, over ideas, principles, doctrines, and practices, but we must do so while giving people the honor God has indicated they are due. We may not even choose to "agree to disagree." We still need to outdo one another in showing honor to all those whom God has made. It should be a hallmark of every believer.
Monday, November 08, 2021
The Centrality of the Gospel
Really wise Christian leaders have moved strongly to stand between the "warring factions" -- political issues, morality issues, economic issues, etc. -- and seek to redirect our attention. You know, "Pay no attention to that man (political issue, morality issue, etc.) behind the curtain." Instead, they have pointed us to the centrality of the gospel. "Paul said," they rightly point out, "I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified." (1 Cor 2:2) They point us to "I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve." (1 Cor 15:3-5) So true. Thank you, brothers and sisters. So they aimed us away from politics and morality and such and urged us to focus on the gospel. The question they never addressed (because no one seemed to ask it) is "Central to what?" You know, if you have a town center, what is its purpose? It's not to be the sole focus, is it? No. It is supposed to be the center of the town. A "town center" that eliminates the rest of the town is not a good thing.
Paul, interestingly, wrote the entire epistle to the church at Rome on this precise topic.
Now, that basic question -- the righteousness of God -- is a little misleading in our language. You might be aware of that if you're a King James fan and realized immediately that my translation above didn't say it "correctly." It's not "The righteous shall live by faith," but "The just shall live by faith," right? This simply illustrates my point. You see, "righteous" and "just" are the same concept. The word translated "righteousness" of God is δικαιοσύνη -- dikaiosunē -- and the word translated "just" or "righteous" after that is δίκαιος -- dikaios -- and it doesn't take a Greek scholar to see that the two are closely connected. The latter is contained in the former. The latter is the root of the former. Same concept -- "right" and "just". Thus, the point of the letter to Rome is the gospel and the point of the gospel is the righteousness or justice of God. Same thing.
Paul's exposition of the justice/righteousness of God is quite remarkable, even unexpected. He begins (on a dissertation on the righteousness of God) with the unrighteousness of Man. And it takes him two and a have chapters to do it (Rom 1:18-3:20). If you're following this, you might say, "Uh, Paul, hang on. What does any of this have to do with the righteousness or justice of God?" Well, Paul has laid out the problem. The big problem. We are sinners -- deep sinners -- without hope. If the justice of God is in view, we do not want God's justice at this point. We are not guilty of "crimes and misdemeanors," as it were. We are guilty of all manner of evil beginning with the intentional suppression of the truth about God (Rom 1:18-20) and subsequent overthrow of His authority (Rom 1:21-25). If we allow that Paul tells the truth about humans in this passage, we would never say "I demand justice!" to God. None of us could stand justice.
Paul's exposition of the gospel as the revelation of God's righteousness/justice, then, takes another stunning turn. Given Man's hopeless sin condition, God offers a solution. Having assured us that "by works of the law no human being will be justified in His sight" (Rom 3:20), he goes on to tell us, "But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law ..." (Rom 3:21). Good news! "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," Paul writes, but those who believe "are justified by His grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus." (Rom 3:24) Jesus was "put forward as a propitiation by His blood" (Rom 3:25). In layman's terms, by dying for us ("His blood") Jesus paid the price for us ("redemption") and appeased the righteous/just wrath of God ("propitiation") and God became "just and justifier of one who has faith in Jesus" (Rom 3:26).
That is the gospel in a nutshell. That is the good news about which Paul wrote. That was the central point to Paul's mission and our central message. The centrality of the gospel is a good principle because, after all, it's a biblical principle. Does it end there? Does "centrality" mean "Okay, that's it; we're done here"? No! In Paul's explanation of the gospel as the revelation of God's justice/righteousness, he goes on for 13 more chapters. The gospel is central, but it has long-reaching ramifications, doctrinally and practically. There are critical doctrines such as justification by faith (Rom 4:1-3) and dying with Christ to new life (Rom 6:3-7) and the ongoing problem of sin (Rom 7:7-25) and the work of the Holy Spirit (Rom 8:1-17) and on and on and on. There are practical outcomes such as sacrificing self (Rom 12:1), renewing our minds (Rom 12:2), love (Rom 12:9-10), submitting to authority (Rom 13:1-5), caring for the weaker in the faith (Rom 14:1-3), and more. "Central" means "central" and not "exclusive."
Of course, if we agree that the gospel is central to the Christian faith, it is important to get that right, isn't it? And if the gospel is indeed the revelation of the righteousness/justice of God, it would be important to get that right, wouldn't it? And I think you can begin to see that even distilling Christianity down to the gospel becomes a much, much bigger thing that it first appears, doesn't it? It includes the nature of God, the doctrines of God, and the practices that those generate, and we're finding a really big town built around this "center of town," aren't we?
