Conversion Therapy

There has been a trend in the last few years to make "conversion therapy" illegal. Not to be confused with "conversion to Christ," these "therapies" tend to be somewhat ambiguous and unreliable. Their aim is to change their target from "gay" to "straight" and/or from "transexual" to "normal." And the fundamental push has been through various means of behavioral or mental modification. So they will use hypnosis or aversion therapy or group therapy or others. Most studies suggest that conversion therapies of this sort are ineffective and/or harmful.

I make no defense of these kinds of therapies designed to make you "straight." I don't find a biblical reason for them or a biblical design for them. I wouldn't disagree with Cornell University when they say, "We concluded that there is no credible evidence that sexual orientation can be changed through therapeutic intervention." In fact, I believe the idea that behavior modification alone as an answer is misguided. The problem is not that these therapies should be allowed. The problem is that terms like "ineffective" and "harmful" coupled with our current notion that "feel bad" is "harm" makes other things equally offensive in the modern mind. For instance, prayer regarding this topic is now illegal in some places. Pastors are at risk for reading Scripture on the subject under some laws. This is a problem.

In Paul's epistle to the church in Corinth he makes a reference that would be banned in some places today.

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Cor 6:9-10)

In today's world simply saying that "men who practice homossexuality" will "not inherit the kingdom of God" is classified as "harm" in some places. You can't do that. You can't reprimand like that. But it's interesting that Paul doesn't say this as a reprimand, nor does he offer "stop behaving like that" as an option. The only corrective offered in this text is "And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God" (1 Cor 6:11). The only way to solve the problem -- be it "sexual immorality" or "greed" or "adultery" or "idolatry" or the practice of homosexual behavior -- is not behavior modification, but washing, sanctification, justification -- a changed heart as a work of God.

So I remain in a dilemma. I do not favor "conversion therapy" as a means to change thinking or behavior. On the other hand, I do not include prayer or Scripture as "conversion therapy." Or, to put it another way, I'm not deeply opposed to banning "conversion therapy" (although some who have undergone it by choice have benefited from it) as long as it is understood that we're talking about therapies, but when it extends to prayer or Scripture, that ban has gone too far. And while I understand that too many Christians are upset and offended by homosexual behavior and the rise of "transgender" as if it's real, I fear we're misguided when we think that better laws or other behavior modification will fix it. Sinners are not the problem; sin is. On the other hand, we're told, "Be tolerant; be nonjudgmental." When Corinth practiced tolerance and nonjudgmentalism, it was a bad thing (1 Cor 5:1-2). "A little leaven leavens the whole lump," Paul warned (1 Cor 5:6). So sin must be dealt with, not ignored, but attempting to modify behavior without heart is pointless. God's people are forgiven sinners whose hearts are changed. Our good works are not powered by therapy, but by "God who works in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure" (Php 2:13). So while we can't call sin good or good sin, and we don't "fix" people by modifying their behavior, we can pray and we must agree with God regarding what constitutes sin and the dangers of tolerating it.

How Old Is God?

I was reading a novel that saw the phrase "the Ancient of Days" (Dan 7:13, 22) as proof that God is old. Our drawings (like the Sistine Chapel) portray God as an old man. God must be really, really old. We've seen the pictures.

It is, of course, a fallacy. We figure He's like us. He lives in time. He was young once, but now He is aging. Oh, sure, slower than we do, obviously, but aging just the same. It's just not so. God said, "I the Lord do not change." (Mal 3:6). James tells us there is no variation in God (James 1:17). The theologians' term is "immutability." So if God is immutable, He cannot change and, therefore, He cannot age.

Instead, God is described as "eternal." Scripture says He is "from everlasting to everlasting" (Psa 90:2). God describes Himself as the one "who is and who was and who is to come" (Rev 1:8). Now, "eternal" isn't natural to our thinking. Everything we know in our experience has a beginning. We can imagine things that don't end (although that, too, is a stretch), but when God says He is eternal, it means in the other direction, too. Always was; always will be. God is not old; He is timeless. He doesn't operate in the stream of time as we do; that would be "changing." So, although He interacts with us in our timelines, He is not relegated to them. He knows the past and the future because they are eternally present with Him. Some ask, "Who made God?" God always was. And that makes Him absolutely unique.

There is great practical application in God's eternal nature. In Deuteronomy we read, "The eternal God is your dwelling place, and underneath are the everlasting arms" (Deut 33:27). Paul said that God's "eternal power" is revealed in nature (Rom 1:19). God is Omniscient, knowing the end from the beginning (Isa 46:10) because He's in all those times presently. He's not sweating the outcome. He's not curious to find out what we'll do or if He can salvage it. God doesn't change. God doesn't age. He isn't losing His memory or strength. God is perfect at keeping His promises partly because He never changes and already knows. He isn't worried about tomorrow. We can't mess up His plan. He cannot fail. That's comfort. How old is God? Job says, "Behold, God is great, and we know Him not; the number of His years is unsearchable" (Job 36:26). And that is a really good thing.

News Weakly - 1/29/2022

Communists on Communism
China sent 39 warplanes toward Taiwan this week. That message was clear. NATO has put forces on standby and the U.S. and UK have withdrawn families from Ukraine embassies while Biden discussed options for sending troops to the Baltics because Russia continues to crowd the Ukrainian border. And North Korea is launching cruise missiles with sufficient furor that they stopped air travel on the U.S. West Coast for a time. Now Russia is planning military exercises off the coast of Ireland? Tell me again how communism is either "friendly" or "dead."

Unintended Consequences?
They weren't first, but now France has banned "gay conversion therapy." Voting unanimously, they passed legislation that makes it a crime to "convert" LGBTQ people to either heterosexuality or traditional gender expectations. Any attempt to "modify or reprimand" sexual orientation or gender identity is punishable by jail time and fines (up to $34,000). That goes up if it's a minor. Parents and pastors are on the edge. God, of course, will have to leave the country, what with that "male and female He created them" (Gen 1:27) and calling homosexual sex "unnatural" (Rom 1:26-27) kind of talk. And parents and pastors ... don't you go quoting those texts or praying for those people. That kind of stuff is no longer disbelieved; it's criminalized.

"What do we want?"
On March 25 they plan to walk out again. It's the annual "Strike for Climate Reparations and Justice," started by Greta. They want to force the end of climate crisis. What are they teaching these kids? "Climate struggle is class struggle," going on to explain that "affluent, white, heterosexual cis-males" and capitalism are the primary problem. To fix the climate problem, they demand reparations to "Indigenous, Black, anti-patriarchal, and diverse marginalized communities" and an end to capitalism, a "flawed socio-economic model which urgently needs to be replaced." I wonder if they'd be willing to lead the charge on the "redistribution of wealth" they're demanding. I wonder how many of these kids will grow up to be "affluent, white, heterosexual cis-males." I wonder how these kids would fare if we gave them what they wanted ... a return to an agrarian, technophobic society. Capitalism, after all, gave them the means to do this strike.

Pay No Attention to Those Lies Behind the Curtain
President Biden is calling on Congress to enshrine the Equal Rights Amendment in the U.S. Constitution. And why not? It was first introduced in 1923, reissued in 1972 and just got approved by the 38th legislature ... but the thing had timed out. Too late. So why not? I mean, aren't we all in favor of equal rights? Well, as it turns out, the amendment we'd be adding is not the amendment that was approved in 1972. That one called for equal rights without regard to "sex," and we here in the 21st century have revised the definition of "sex" until it is practically meaningless. It's essentially "whatever you want it to mean." And we'd be voting in rights based on a concept that no legislator in the 20th century ever even considered. But, please, don't bother looking. Just do what we say and move on.

Truth in Satire
I had to laugh and then nod when I read the story in the Bee about the atheist struggling in his atheist faith because he can't figure out why anything good ever happens. If we are "a random collection of atoms and chemical reactions," the question is "Why has a single good thing happened in anyone's life—much less on a daily basis?" Good question. Next, with the train robberies dogging California along with their push to all electric vehicles while they eliminate electricity, it seems as if they should rebrand as "the Old West." Then, of course, there is the ridiculous idea that Biden would consider starting World War III against Russia to distract from his domestic failures. He appears to be a domestic failure, but nothing in our history with our president would suggest he has anything like that level of ... awareness.

Leaning on the Neverlasting Arms

Conspiracies. We seem to have no end of this talk these days. Trump was beaten by a conspiracy. The elction was rigged by a conspiracy. COVID, dragging from variant to variant ad nauseum, is a conspiracy. On and on. And most of us dismiss most of that. Some dismiss all. Some dismiss none. The problem, of course, is that the more conspiracies that are floated, the more likely that one of them has to be true. That is, they can't all be groundless.