Paul, interestingly, wrote the entire epistle to the church at Rome on this precise topic.
I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome. For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, "The righteous shall live by faith." (Rom 1:15-17)From that introduction Paul launches into the rest of 16 chapters on the topic of the gospel as the righteousness of God, what that means, and how we should respond.
Now, that basic question -- the righteousness of God -- is a little misleading in our language. You might be aware of that if you're a King James fan and realized immediately that my translation above didn't say it "correctly." It's not "The righteous shall live by faith," but "The just shall live by faith," right? This simply illustrates my point. You see, "righteous" and "just" are the same concept. The word translated "righteousness" of God is δικαιοσύνη -- dikaiosunē -- and the word translated "just" or "righteous" after that is δίκαιος -- dikaios -- and it doesn't take a Greek scholar to see that the two are closely connected. The latter is contained in the former. The latter is the root of the former. Same concept -- "right" and "just". Thus, the point of the letter to Rome is the gospel and the point of the gospel is the righteousness or justice of God. Same thing.
Paul's exposition of the justice/righteousness of God is quite remarkable, even unexpected. He begins (on a dissertation on the righteousness of God) with the unrighteousness of Man. And it takes him two and a have chapters to do it (Rom 1:18-3:20). If you're following this, you might say, "Uh, Paul, hang on. What does any of this have to do with the righteousness or justice of God?" Well, Paul has laid out the problem. The big problem. We are sinners -- deep sinners -- without hope. If the justice of God is in view, we do not want God's justice at this point. We are not guilty of "crimes and misdemeanors," as it were. We are guilty of all manner of evil beginning with the intentional suppression of the truth about God (Rom 1:18-20) and subsequent overthrow of His authority (Rom 1:21-25). If we allow that Paul tells the truth about humans in this passage, we would never say "I demand justice!" to God. None of us could stand justice.
Paul's exposition of the gospel as the revelation of God's righteousness/justice, then, takes another stunning turn. Given Man's hopeless sin condition, God offers a solution. Having assured us that "by works of the law no human being will be justified in His sight" (Rom 3:20), he goes on to tell us, "But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law ..." (Rom 3:21). Good news! "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," Paul writes, but those who believe "are justified by His grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus." (Rom 3:24) Jesus was "put forward as a propitiation by His blood" (Rom 3:25). In layman's terms, by dying for us ("His blood") Jesus paid the price for us ("redemption") and appeased the righteous/just wrath of God ("propitiation") and God became "just and justifier of one who has faith in Jesus" (Rom 3:26).
That is the gospel in a nutshell. That is the good news about which Paul wrote. That was the central point to Paul's mission and our central message. The centrality of the gospel is a good principle because, after all, it's a biblical principle. Does it end there? Does "centrality" mean "Okay, that's it; we're done here"? No! In Paul's explanation of the gospel as the revelation of God's justice/righteousness, he goes on for 13 more chapters. The gospel is central, but it has long-reaching ramifications, doctrinally and practically. There are critical doctrines such as justification by faith (Rom 4:1-3) and dying with Christ to new life (Rom 6:3-7) and the ongoing problem of sin (Rom 7:7-25) and the work of the Holy Spirit (Rom 8:1-17) and on and on and on. There are practical outcomes such as sacrificing self (Rom 12:1), renewing our minds (Rom 12:2), love (Rom 12:9-10), submitting to authority (Rom 13:1-5), caring for the weaker in the faith (Rom 14:1-3), and more. "Central" means "central" and not "exclusive."
Of course, if we agree that the gospel is central to the Christian faith, it is important to get that right, isn't it? And if the gospel is indeed the revelation of the righteousness/justice of God, it would be important to get that right, wouldn't it? And I think you can begin to see that even distilling Christianity down to the gospel becomes a much, much bigger thing that it first appears, doesn't it? It includes the nature of God, the doctrines of God, and the practices that those generate, and we're finding a really big town built around this "center of town," aren't we?
Sunday, November 07, 2021
Purpose
In the midst of a discussion about Christian liberty, Paul throws in this thought.
The question at hand is regarding what Christians can and cannot do. Paul approaches it from the example of eating food offered to idols (1 Cor 8:1), but it's just an example. He addresses the specific question -- food offered to idols -- by addressing idols in general. Idols are not real (1 Cor 8:4). There is no God but one. Obviously, then, eating food offered to idols is no more of a moral question than eating food offered to dragons. They don't exist. Fine. But then Paul throws in this reality, a principle that should guide in all other such questions. We worship God as the only God. We have one Lord, Christ, as the only Lord. And what does Paul say about Him? Everything comes from Him and everything comes through Him. What does Paul conclude about these two facts? Therefore, everything exists for Him and everything exists through Him.