The truth is there is always something going on behind the curtains. Individual or corporate or political agendas are woven through various activities and even if they aren't the grand "conspiracy theories" of popular thought, they are conspiracies of a sort. I mean, maybe COVID was not wrought as a conspiracy, but it seems likely that there are some who would like to use it for their own personal agenda.

Looking back at the 21st century so far, we've had some difficult crises. There was, quite obviously, 9/11. That put us at war with Iraq and Afghanistan. That made us aware of dangers that prompted us to surrender freedoms for security. And, of course, at the right time, the government managed to sweep in and kill Osama Bin Laden, making us all feel safer ... but not safe. We had the ebola outbreak in Africa that was, to us, remote and, yet, thanks to the media, immediate. People we sent to help came back with the disease and ... whew! ... we barely dodged that bullet. Immigration has been a problem for a long time, but bigger in this century. Obama separated families, but did it quietly so there wasn't much outrage. Trump did the same, but since the media despised him, it was front page news. Biden continues the practice, but gets by with it because the media is on his side. Once again, the government is our friend. Then, of course, in came COVID-19. There were ways to handle this, but in this case they opted for something new. The typical thinking was "protect the most vulnerable and isolate the sick." Our world opted to isolate everyone while, at least in some places, sticking the sick in amongst the most vulnerable. The government took control of everyday living. And it has remained that way to some degree since. They kindly handed out money at times, in some places with sufficient quantities to make workers not want to work. They forced vaccinations in some places and urged them in others. We've got to bow the knee, here, for the good of all. It wasn't a matter of science or logic or reason; it was turned into a morality issue. It was "a pandemic of the unvaccinated" and if you fail to surrender, you aren't foolish; you are evil. Now, of course, we have a Democratic president and Congress who seek to "build back better." This sounds nice and all, but the goal is quite stunning. Take more money than ever to build more than ever ... primarily from the rich. (We like that, but it doesn't actually work out that way.) They will subsidize child care and preschool (read "mold the minds of your youngest"), expand Obamacare (aiming ulimately for "universal healthcare"), expand climate crisis issues, ensure paid family leave, increase gas prices to encourage clean energy efforts, and more.

The World Economic Forum (WEF) sees this as a great time to change the world. Rewrite capitalism and government and give us a corporate-run government with socialism for the rank and file. The Great Reset, they call it. "Oh, another conspiracy theory," you might think. Is it a conspiracy when they advertise it? But don't worry. It's not the massively rich or even the politically powerful that are behind this massive conspiracy to undermine your freedoms and your finances. That would be the father of lies. Unfortunately, since we've edged the Faithful One out of our public eye, our ability to detect Satan's lies is diminishing rapidly. (How else can you explain "He's a woman if he thinks he is!"?) Sen. Joe Manchin said that the Build Back Better project was intended to "change our entire society to an entitlement mentality." I think he's right. America wants to be leaning on the neverlasting arms.

Not My God

I remember back in the day when Clinton was elected president I talked to a guy who was so angry. "He's not my president," he said. And, of course, when Trump was voted in I heard it again from one side and when Trump lost I heard it again from the other. It is, of course, nonsensical. America only has one president. There is no such thing as "my president" over against "your president." Any reasonable person would agree.

Not so when it comes to God. Some read in Scripture what the Bible (God's Word) says about God and say, "Well, that's not my God." Because "their God" would be different. Better. Which only goes to show that they are much smarter than the God of the Bible. Interestingly, the first commandment is "You shall have no other gods before Me" (Exo 20:3), and that "before" does not mean "in priority," but "in My presence." So we read, "There is no other besides Him" (Deut 4:35). God says, "I am the LORD, and there is no other, besides Me there is no God" (Isa 45:5-6).

Of course, most don't say, "He's not my God." Not in so many words. No, it's usually, "I can't believe in a God like that." You know, the "God" that God declares Himself to be. So they opt for "another God" ... which God says doesn't exist. That "other God" necessarily conforms to "my values," which, ultimately, makes me his master.

I recently read about a guy who, after going down the "I want to be a Christian" path, rejected it because, "I can't believe in a God who doesn't save everyone." Or, "not my God." "A good God would conform to my idea of 'good' and if the one you're talking about does not, he's not good and he's not God." Making me God. But God says, "My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways" (Isa 55:8-9). According to Paul, "Why doesn't God save everybody?" isn't a valid question. The real question is "Why would God save anybody?" And perhaps you begin to see the problem. For God to be good, He has to agree with our evaluation of our own importance, and everyone knows we are of ultimate importance. We are of the greatest worth. And God disagrees. We were made by God for God. There is nothing higher (Rom 11:36). "There is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist" (1 Cor 8:6). So we may disagree with His will, but that's our error, not His. Further, part of His plan is to display His wrath and power (Rom 9:22). The obvious question would be, "Who are you, O man, to answer back to God?"

Ultimately, God is God. The only God. Everyone's God. Part of God's plan is to display His character. That would include His love, His power, His omniscience -- those good things. That would include His wrath -- some "less pleasant" things. But without His justice and wrath, mercy and grace become meaningless. Only in the saving of some and not others can these be displayed. And those who deny the character of God revealed in the Word of God end up being their own god ... with a lowercase "g" ... which is not a safe thing to be.

Back to the Basics

Paul wrote his epistle to Rome to tell them about the gospel. It took him 11 chapters to explain it followed by 4 more chapters of telling them how to act accordingly. So when you get to 1 Corinthians, it's a little surprising that he tells them the gospel in 11 verses (technically, 2).

Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. For 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. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me. Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed. (1 Cor 15:1-11)

What we have here is the gospel, Reader's Digest version. It's the gospel in the simplest form. Perhaps "simplest" isn't accurate, because it is packed with content.

Paul reminds them of what they already knew -- "the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved." It is what he termed "of first importance." And it is fairly simple. Jesus died for our sins, was buried, and was raised on the third day. One, two, three. Not much more. But he adds points in there for support.

What does Paul use to prove (or, rather, support, since they already believed) the gospel? First, the Scriptures. All three points were "in accordance with the Scriptures." Simply put, "You believe the Bible? Then you believe this. Is God's Word reliable? Then so is this. Is God's Word authoritative? Then so is this." Then he offered witnesses -- an interesting group of them. There was the "failed disciple," Peter, who became the leader after the Resurrection. There were the 12. "Yeah," a skeptic might say, "but they were all confederates of Christ." "Okay," Paul says, "then there were more than 500. Hey, you know what? Most of them are still alive. I can give you their email addresses and you can ask them." (Or something like that.) If you were to parade 500 people through a courtroom where all 500 testified to the same thing, it would be pretty convincing. "Still," the skeptic says, "they were all his 'tribe', so to speak." Okay, then there's James. What do we know about James? James was Jesus's brother -- Jesus's unbelieving brother. James is the testimony of an unbeliever, a skeptic. "Well, okay, that's something," the skeptic continues, "but that was his brother. He had loyalties." Then all the apostles. The reference is to the Ascension. The reference alludes to Pentecost. The reference speaks of incredible power. But Paul is not done. "And then," he adds, "there was me." Who was Paul? He wasn't merely an unbeliever; he was an enemy. He was the ultimate "hostile witness." He was killing believers. That's Paul's evidence. "I, an enemy of Christ, saw Him alive after His death."

So that's why we are to believe the gospel. Lots and lots of witnesses. What is the gospel? Jesus died. Well, that's not remarkable; everyone dies. But Jesus died for our sins. No one else has. Jesus was buried. Jesus rose from the grave. It is that gospel upon which the Corinthians based their salvation. It was that gospel that was being preached as one message (1 Cor 15:11). And if we deny that Christ lived, or that He died, or that He died for our sins, or that He was physically buried, or that He rose again (and self-identified "Christians" throughout the years have denied each of these), then we don't get to call ourselves "saved." We don't get to be called "Christians." We don't believe the Gospel. Simple as that.

A Gift

Peter, in his second letter, writes to "those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ" (2 Peter 1:1). That's an interesting description.

The phrase, "obtained a faith," is literally "by allotment." It wasn't achieved. It wasn't earned. It was allotted. The NASB says "received." Peter is making the claim here that those of us with genuine faith in Christ have not built it or manufactured it or produced it in any way. We received it. It was given to us.

This is consistent with his first letter where he referred to "those who are elect" and indicated that they were elect "according to the foreknowledge of God the Father" (1 Peter 1:1-2). This is consistent with Paul who said, "To each is given a measure of faith" (Rom 12:3). Paul told the Philippians, "It has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in Him but also suffer for His sake" (Php 1:29). That is, the the only reason that anyone believes is that faith was "granted" -- given. And, of course, this is consistent with Christ. He said, "No one can come to Me unless it is granted him by the Father" (John 6:65). Faith -- to believe that the Son of God came in the flesh, lived a sinless life, died for our sin, and rose again that we might be saved -- isn't something we make. It is something we are given. Then we exercise it.

It's interesting that the text goes on to describe, not so much the mechanism, but the origin. They (we) were given a faith of the same standing as Peter's "by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ." It's interesting in light of Paul's explanation that the gospel reveals the righteousness of God (Rom 1:16-17). That is, in His righteousness (His "rightness") He gives faith that we (who would not (Rom 8:7)) can believe and be saved. Marvelous grace that leaves us with nothing to boast about.

Am I a Christian?

Growing up, we always had to come up with the right question. "Are you a believer?" "Are you saved?" "Are you born again?" Each new version had a new nuance that was intended to emphasize the difference between an actual Christian and a nominal Christian -- a Christian in name only. Almost all of what we had to help determine this was "What do you believe?" So we would ask, "Do you believe that Jesus is God? or "Have you repented of your sin?" or "Are you trusting God to forgive your sins?" All well and good, but it's all subjective, you see? Just like a person that doesn't actually trust Christ could consider himself a "believer" simply because he believes there was a man named Jesus (or the like), all this stuff is primarily based on your thinking. Are there other means of telling? Do we have any other hints to discover whether or not I am or am not a Christian?

The Bible doesn't leave us ignorant on the subject. There are more tangible considerations. For instance, Jesus said, "By this all people will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another" (John 13:35). Do you? Peter wrote,

For this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love. (2 Peter 1:5-7)

This, he said, was the way to "confirm your calling and election" (2 Peter 1:10). Are you making efforts like that? Paul wrote about the fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22). Do you see any such fruit? On the negative side, Jesus warned that you can recognize false teachers by their fruits (Matt 7:15-20). Do your fruits look like the Spirit or the flesh (Gal 5:19-21)? Paul warned that "another gospel" was no gospel at all and was "anathema" -- cursed (Gal 1:6-9). Are you following the true gospel? The author of Hebrews said that God disciplined and chastised His children and warned, "If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons" (Heb 12:8). Are you aware of God's discipline in your life?

That was just a sampling. There are lots of tests. First John is filled with various tests. Paul urged us to "Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves" (2 Cor 13:5). Because Jesus warned that "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of My Father who is in heaven" (Matt 7:21). And wouldn't it be horrible to go through life thinking, "I'm okay" only to find out you're among those whom Jesus never knew (Matt 7:23)?

The Root

When Paul introduces the gospel -- the good news -- to the Romans (Rom 1:16-17), he begins with the bad news (Rom 1:18-3:20). I find it interesting, then, that the bad news begins with "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them" (Rom 1:18-19). The bad news is, clearly, God's wrath. But why is God angry? He's angry at "ungodliness and unrighteousness." Okay, sure, but in what sense? He's angry at those who suppress the truth. What truth? "What can be known about God."

According to the text that follows, most of what we see around us is the direct result of that particular action. Not admitting to who God is, we refused to honor and thank Him, became futile in our thinking, dark in our hearts, and fools, worshiping the creature rather than the Creator (Rom 1:21-23). That led to depravity (Rom 1:24-25) which led to homosexual behavior (Rom 1:26-27) which led to all manner of evil (Rom 1:28-30). It appears to me, then, that the fundamental cause of sin is the suppression of truth about God. Sin, of course, is defined as a failure to obey God, but I think that failing to obey is the obvious outcome of a refusal to believe the truth about God. Interestingly, when Jesus was explaining to His disciples that the Helper, the Holy Spirit, would come, He said, "And when He comes, He will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me ..." (John 16:8-11). Jesus connects the problem of sin with "they do not believe in Me."

Does this work? Well, if we look at the first sin, it does. The approach of the serpent was "Did God really say ...?" (Gen 3:1). Questioning God. Next it was, "You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened ..." (Gen 3:4-5). Directly denying God. So Eve's sin began with the suppression of the truth about God. But I think, if we look, we'll find it everywhere. Paul lays the sin of idolatry at the feet of the suppression of the truth of God. We can see most of the rest in the same light. We take the name of the Lord in vain because we believe Him to be vain. We forget the Sabbath because we don't consider a day to honor Him to be valuable. We fail to honor father and mother because we believe we have better ideas regarding what He gave us for father and mother. We murder because we disagree with His valuation of beings made in His image. We commit adultery because we think we can do better to satisfy our desires than He can. We steal because we believe He is holding back from us. And on and on. I think it is very possible to trace every sin back to a root of suppressing the truth about God.

That's all well and good, but what's the point? I think it is immensely practical. If I know that my primary reason for sinning is a failure on my part to believe what I already know to be true about God, that gives me a direction to go in my work to cease from sinning. (Mind you, I won't attain it in this life. I just want to go in that direction ... as far as I can.) If my primary cause of sin is my failure to believe who God is, then my primary tool to stop sinning is to choose to believe God. That is, I can see that "In this case I did this but God is that." So change how I think. And choose to act on what I know is true about God. Built into this, of course, is the self-realization that I am suppressing the truth about God and I need to remedy that. I need to remedy that by adjusting my thinking to Him (rather than vice versa). Sure, there is lots of work to be done ... often repetitious work. "What? I bought that lie again??" But while struggling with secondary causes -- this temptation or that -- perhaps I need most to work on my heart for God and renewing what I know to be true about God. I'm pretty sure I have errors stored in there that can be fixed with His Word.

News Weakly - 1/22/2022

Nice Headline
The headline says it all. "The 10 richest billionaires doubled their wealth" in the pandemic world while the rest of us lost income. They always say, "Follow the money." Well?

Not on the Menu
We can take a lot of news, but this one is gonna sting. They're telling us now that a 4th vaccine boost does not prevent omicron breakthroughs. Another "vaccine" (that hasn't really vaccinated anyone) won't vaccinate anyone. Not on the menu of possible narratives, is it?

On the Other Hand
On the other hand, the CDC says boosters are effective for preventing severe illness from omicron. Of course, from all reports, omicron is fairly effective for preventing severe illness from omicron, so ...??

Meaningless
"Net zero" is the term. Like when ExxonMobil says they expect to attaing "net zero emissions" by 2050. "Oh," they have to explain, "no, that's not in the use of our product. That's just in the buildings we own." Because, of course, their product is considered one of the largest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions ... giving "net zero" net zero meaning.

A Bizarre Reciprocal
Kyrsten Sinema has been a big surprise to many. Elected as one of Arizona's senators, a left winger in a right wing state, she has appeared to hold fast to the hopes of many of the Arizonans that didn't vote for her. Most recently it was the filibuster vote where she voted against her own party. Well, of course, now her "big-dollar donors" are threatening to sever funding. Now, I don't know what she can do to change her vote to make them happy. And I cannot imagine how it can be legal for "big-dollar donors" to be able to pressure lawmakers to do their bidding. And then, of course, there is the "logic" I don't understand. "Bipartisanship works only if it is reciprocal," they told Sinema. So by "reciprocal" they mean "Only if it works for us when we are a minority and in our favor when we are not." "Reciprocal" in this instance means "We want the filibuster when we need it but don't want them to use it when we don't, and that is what we call 'reciprocal' and 'democracy'."

What's Good for the Goose
Florida is trying to pass a law preventing companies and schools from attempting to make people feel "discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race." And, of course, Florida State Sen. Shevrin Jones is opposed. Truthfully, I am, too. Making it illegal to say something that might cause someone else to feel discomfort or guilt is stupid. Conversely, that is exactly what those of Senator Jones's ilk want. "We need to make white people feel bad for what their predecessors have done." Or, "No one should have the right to say or do anything that might make us feel uncomfortable, but it is a necessity to aim to make white people feel that way."

Just When You Thought It Was Safe ...
California is trying to pass a bill that will allow children 12 and older for COVID without the consent of their parents. Now, you would like to think that there was such a thing as "parental authority" and that parents actually mattered, but you'd be wrong ... in Alabama, Oregon, Rhode Island, Sout Carolina, and Washington, D.C., and coming soon to California. And you thought it was safe. Okay, not safe. It is California. Still ...

As Funny As Can Bee
Perhaps you've heard that M&Ms are getting a new look. That includes a new trans character that identifies as a Skittle. On the president, on the anniversary of Biden's 1st year they noted that he outperformed the expectations of many by still being alive. In Congress, Chuck Schumer gave an impassioned defense of the filibuster after accidentally printing his speech from 2 years ago. Meanwhile, Democrats are warning that Republicans plan to steal elections by blocking Democrat efforts to steal elections.

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

How Far?

I can use the term "cancel culture" and I don't need to explain it to you. We all know about it. From the #MeToo scandals and the subsequent "beheadings" of the accused to J.K. Rowling's unfortunate belief that a sex is biological, not "how I feel," to the attack on the word "mother" in American government, cancel culture is alive and well. Discussion is not allowed. Debate is not available. Generally there isn't even a trial ... just "guilty without any need for proving it."