Most of this is "normal" stuff. We know that "from Him and through Him and to Him are all things." (Rom 11:36) We know that "He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together." (Col 1:17) The one thing we appear to miss so much of the time is that other preposition -- "for." In this text he says, "for whom we exist." In Colossians he says, "All things were created through Him and for Him." (Col 1:16) So while we're pretty sure He is the Creator and Sustainer, somehow we miss that He is the point, the purpose, the aim. Not one of us exists for ourselves; we exist for Him.
Why do I think we miss this? Because of the quite common response among believers when something unpleasant occurs. A family member gets cancer. A loved one dies young. Or old. We don't get that job we were praying for. We don't get the answer to prayer we were asking for. What is our response? "How could a loving God allow this?!" These things shake our faith and cause us not merely to ask questions -- not a problem in itself -- but to challenge God's character ... or even existence. Why? Because we think somehow that it's about us. We think that we deserve better. We think, perhaps only at the back of our minds, that God owes us. He owes us comfort and pleasure and ... well ... whatever we want. Because it's all about us. And Paul is saying here, "No, it's not."
We owe our existence to God. we owe every day that we continue to breathe to God. As Creator and Sustainer, He owns all things. And that includes you and that includes me. We don't exist for our pleasure; we exist for Him. You might be able to see, then, how that changes the question of Christian liberty. It's not about "What can I do?" It's about "How can I please Him?" It's not about "my rights" and "my pleasures" and "my comfort." It's about advancing God's plans, God's pleasures, God's will. And that changes everything. That is an entirely different purpose statement than that of the rest of the world. For the rest of the world the basic purpose statement is "Me first." What is yours?
For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth -- as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords" -- yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. (1 Cor 8:5-6)Okay, now, hang on, Paul. What does this have to do with Christian liberty? How does this speak to the idea that we are free to do what we think is right in those things that God has not commanded or denied? I think we find in here, first, the fundamental concept that Paul was trying to get across in the whole thought and, second, the fundamental concept for all Christian living.
The question at hand is regarding what Christians can and cannot do. Paul approaches it from the example of eating food offered to idols (1 Cor 8:1), but it's just an example. He addresses the specific question -- food offered to idols -- by addressing idols in general. Idols are not real (1 Cor 8:4). There is no God but one. Obviously, then, eating food offered to idols is no more of a moral question than eating food offered to dragons. They don't exist. Fine. But then Paul throws in this reality, a principle that should guide in all other such questions. We worship God as the only God. We have one Lord, Christ, as the only Lord. And what does Paul say about Him? Everything comes from Him and everything comes through Him. What does Paul conclude about these two facts? Therefore, everything exists for Him and everything exists through Him.
Most of this is "normal" stuff. We know that "from Him and through Him and to Him are all things." (Rom 11:36) We know that "He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together." (Col 1:17) The one thing we appear to miss so much of the time is that other preposition -- "for." In this text he says, "for whom we exist." In Colossians he says, "All things were created through Him and for Him." (Col 1:16) So while we're pretty sure He is the Creator and Sustainer, somehow we miss that He is the point, the purpose, the aim. Not one of us exists for ourselves; we exist for Him.
Why do I think we miss this? Because of the quite common response among believers when something unpleasant occurs. A family member gets cancer. A loved one dies young. Or old. We don't get that job we were praying for. We don't get the answer to prayer we were asking for. What is our response? "How could a loving God allow this?!" These things shake our faith and cause us not merely to ask questions -- not a problem in itself -- but to challenge God's character ... or even existence. Why? Because we think somehow that it's about us. We think that we deserve better. We think, perhaps only at the back of our minds, that God owes us. He owes us comfort and pleasure and ... well ... whatever we want. Because it's all about us. And Paul is saying here, "No, it's not."
We owe our existence to God. we owe every day that we continue to breathe to God. As Creator and Sustainer, He owns all things. And that includes you and that includes me. We don't exist for our pleasure; we exist for Him. You might be able to see, then, how that changes the question of Christian liberty. It's not about "What can I do?" It's about "How can I please Him?" It's not about "my rights" and "my pleasures" and "my comfort." It's about advancing God's plans, God's pleasures, God's will. And that changes everything. That is an entirely different purpose statement than that of the rest of the world. For the rest of the world the basic purpose statement is "Me first." What is yours?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)