What about us? What about Christians? Are we doing that? We are. Word has gotten out that Jonathan Edwards, regarded by most as a American Christian superstar, is on the outs now since it was discovered that he owned slaves. What now? Well, we're going to have to dislodge him from that "superstar" status, of course. But cancel culture demands more. At a minimum we'll have to cease respecting or venerating him. We'll have to disregard what he wrote and dislike anyone who finds it useful. Book burnings may commence later.

Martin Luther shares a similar status and, now, a similar fate. His 95 Theses was the advent of the Protestant movement, but his later writings were so anti-Semitic that he just has to go. We'll obviously make sure he isn't making the talk show rounds, but we'll require people to please stop referring to him with respect or admiration. I don't know. That whole "Lutheran Church" thing may have to change its name.

It isn't, of course, rational. It was Jesus who famously said, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone" (John 8:7). That is, who among us is error-free? Jesus told a terrifying parable about the servant who, forgiven of a massive debt by his master, had a fellow servant thrown in jail for a minor debt. The master called him in and said, "You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me.  And should not you have had mercy on your fellow servant, as I had mercy on you?" (Matt 18:32-33). And the master required he be jailed until he should pay his debt. "I forgave you," he said, "and you don't forgive?" The cancel culture, even in the church today, would say, "No, we don't. We don't forgive."

It's irrational from another aspect. We think we know what's right. We think we have it all figured out. So, if we rationally applied these current rules for which we are canceling people today to, say, Scripture, guess who we'd be canceling next? It is Genesis that claims, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Gen 1:1). Everyone knows that's scientific bunk. Canceled! It is Genesis that says He made them male and female ... with no gradations or variations in between (Gen 1:27). Canceled! It is Genesis that defines marriage as between a man and a woman (Gen 2:24). We've canceled God three times already. Paul said "horrendous" things like "I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God" (1 Cor 11:3) and "the women should keep silent in the churches" (1 Cor 14:34) and "Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord" (Eph 5:22) and "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man" (1 Tim 2:12). Cancel, cancel, cancel!! But even Jesus gets heat. When His mother -- His mother -- asked Him for help, he said, "Woman, what does this have to do with Me?" (John 2:4) Right out! There are places in this world where teaching that homosexual behavior is a sin (Rom 1:26-27; 1 Cor 6:9-10) is frowned upon and praying for those who do to stop is illegal. Canceled!

How far, then, do we take this? For what do we cancel people? Is there a list somewhere? "These are banned and you will figuratively hang for them, but these are our favorite vices so they're okay." How far do we cancel people? Is it not possible to find truth in what is said, for instance, even if we don't like the person who said it? How far do we throw this net? The FBI reported that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. had 40 extramarital affairs and even was present at a rape and just laughed. We just let that go? (Apparently, yes.) Is God next to be canceled? Or just those who agree with His Word? And if we continue this course, who will be left? Will we delete "forgive" from the dictionary as a meaningless term? Hyperbole on my part? Perhaps, but the only way to avoid it is to change course. And that requires a change of heart.

A Principle We Hate

Scripture is clear ... from the start. In the Garden, God made Adam and then made Eve. He made Eve from Adam (Gen 2:21-22). And, He made her as "a helper fit for him" (Gen 2:18). Thus, men are "the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man" (1 Cor 11:7-9). And instantly we're at war, aren't we? "That's sexist!" "That demeans women!" "That is totally unacceptable." And, of course, "That's not what it means!"

Setting aside the cultural, modern, emotional response, is that what it means? Or are some narrow-minded ancient men simply lording it over women and this was never intended? It is unavoidable that Genesis says God made Adam first, then Eve. It is unavoidable that she was described as a "helper fit for him." It is unavoidable that the rest of Scripture continues to hold to this hierarchy despite all our wishes to the contrary. So "The head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God" (1 Cor 11:3). Not ambiguous; not unclear. "God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says" (1 Cor 14:33-34). There was no stutter, no question, no room to maneuver.

So is Scripture inherently misogynistic? Nothing could be further from the truth. While Genesis 2 indicates that Adam and Eve were made for different roles, Genesis 1 is abundantly clear that both were created in God's own image (Gen 1:27) giving both the same inherent value. It is foolish to argue that differing roles offers differing values. God refers to Eve as a "helper," but Jesus refers to the Spirit in the same way (John 15:26). That doesn't imply that the Spirit is less important, less valuable, or less ... in any way. Indeed, Jesus Himself came to serve (Mark 10:45), so serving is not the definition of "less." Beyond this, in Isaiah God compares Himself to a mother (Isa 66:12) and in 1 Thessalonians Paul compares himself to a mother (1 Thess 2:7). If the Bible was inherently misogynistic, this would be ridiculous. Indeed, Paul specifies that in Christ there is "neither male nor female" (Gal 3:28), indicating that the relationship between Christ and men or women is the same. Peter warned husbands to treat their wives well as "heirs together of the grace of life" (1 Peter 3:7). To fail to do so would hinder their prayers. So, biblically, God planned for men to have particular roles and women to have particular roles, but both (both men and women and both sets of roles) were of equal value and equal use.

Why all the furor, then? Why can't we just "get along"? I suspect it is rooted in the Garden. I suspect it is rooted in sin. The Scriptures say that Eve was deceived and not Adam (1 Tim 2:14). The Scriptures say that Eve "took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate" (Gen 3:6). What we have here is a failure of Eve to follow God's instructions and a failure of Adam to guard his wife. As a result, God told Eve, "I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you" (Gen 3:16). That desire toward her husband was to rule her husband as a consequence of sin (cp Gen 4:7). Thus, from the beginning of sin, this struggle of women to rule over their husbands has been ongoing. It's wrong, but it's real.

So, what's the problem? Why don't we believers just bow and say, "Yes, Lord"? Why do we fight this line of thinking? From all appearances it appears to be entirely cultural. As far as I can see God's Word stands in direct contradiction to today's perspectives and, therefore, must be wrong. So Christians are explaining why it is that 2000 years of Christian understanding on the topic was wrong and we've figured it out. Christians are telling us that Paul was mistaken or our understanding of Paul was mistaken. They even tell us that Jesus was mistaken in His treatment of His mother because of this issue. Brothers and sisters, how can these things be? We seem unwilling to stand on God's Word as sufficient or authoritative and are, happily, relieved to find that culture can trump Scripture when culture is more comfortable. We Christians are opting to side with a world that hates God because, after all, they know better. And those who stand on God's Word as accurate and sufficient are considered haters and sexist ... which, by definition, would include God if carried to its logical conclusion. So which side are you on?

Prayer

There are a variety of religions with a variety of beliefs and practices. One practice that appears to be common to almost all is the practice of prayer. Prayer is simply an address to God. With that kind of simplicity, what could go wrong, right? Well we could. We are human.

Scripture is rich with prayer. It is throughout. Jesus taught us to pray for those who persecute you (Matt 5:44). He said to pray expecting answers (Matt 7:7-11). He said, "Whatever you ask of the Father in My name, He will give it to you" (John 16:23). He taught that we should always pray and not lose heart (Luke 18:1-14). In the same vein, Paul said we were to "pray without ceasing" (1 Thess 5:17). Jesus said His house would be a house of prayer (Matt 21:13). Isn't it ironic, then, how much prayer has fallen on hard times in the church today?

It seems like we're not as keen on prayer as Scripture asks us to be. Could it be that we're confused about it? I think there are some critical mistakes we make in our thinking that end up causing us to miss out on prayer. For most, I'd dare say, prayer is a method of getting what we want from a divine Butler, so to speak. We should be able to just ask for stuff and He'll deliver. He doesn't, of course, because that is not what prayer is. Prayer is not our opportunity to demand from God or control God or to get our way from God. Prayer is not simply asking God for what we want.

What, then? Prayer includes many facets. It includes confessing sin. We're not seeking forgiveness as much as confessing -- agreeing with God. We're not hoping for absolution (because we already have it), but expressing, again, repentance -- turning from what God says and we agree is sin. Prayer includes thanksgiving, sorely lacking in the human race in general (Rom 1:22) and, by extension, us, too. Prayer certainly includes requests -- supplications and intercession. We pray to ask for what's on our hearts and we pray to ask God's aid and presence for those about whom we care. That would include government (1 Tim 2:1-2), enemies (Matt 5:44), and anyone else we wish. But we must always remember that the point of prayer is not to get our way. It isn't God's magic gift box. "Just do the right incantation and He will provide."

Prayer is more about communication with God. He doesn't actually need our help, you know. We aren't informing Him of things He's not aware of. We aren't raising issues He hadn't seen. We aren't offering Him ideas or solutions that He didn't know but can use now that we made the request. No. God is omniscient; He doesn't need the information we're giving Him. He wants it. He wants to hear from us. He even uses it, making us part of His work. Prayer allows us to share our thoughts with God. "Talk to Me, My child," He offers. Prayer doesn't change God, but it does change us. First and foremost, prayer continually reminds us of our dependency on God. And what could be more necessary than remembering that we are absolutely dependent on God?

Jesus taught His disciples how to pray (Matt 6:7-13), but He included other instructions. We are told to pray in line with His will. John said, "If we ask anything according to His will He hears us" (1 John 5:14). We are told to use the magic phrase, "In Jesus' name" because that guarantees it. Oh, of course that's not true, but we seem to run with that blindly, don't we? He did teach His disciples to pray in His name (John 15:16; John 16:23-27), but that wasn't by way of the proper noun by which we know Him. It was by way of His character. Pray what He wants and for His sake and it is assured. And, of course, there is faith. Jesus said, "And whatever you ask in prayer, you will receive, if you have faith" (Matt 21:22). James said that if you doubt you shouldn't expect anything from God (James 1:6-8). Faith is essential.

"Without ceasing" is the phrase that should describe how we pray. Sadly, it rarely is. We have a lot of faulty notions about prayer, thinking that it's our way of getting what we want from God. It's not. Prayer is our communication with God. That should make it an indispensible part of our everyday existence all by itself. It is amazing that God offers to involve us in His work through use of prayer. It is astounding to suggest that He will never fail to provide what we ask for if we ask for what He intends to give us. We ought to be known as a praying people. Are we?

How Much Sin?

Redemption is an Old Testament concept in which a person in trouble has sold himself into servanthood to pay back debts and a relative is allowed to "redeem" him or her from that problem. How? They pay the debt.

The idea, then, is carried over into the New Testament all the way down to us. Paul wrote in Ephesians that "We have redemption through His blood" (Eph 1:7). Peter wrote about "you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers" (1 Peter 1:18-19). Paul said (twice), "You were bought with a price" (1 Cor 6:20; 1 Cor 7:23). In Titus we read that "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law" (Titus 2:14). Even Jesus said, "the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many" (Matt 20:28). As the old song says, "Jesus paid it all."

Or ... did He? How much sin did Jesus pay for? There are a few options. Some would say, "None." Others say, "All." And we need to leave room in the middle for "some." Which is it? Of those who argue, "None," there are two basic categories. The first, obviously, are the skeptics, the unbelievers. Jesus didn't pay anything for anybody. He probably didn't exist. The second isn't as obvious. This group argues that Jesus existed and even died on the cross and rose again, but He didn't "pay for sin." Sin didn't need payment. This group minimizes our sin to human proportions and ... it's easy. Poof! God simply blows them away. Now, that doesn't fit in a biblical view, but what other options do we have? The most common among Christians, I think, is the "all" view. He paid for all sin. "But," someone might well ask, "doesn't that mean all are saved?" Logically if all sin is paid for then no one is culpable for any sin. And there is as set of folks who will agree. Universalists. But most say, "No, only those who believe." But if only those who believe have their sins paid for, in what sense did Jesus pay for all? Worse, since Jesus specifies at least one sin that cannot be forgiven (Matt 12:31), we have to conclude that not all sins are paid for. Now, if Christ paid for "None" then no sins are paid for and if Christ paid for "All" then neither obedience nor faith are factors. The only thing that makes sense in light of all that Scripture tells us on the subject is that Jesus did pay for sin. That is, all sin that is now or ever will be forgiven Christ paid for on the cross, but "None" or "All" doesn't work out.

Well, of course, the next question has to be, "What about me? What about my sins?" Well, Paul wrote that the gospel "is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes" (Rom 1:16). The famous John 3:16 says, "Whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life." It appears, then, that Christ paid for all the sins of those who believe. That is, all who place their faith in Christ's payment for our sin and in the righteousness conferred by the Father (2 Cor 5:21) can be certain that all their sins are paid in full. End of story. In that sense "all" is paid for. Those who have as their only hope the sacrifice of Christ cannot out-sin the effectiveness of that sacrifice. And what about those who don't believe that Christ died to redeem us, who don't believe that faith in Christ is the only means to salvation? They have something to be concerned about.

The Gospel of Jesus

Last week I took several days to look at "Paul's Gospel" (pointing out that it wasn't simply Paul's gospel). In Mark 1, Jesus was baptized (Mark 1:9-11), then went off to be tempted in the wilderness (Mark 1:12-13), and then began His ministry by "proclaiming the gospel of God" (Mark 1:14). What was that gospel? "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel" (Mark 1:15). Really? "Repent and believe"? Was that His gospel?

In Luke 4 we read about Jesus beginning His public ministry. He has been baptized and endured the temptation in the desert and then walks into Nazareth on the Sabbath and speaks from Isaiah.

"The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He has anointed Me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent Me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor." And He rolled up the scroll and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on Him. And He began to say to them, "Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing." (Luke 4:18-21)

Jesus, from Isaiah 61, gives a brief overview of His ministry. What were the key points? Well, primarily, "to proclaim good news" or, as we would say, "the gospel." He notes it is "to the poor" and "to the captives" and "those who are oppressed." Liberty to the captives, sight to the blind, liberty to the oppressed. Good news.

This passage has been dragged out as proof that "the gospel" is simply a social justice gospel. Jesus was here to help the oppressed and the poor and the transgender. Oh, no, not that one, but He would have been if they had been around at the time. You know, any of the mistreated and minimized. Assuming that's so, it's sad to know that Jesus failed. He told His disciples, "You always have the poor with you, but you will not always have Me" (Matt 26:11). There is not one account of Him lifting a poor family out of their poverty. He certainly did a lot of healing -- sight to the blind and that sort -- but the nation of Israel that He came to save from the oppression and poverty remained in oppression and poverty when He died.

Could it be that it wasn't this kind of "poor," "captives," "oppressed," or, for that matter, "blind" He was talking about? Could it be that He had a deeper meaning? Interestingly, in Isaiah's version it says He had been anointed to preach good tidings to the meek. Literally, the depressed, the humble, the lowly. That could include those without much money, but there is so much more to "poor" than "not enough money." In the Sermon on the Mount He referred to "the poor in spirit" (Matt 5:3) rather than merely "the poor." In that text He also referred to those who mourn (Matt 5:4), those who are meek (Matt 5:5), those who hunger and thirst for righteousness (Matt 5:6) ... and those who are persecuted (Matt 5:10). Are these not also the "poor," the "captives," the "blind," and the "oppressed"?

If Jesus came to save the poor from poverty and the oppressed from oppression, He failed to accomplish His mission. He tried, but apparently it's up to His followers to accomplish what He couldn't. "It is finished" was a dream, not a statement of success. If Jesus came to save the poor in spirit, those oppressed and imprisoned by sin, and to heal those blinded by the god of this world, His mission was a glorious success. He finished it on the cross and we continue today to see the ramifications and proof of His completion every time someone comes in faith to trust Him to save them ... from a poor spirit, a life imprisoned by sin, and spiritual blindness. Now, maybe ... just maybe ... some would think that "saved from poverty and oppression" is better news than "saved from spiritual poverty and the oppression of sin." And it is absolutely true that 1) we who believe have an obligation to help people in need and 2) we are not doing a good job of that. Still, I happen to think that the latter -- saved from sin -- is more impressive and more important ... and more consistent with Jesus's ministry and the rest of the Scriptures (like Jesus's own claim that "The Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost" (Luke 19:10)). .

Love is the Answer

In the '60's the Beatles sang, "All you need is love," and in the 70's Todd Rundgren told us, "Love is the answer." It's ironic, then, that they were right ... and wrong.

The Bible places great weight on love. "Above all, keep loving one another earnestly, since love covers a multitude of sins," Peter wrote (1 Peter 4:8). "Let all you do be done in love," Paul wrote (1 Cor 16:14). Jesus said, "By this all people will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another" (John 13:35), and at this moment you might come across a dilemma. "Wait, if Jesus's disciples are supposed to be recognized by love, how does that distinguish them? Doesn't everybody love?"

The Bible says "No." The Bible says, "Love is from God" (1 John 4:7) and "God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in Him" (1 John 4:16). In fact, "We love because He first loved us" (1 John 4:19). It is, then, impossible to love if we don't know Him. "Now, hang on," we are sure to say, "we know that's not true. I mean, look at a mother. They almost universally love their babies." Or other examples. So how do we correlate our experience ("You can see love everywhere.") with Scripture? Most are happy to dimiss Scripture; I'll stick with it. Besides, it's the same problem we saw when Paul wrote, "No one does good, not even one" (Rom 3:12) and we know lots of people do good. How do we put these together without deleting either experience or Scripture? It's fairly simple, actually. It's in the simple question, "What do you mean by ...?" In the latter, "What do you mean by 'good'?" and in the former, "What do you mean by 'love'?"

The biblical version of love is almost absent from the planet. That's because it's not natural. For many it's not even good. The biblical version of love is shaped by the One who defines love -- God (1 John 4:8). God is love. Real love is defined by God. And Paul famously laid out what that looks like.

Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. (1 Cor 13:4-7)

Some of those are obvious, but most are mostly outlandish in actual practice. Love is patient -- not quick tempered -- and kind. That "kind" is not merely "nice," but intentionally beneficial to the loved one. Love doesn't want what others have nor begrudge them having it (envy). Love doesn't talk about how wonderful I am (boast) nor does it allow me to have an inflated view of myself (arrogant). Love is not rude. Imagine that in today's world without civility. Love does not insist on its own way ... in direct contrast to the guy who tells the reluctant girl, "If you love me, you'll do what I want." That "not irritable" is "not easily provoked." That "not resentful" is "doesn't keep accounts of wrongs suffered." Literally "Doesn't keep an inventory of wrongs." Love makes a contrast between injustice ("wrongdoing") and truth, not rejoicing in the former and applauding the latter. Love bears all things. The literal translation is love quietly covers all things. Like Peter's "covers a multitude of sins." Love believes the best, hopes for the best, and endures even if it doesn't happen. I don't think any honest person could say, "Yes, that is the kind of love I see around me all the time." We see the "warm affection" kind of love and we see the "more than liking you" kind of love and we are very familiar with the "let's have sex" kind of love, but the kind of love described here is, practically speaking, nearly impossible to find because 1) it is fundamentally selfless and we are not and 2) it is only from God and, thus, does not come naturally to all humans. This kind of love is a choice, almost entirely foreign in our world.

So, they were right. Love is the answer. Love covers a multitude of sins. Love fulfills the law (Rom 13:8). Love does no wrong to a neighbor (Rom 13:10). And the standard of love is as Christ loves (John 13:34). No one is to be excluded from this love, including enemies (Matt 5:44). And, above all, this love is commanded (an impossibility if love is an emotion). That love is the answer. We know how Christ loved us. Now, go and do thou likewise.

News Weakly - 1/15/2022

Sick Media
Story after story hits the media. Anti-vaxxer dies of COVID. Famous anti-vaxxers die of COVID. QAnon star dies of COVID. And they defend this. Why? "The public has the right to know," is the kind of garbage they'll tell you, but the truth is, "The public has the right to know what we want them to know." So they'll take great delight in those who die when they die outside the media's comfort zone, but ignore all those that violate their goals. So you don't hear about the deaths among the fully vaccinated, the fact that omnicron is a vaccinated pandemic, or any other stories that lead to "misinformation" -- that which contradicts the approved narrative. Instead they will gloat over people who die. Shame on them.

Widespread Voter Fraud
There was no widespread voter fraud, they assure us, but now it appears to be the plan. New York City has decided to let noncitizens vote. More than 800,000 noncitizens will be able to participate in making the rules, at least for New York. Of course, they're not the first, but they're certainly the largest. Fortunately they at least have the requirement that they have been a resident for 30 days. That's something ... right?

Just the Facts, Ma'am
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, during oral arguments at the Supreme Court regarding the vaccine mandates, made the important observation that "We have over 100,000 children, which we’ve never had before, in serious condition and many on ventilators." Well, this is certainly horrible ... if it's true. It's not. The CDC says there have been less than 100,000 admissions of children with COVID since August, 2020. Once again the terror outweighs the facts. And what will our legislators and judges rule from -- facts or fear?

Now They Tell Us
Have you heard the "latest"? (I put that in quotes because it has actually been around awhile.) Forbes is reporting that studies indicate that the having the common cold can provide some measure of immunity to COVID. Or ... you could get injected with an "experimental" (in the sense of "who knows what the long term affects will be?") vaccine over and over until we're through it. Yeah, that seems much better.

Make Up My Mind
We used to call males who acted "actors" and females who acted "actresses." They have worked diligently to erase the difference and just call them all "actors," sometimes with a vengeance. Except, of course, if it's a guy who identifies as a girl and "becomes the first trans actress" to win a Golden Globe. Since "actress" to "actor" was intended as an equalizer, I suppose we're emphasizing the inequality?

COVID-Related Death
In an effort to push and agenda, IKEA has decided to cut sick pay for unvaccinated staff who need to self-isolate or who test positive for COVID. It's an agenda because vaccinated people are self-isolating and testing positive and get sick pay. And it's foolish because the natural response will be, "Well, if we can't get sick pay, we'll just have to come to work sick." COVID has killed a lot of people, to be sure, but it's the death of compassion that concerns me.

Who's Afraid of Democracy?
The story: Biden wants changes to the filibuster rules. The purpose of these changes is to get his way. Filibusters were necessary when the GOP held power in Congress because it was the best way to prevent the majority from running roughshod over the other side, but now the other side wants to run roughshod over the minority, so it has to go. "Democracy over autocracy" they're saying, but that's really not it, is it? If it were, they wouldn't have enacted the filibuster in the first place. (And, considering the power of the LGBT etc. crowd, are we really in favor of a majority ruling the minority?) Maybe they should just put it on hold until the GOP regains some ground; I'm sure they'll want it back again.

No Longer Free
Starting January 15, Washington D.C. will require people to prove they've received at least one COVID vax (2, starting next month) to enter businesses ranging from restaurants to sports arenas. "We're not mandating vaccines; we're just making sure you won't survive not getting it." (And the story includes a hotline for reporting businesses who don't comply.) We are working hard to change our national image, including deleting that "land of the free, home of the brave" line.

Misinformation?
Oregon State University has suggested that certain cannabis compounds might prevent COVID. Is that even legal? No, not the cannabis; the suggestion that something other than the mRNA vaccine might be effective. Pretty sure Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube will ban this story too, right?

Just Curious
I'm just wondering. Why should we forgive a woman who ran off to join ISIS but not forgive someone who, say, made a questionable racial comment? How does our current cancel culture decide when to burn to the ground or forgive?

The Battle of the Sexes
Twenty-two-year-old Lia Thomas is shattering women's swimming records at the University of Pennsylvania after competing on the men's team from 2017-2020. No one is clear why this girl-that-used-to-be-a-guy is doing so awesomely now, but she'll be favored in the upcoming Ivy League championships next month. Oh, and every competition and every record should now have an asterisk attached to indicate "This wasn't a biological female." Seems fair to me.

I'll Bee Back
Some good ones from the Bee this week include the promise from Pfizer that their new omicron vaccine will be ready in time for the Q1 earnings report. Meanwhile, Pfizer and Moderna are suing the human immune system for patent infringement since natural immunity is cutting into their profits. Sen Roger Marshall suggested that Science may have lied under oath. And they're saying that AOC has accused the COVID virus of just wanting to date her. (Note: that last link is the real story from which the Bee drew their satirical one, just in case you hadn't heard it.)

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

Paul's Gospel - Part 3

Over the past two days we've looked at the gospel as it is the power of God for salvation and reveals the righteousness of God. Then we saw that this revelation begins with the declaration that we have a problem; we suppress the truth about God, and in that suppression is all manner of ungodliness and unrighteousness. Let's not leave it there.

After the really, really bad news -- all are sinners without righteousness, without good, without even looking for God (Rom 3:10-12), condemned (Rom 3:19), and without hope (Rom 3:20) -- Paul shares the really, really good news -- we are "justified by His grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" (Rom 3:24) because God's wrath has been appeased by Jesus's blood (Rom 3:25) so that we are "justified by faith apart from works of the law" (Rom 3:28), both Jew and Gentile (Rom 3:29). Righteousness isn't achieved; it is "reckoned" (Rom 4:5). On the basis of His death and resurrection, we who believe that He was "delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification" (Rom 4:24-25) receive His righteousness. And it only gets better from there. Yes, it gets better.

We, the sinners without righteousness, have peace with God (Rom 5:1). We rejoice in God (Rom 5:11). "We were buried therefore with Him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life" (Rom 6:4). "Sin will have no dominion over you" (Rom 6:14). "The free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Rom 6:23)."We are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit" (Rom 7:6). "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus" (Rom 8:1). The list goes on and on. God's righteousness goes on and on.

The gospel is the good news. It is the best of good news. Sometimes we get so used to the word that we lose sight of how good it is. Paul's gospel was not merely Paul's good news. He called it "the gospel of Christ" (e.g., Rom 15:19; 1 Cor 9:12; 2 Cor 2:12; Gal 1:7; Php 1:27;1 Thess 3:2) and "the gospel of God (Rom 1:1; Rom 15:16; 1 Thess 2:2-9 (3x)). And he carried it from the Jews to the Gentiles -- to us. Paul wasn't ashamed of this gospel because this gospel is the power of God for salvation. That power is generated by God as it reveals His righteousness. That righteousness has ramifications. Those ramifications can be good ... if we avail ourselves of the gospel. And we need not be ashamed of that gospel either.

Paul's Gospel - Part 2

Yesterday we looked at Romans 1:16-17 where Paul talked about the power of the gospel that reveals God's righteousness. Good stuff. So it's kind of odd that verse 18 follows verse 17. No, wait ... I mean, what Paul says next right after the thing about the gospel revealing God's righteousness seems very much out of place.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For His invisible attributes, namely, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. (Rom 1:18-20)

So Paul starts his explanation of how the gospel reveals the righteousness of God ... with heaven's revelation of God's wrath. Really? That's the first point we want to make in reference to God's righteousness? As it turns out, yes. The gospel is about salvation. Saved ... from what? It is the fundamental question. Why do we need salvation? The answer is ... God's righteousness. God is righteous and our condition demands justice. What condition is that? We "suppress the truth." What truth? The truth about God. The truth about who God really is.

"You know," some might counter, "I'm not sure Paul is right here. I mean, we don't suppress the truth about God; we embrace it." Is that so? This suppression occurred first in the Garden. "Did God really say ...?" (Gen 3:1) followed with "You will be like God" (Gen 3:5). It was the first sin. And I would contend it is the regular sin. It's the Energizer Rabbit of sins -- it just keeps going and going. Unbelievers do it. Believers do it. It is the fundamental reason we violate God's commands ("sin"). We suppress the truth of His authority, His love, His wisdom, His faithfulness, His goodness, His omnipotence, His omniscience, His sovereignty ... "His eternal power and divine nature." We understand that unbelievers do it, but so do we believers. We question God's choices when we don't like it. We question God's rules when they go against what we want or think we need. We question God's love when the uncomfortable occurs. We balk at surrendering to Him when it means we won't get our way. None of this makes sense if we are affirming God's power and nature. We aren't. We're suppressing the truth about Him.

Paul says here that we are without excuse. We know all this. God "made it plain." In a very real sense it can be said that God doesn't believe in atheists. Paul goes on to say, "For although they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks to Him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things" (Rom 1:21-23). That's us. We are ungrateful. We don't honor our Maker. We exchange God for ... us. Clearly, then, righteousness must respond. God's righteousness must act. And it is from that righteous action that we need to be saved because He is right and we are not.

That is where the gospel begins. In that gospel we find the horribly bad news (Rom 1:18-3:20) followed by the best possible good news (Rom 3:21ff) wherein those who deserve justice receive grace and mercy. But that grace and mercy is greatly magnified by the demand of justice that we have earned. The God who can be "both just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus" (Rom 3:26) is a truly amazing God offering truly amazing good news. Let's not miss the magnitude of this good news ... or His righteousness in it.

Paul's Gospel - Part 1

Paul famously wrote,

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 1:16-17)

Why did he write that? Well, he had just said that he was "under obligation" to "preach the gospel." So he was telling us that, despite his claim in the letter to Corinth that the gospel is an offense to some (1 Cor 1:18-24), he was not ashamed to do that.

Why was Paul not ashamed? Because "it is the power of God for salvation." The good news is what God uses to save ... anyone. "Everyone who believes." That's powerful. From whence comes this power? "For in it the righteousness of God is revealed." Let's restate it, then. The gospel is powerful. It saves people. It saves those who believe. It is capable of doing this because God's righteousness is revealed in it. (Note, again, that it is "from faith to faith" -- to those who believe.)

Do you think about the gospel in those terms? Sometimes it feels like a story or even a cliché. Paul says it is powerful. Do you think of the gospel as powerful? More interesting to me these days is the reason it is powerful. Do you see how the power of the gospel is in its revelation of God's righteousness? "Now wait a minute," some may say, "don't we already know about God's righteousness?" Apparently not. It takes the gospel to reveal that. So is your gospel primarily about revealing God's righteousness? I would contend that a gospel devoid of God's righteousness is not the gospel Paul is talking about.

Consider Jesus

Jesus came to lay down His life for His friends (John 15:13), to give His life as a ransom for many (Matt 20:28). He came to serve (Mark 10:45). He came to call sinners to repentance (Mark 2:17). He came "not to do My own will, but the will of Him that sent Me" (John 6:38). He came to die for us (John 12:27). He came to glorify God (John 17:4). Jesus emptied Himself and took on the form of a servant (Php 2:7).

If we were actually Christ-followers, how different would we look in contrast to today's world?

Whatcha Thinking About? COVID, of Course

COVID continues to dominate. So much so that I am not at all clear that people are thinking anymore. Do we really know why we're doing what we're doing? Consider.

Why Wear a Mask?
From the beginning masks were a thing. First it was, "Don't wear one because there is a shortage and the medical professionals need them first." Then it was, "The virus is too small; it will go through the holes in most masks." Then they figured out, "But the virus usually leaves the nose and mouth in microglobules that are big enough to be trapped," so they ended up with "Wear a mask." But why? From the start it was "My mask protects you and your mask protects me." Thus, if we were wearing masks for the right reasons, it would be that "I'm concerned I might have and spread COVID even if I have no symptoms, so I'm going to make sure I protect others ... from me."

Most of what I see today includes none of this. People, for instance, driving alone in a car with the windows rolled up and masked makes no sense. I see it quite often. I know of almost nobody that diligently wears a mask to prevent themselves from spreading COVID. Others are unaware of the potential dangers of wearing masks, dangers like improving conditions to overcome innate immunity by making a humid habitat for COVID next to your face or failing to change masks often or not accounting for the decreased oxygen and increased carbon dioxide. There are real dangers (even deaths have been reported), but most people see mask-wearing as the best way ... to protect themselves, a function never intended for masks.

Why Get Vaccinated?
Getting vaccinated can be a good thing. But ... why? Vaccines may decrease cases and effects of COVID. For those on the dangerous edge of dying from COVID symptoms due to age or other risk factors, getting the vaccine makes sense in terms of risk analysis. Vaccines do not provide immunity -- nothing actually does -- but they can decrease the chances and harm of the disease.

The number of people I've talked to that are convinced that the vaccine provides complete immunity from COVID is staggering. They will argue with me, even after I show them the news stories, the CDC guidelines, the print everywhere that says that the vaccine does not provide full immunity. They also seem to have conveniently (and inexplicably) missed the studies that say that the vaccine wears off ... rapidly. The best case is at around 50% effective after 6 months (or less) and the worst is 13%. Why do they recommend boosters? Because the thing isn't keeping up its protection. They're giving us stories about people getting fully vaccinated and getting sick followed immediately with "So everyone get vaccinated now!" and no one seems to notice the cognitive dissonance. I don't know; if you're going to believe the science, that's nonsense.

Why Fear Omicron?
Omicron is the new monster on the block. I recently read that 95% of current new cases are from the omicron variant. In the UK they are reporting that 69% of omicron cases are among the fully vaccinated. (It appears to be a pandemic of the vaccinated now.) And "the current new cases" are through the roof, breaking records seemingly everywhere. That's something to be concerned about. In the U.S. one death has been reported and worldwide it's something less than 10, so death is a possibility. Hospitalizations are on the rise simply because of the skyrocketing number of cases. And it appears that omicron is more transmissible and both natural immunity and the vaccines are not as effective protection against it (which, by the way, is one of the reasons it is more transmissible).

All that being said, the medical community is in agreement. Omicron is less. Less virulent, less catastrophic, less life-threatening ... less. The symptoms for vaccinated and unvaccinated alike are typically closer to those of a cold. Emergency rooms are filling because of the panic and not because of the problem. We're told "Omnicron is gonna get you" (President Biden promised his nation more hospitalization and death for the unvaccinated), so we run for cover when there is a sniffle, but while cases are up, up, up, hospitalizations are not keeping pace. Deaths are really not keeping pace. We might have better named it "Yawnicron." In fact, there are those who are predicting that, due to its transmissibility and our lack of good immunity alongside its fairly benign effects, it might actually end the COVID problem for us.

Conclusions
It's good to do things to help solve problems and ease difficulties. Wearing a mask when in close proximity to others is perhaps wise as long as you're aware that you're doing it to protect them, not yourself. Wearing a mask out of manic paranoia in order to keep yourself from getting it is pointless. Indeed, it could be worse than pointless. Getting vaccinated has its upside and people at risk would be wise to consider it. Mandating a one-size-fits-all approach using a technique known to be insufficient -- you can still get COVID, still transmit it, and still die from it -- is a shotgun approach without reasonable hope of actually hitting the target, actually providing the protection you're intending to provide. And that omnicron thing? Don't sweat it. You may get it, but it's not the terror that COVID-19 or its delta version was. Stay calm. Don't panic. It's not the end of the world. At least, not yet.

Forgive

We are all about grace, we Christians. I mean, we love it. "You got to be good to get to heaven!" Nope. We have grace. "You have to live right!" Nope! We have grace. "What must I do to be saved?" Believe and receive God's grace. It's glorious. We are not saved by works; we are saved by grace. And we love it. So when we get to this little passage, we have a problem.

For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. (Matt 6:14-15)

That little "for" at the beginning is aimed at the previous part of the Lord's Prayer where Jesus prayed, "Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors" (Matt 6:12). "Let me explain," Jesus says. "If you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses." That really trips us up. Some argue it is "stunting your growth" if you don't forgive, but that's not what Jesus said, is it? What did He say? Is He contradicting the rest of Scripture?

The word there for "forgive" is ἀφίημι -- aphiēmi. We translate it as "forgive," but it is literally an intensified form of "to send." It speaks, then, of letting go, sending away, giving up, abandoning something. As is the case with so much "Christianese," we understand "forgive" to mean "absolved of sin" when it isn't always so. In "Christianese" "saved" always means "saved from sin" even though it doesn't and "justified" always means "made right with God" even though it doesn't and so on. Forgiveness is one of those terms. Forgiveness can and often does mean the ultimate "removal of sin," but it can also mean to set something aside. In this case, Jesus spoke of setting aside sins. If we don't set aside the sins of others, God is not going to be able to just move on with our sins; He's going to have to deal with us about them. Jesus bore our final payment, but Scripture says that the Father chastises those He loves (Heb 12:6), so this would be the sort of context of this text. We don't face damnation; we do face discipline ... even chastisement -- a temporal response from God for a temporal problem at hand ... the failure to forgive.

So how do we do that? I know a woman who lost much family in the Nazi concentration camps. "I will never forgive them," she told me. I don't understand that to be a sure indication that she isn't saved. I do believe that the best she can expect is ongoing discipline from God. Because he (or she) who is forgiven little loves little (Luke 7:47), and none of us are forgiven little. So how would she forgive? I mean, we're talking about Hitlerian kind of evil.

I see it this way. I am commanded to "love your neighbor as yourself" (Matt 22:39). Jesus concludes from that they we must "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" (Matt 5:43). There is a correlation between loving my neighbor and forgiving my neighbor, including my enemy neighbor. And the lesson is in the "as yourself." You see, I routinely see myself as my own worst enemy. I often don't like myself very much. I am very much aware that I can be evil. And you know what? I still love myself. We all do (Eph 5:29). So what do I do? I correct myself and I discipline myself and I repent and turn (repeatedly) because I love myself. I seek my very best ... which, in the case of sin, is correction and salvation.

In the same way, we can forgive others. We can seek their very best without approving of the evil they've done or even ignoring it. It doesn't take a super genius to realize that ignoring evil is not good for people. We just set aside the personal malice, the desire for vengeance, the "self" that is, in all these cases, the obstacle to forgiveness and seek their best. We show them the same love we have for ourselves. Because in our case to fail to forgive is a failure to love and to fail to love is something that God will have to keep bringing to our attention -- or not "send away" as it were.

News Weakly - 1/8/2022

COVID-Related Death?
Following an attack on the American embassy in Baghdad, the U.S. sent drones into Iran to kill the mastermind, Qasem Soleimani. That was a year ago. Now Iran is demanding that Trump go on trial for their "criminal act" of killing the terrorist that killed so many Americans. Good luck with that, Iran. You'll have to get in line behind all the Dems still bent on executing the man.

Increasing Inflation for the Benefit of Us All
The headline reads, "A record 4.5 million Americans quit their jobs in November." Wow! 4.5 million quit. Not fired. Not lost. Quit. But, the story says, it's "a sign of confidence and more evidence that the U.S. job market is bouncing back strongly." Oh. Interesting. They're saying these people can get higher paying jobs, so they expect "strong wage gains." Read "higher cost to the consumer."

Record Breaking
We are breaking records right and left. The U.S. reached 1 million cases in a day to kick off the new year. Sweden broke their daily record on Tuesday to include their king and queen. At the same time more than 74% of the population have received at least one dose and 63% have been fully vaccinated. In the 65-and-over category nearly 100% have been vaccinated at least once. Record vaccinations over against record cases ... something just doesn't add up.

Off With Their Heads ... in a Good Way
I had never heard of this, but apparently the Taliban, those wonderful people our president equipped with billions in arms and left in charge of the country we were supposed to be protecting, has a Ministry for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention Vice. It was brought up in a story this week where they are demanding that all store mannequins be beheaded because "they are idols." Mind you, photos of women in the clothing that the mannequins are displaying are just fine. It's just the fake people that are idols. And I'm just thinking, "What would a Ministry for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention Vice look like in America today?" They certainly wouldn't have a problem with mannequins, but I'm not so sure about, say, people that don't want to be vaccinated or who believe the Bible is true.

Don't Believe the Science
Mayo Clinic fired 700 employees who refused the vaccine mandate. "Mayo Clinic must stand firmly behind the evidence," they said. Because the evidence says that 70% of current omnicron cases are fully vaccinated. Because the evidence says that the vaccine is less effective than they originally thought. Because the evidence says that the vaccine does not keep from getting, transmitting, or even dying of COVID. Because the evidence says that the vaccine has not decreased cases. So, yes, stand behind the evidence ... as in, "Pay no attention to the evidence behind the curtain."

Beeing Satirical
It is almost too close to real when the Bee reports that businesses are now requiring a positive COVID test as proof of vaccination. And the related story of the unvaccinated man who feels left out because all his vaccinated friends have COVID.I suspect the humor of the headline, "FBI to host first annual Jan 6 reunion" was lost on too many Americans. And CNN is proud that they haven't had an employee sex scandal all year.

Must be true; I read it on the Internet. (And, you know something that's funny and sad at the same time? I suspect that even though everyone knows that line means that the Internet is not the divine purveyor of truth, too many of us think most of what we see there really is true.)

God's Gifted Program

On the topic of spiritual gifts you will find a wide variety of views. Some have merit and some don't. How many are there? How many are still in effect? Can we even know how many there are? How many can you have? What do they mean? Lots of various ideas. But what is not in question is that there are spiritual gifts. The New Testament talks about them in a variety of places (Rom 12:3-8; 1 Cor 12:4-11; Eph 4:11-12; 1 Peter 4:10-11). There are a variety of lists, but all agree that these gifts are gifts of the Holy Spirit. And they have a purpose.

Scripture is quite clear that no believer in Christ -- no truly born-again person -- is without a gift. That is, a minimum of one (1 Cor 12:11; 1 Peter 4:10). What you or I get is up to the Spirit (1 Cor 12:11), but all certainly receive at least one gift. All gifts are not "self-powered" -- they are Spirit-powered. "All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit," Paul writes (1 Cor 12:11). Peter divides the gifts into two categories -- speaking and serving (1 Peter 4:11). He also says that both categories are from God and for the glory of God.

It's interesting how we neglect these gifts these days. On one end of the spectrum there are those who revel in the gifts, especially the miraculous kinds, thinking themselves a bit more spiritual than the rest. They take great delight in prophecy and tongues and such, but so many seem to think of them as their own. "What does God want me to do with it?" seems to be a rare consideration. On the other end you have the cessationists who say that all those miraculous gifts are outdated -- replaced by God's Word -- but they don't seem to be too concerned about the remaining ones. As a whole, as a rabble, we modern Christians just aren't really much into that kind of stuff. I can't tell you how many have told me, "I know my gift; it's the gift of gab." Like that's a spiritual gift designed for God's glory and to serve God's people.

God is explicit; we all have at least one, specific, Holy-Spirit-powered gift given to each of us for the building up of the Body of Christ and glorifying God. And we seem to shrug and say, "Well, I don't really know what mine is, so I just won't worry about it." So many Christians these days (thanks, in part, to COVID) are "remote" -- they're no longer closely tied to the Body of Christ. And they're fine with that. They don't exercise the gift they've been given and they don't seek to serve God or His people in it. They don't trust the "spiritual gift tests" (and I don't blame them), so they don't really seem motivated to find what God has given them and use it.

You've been there, haven't you? You know ... someone gives you a fine gift -- Christmas, birthday, something -- and, well, it's just not up your alley, so to speak. You aren't particularly interested, but you don't want to hurt their feelings. So you thank them warmly and keep it and maybe, years later, find it again. "Hmm, I wonder where that came from?" That's us. Except the gift we've been given isn't for our personal pleasure and the Person we're offending is God. "This ol' thing? What good is it? I don't even know what it is." It is given and empowered by the Spirit and it is aimed at serving God's people and, ultimately, glorifying God, and the best we can do is hide it in a closet. Unfortunately, He has access to our closets. And He knows.