Undefined

Everyone from Ellen "Elliot" Page to the White House and Vogue are outraged that Texas has "directed state agencies to investigate gender-affirming care for trans youths as 'child abuse.'" Because "gender-affirming" is the term they use now rather than "intentional dismemberment."

According to Merriam-Webster, "woman" is defined as "an adult female person." "Oh, come on, now, Stan, where are you going with this? Who really needs a dictionary to define 'woman'?" I know. It seems ludicrous. But if words are to have any use at all, they have to mean something. And, in order to mean something, they must distinguish something. For instance, I am a human being. "Okay, we got that." Sure, but what kind of human being? "Human being" is broad. Let's narrow it down. So, we can eliminate (roughly) half of all human beings by simply designating "man" or "woman." So, we could say that someone was either a "man" or a "woman" to more distinctively identify this person ... if we understood what a "man" or a "woman" was. So, we define it. "An adult female person." Fine. An adult is not really relevant to this, but that would preclude a "girl" as in a "not yet adult female person." So what is "female"?

Again, we go back to the dictionary. Merriam-Webster defines "female" as "of, relating to, or being the sex that typically has the capacity to bear young or produce eggs" or (not very helpfully) "the opposite of male." Of course, we've rejected that "capacity to bear young and produce eggs" version. That leads to the binary gender concept which we know is merely a social construct. That leaves us with "the opposite of male." And "male"? Rejecting "the capacity to fertilze the eggs of the female" version, we're left with "the opposite of female." (Which is why I said "not very helpfully".) So we end up in today's world with these two very helpful terms to help us distinguish between two types of human beings -- male and female -- by defining them as "the opposite of each other" and no other defining characteristics are allowed.

How is it, then, that we have guys who "feel like a woman" if "woman" is undefinable? How is it that we have parents and governments willing to have life-altering, irreversible procedures done to children who feel like "the opposite" of what they are when what they are and what they feel like is undefined? If "gender" is a social construct and can include no end of possibilities, in what sense can anyone be defined as "male" or "female" (or anything in between)?

Consider it from a slightly different angle. He says, "I feel like I'm a woman trapped in the body of a man." What does that feel like? I don't "feel like a man;" I am a man. In terms of "feel like," does this individual (avoiding "misgendering pronouns") feel, say, PMS or pregnant or menopausal or any of those physical aspects of "female" that science recognizes? (The same kind of question can be asked of the girl who feels like a guy.) If "female" does not feel like those things, what distinguishes it from "male"? We hear all the time (and I don't disagree) that men can never truly understand women and women can never truly understand men because of the genuine differences. And then we nod and say, "Well, if he feels like a she" (which he cannot possibly do, lacking the lady parts that make the difference) "then he is a she." This is simply not sensible. This is non-sensible. This is non-sense. You get the idea.

"You're just a hater" will be the obvious response. "Transphobic." We use these terms now as labels to insure an emotional response to reasoned questions that we will not allow to be examined or answered. So feel free to disregard all that reasoning and thinking stuff and go back to feeling like that stuff is real if you prefer. I say "feel" because "think" is not allowed in these kinds of discussions these days. You can just keep that "hater" stuff to yourself when my questions aren't about hate or even individuals, but reasons. If you cannot define "male" and "female," claiming either is undefined and meaningless. Encouraging that, in my view, is hate.

Jesus Loves You

One of our simplest messages is that Jesus loves you. It's so simple we teach it to our kids. "Jesus loves you; this I know, for the Bible tells me so." It's true. And it's important. And since it's important, I think we ought to get it right.

"Get it right?" I can hear already. Yes, and you know what I'm talking about if you've read this blog much. Here's how it works. We have a concept, an idea, a principle, and then we turn it into words to communicate it. Those words become the concept. And then someone takes that word and nudges it. Maybe even shoves it. And now we're using a word that means "the concept" to us and something else to everyone else. You know, like "love." In principle it meant a devotion to the best interest of the loved one, but we've shifted now to "warm affection" and, quite often, "sex." Now, take that shifted term, "love," and feed that back into "Jesus loves you" and you can see that it is not the same concept. For instance, we know today that "love" does not include causing pain but Scripture says, "The Lord disciplines the one He loves, and chastises every son whom He receives" (Heb 12:6), which doesn't fit at all with our current culture's version of "love."

So, what if we feed the previous version of "love" back into "Jesus loves you"? What if the version we intend is "the kind of love that seeks your best even if it causes you pain"? How does that change the idea of "Jesus loves you"? Because I hear a lot of people who say, "God loves you just the way you are" and I think, "Is that true?" It is true if we're saying that God does not predicate His love for us on our correctness, our righteousness, our perfection. Good thing, because we have none of that. But the "warm affection" version would require that "God loves you just the way you are" means "Don't ever change; He doesn't want you to change at all." That is, if by "He loves you just as you are" we intend to express "There is no need to change," that simply flies in the face of Scripture.

Christianity is definitely about God loving us. Christianity is absolutely about God's love not being conditioned on us. (We refer to it as unconditional love for a reason.) Christianity is all about the amazing concept that the Creator of the Universe, the Sovereign of All, would care about a creation of His. Like David, we ask, "When I look at Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and the stars, which You have set in place, what is man that You are mindful of him, and the son of man that You care for him?" (Psa 8:3-4). And He does. But that must not be construed to suggest "Whatever you are is good." That must not be taken to mean "Don't ever change." Because Christianity is all about justification and sanctification. The first is the process by which we are declared right before God and the second is the process by which we are formed into what we have been declared to be. The call is for perfection (Matt 5:48). The ultimate end will be perfection. But even today we are born again to new life, "created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them" (Eph 2:10). And God's constant work on the believer is "to be conformed to the image of His Son" (Rom 8:29). Does He love you as you are? He does, but He loves you enough to not leave you as you are. That's real love.

News Weakly - 2/26/2022

Tone Deaf
Canada's Prime Minister Trudeau is calling for national healing in the wake of the enacting of emergency powers and draconian measures to shut down an actually "mostly peaceful" protest (as opposed to the "mostly peaceful" BLM protests that included burning and looting). "Now that we've crushed the opposition with national power (like the elderly woman in a mobility scooter trampled by police on horseback), can't we all just get along?" seems a bit tone deaf to me.

The Cost of Keeping Us Safe
Thanks to the efforts of the government to keep us safe during the pandemic, the CDC is reporting that pediatric ER visits for injuries and eating disorders have skyrocketed. Drug poisoning or overdose went up 70%. Thanks for keeping us safe.

Violent TV Makes Violent People?
A father in Utah brandished a gun at a McDonald's drive through because his order wasn't right. When police arrived, they were shot at by the 4-year-old in the back seat because his father told him to. It doesn't take violent video games or shows. It takes bad parents. Another fine example of the decline of responsible parenting in America.

Wait ... What??
Former NBA first-round pick Royce White will be running for congress against incumbent Ilhan Omar. He announced his entrance into the race with a "God Bless America!" He is a Republican. Wait ... a black man and a Republican? Can he do that? Yes, dear readers, he can.

Weaponizing "Hate"
The report says that Facebook "did not add labels to half of posts pushing content from top climate change deniers." Why Facebook is supposed to label "climate change deniers" isn't clear, but what was really interesting is that it came from an analysis by "the Center for Countering Digital Hate." Apparently a failure to believe the current climate change positions is "hate" and posting that you don't believe it is "digital hate." In 2009 Business Insider wrote about "The 10 Most-Respected Global Warming Skeptics." Haters. In 2019 Inquisitr offered the story of a NASA scientist that claimed blobal warming was nonsense. Hater. NASA's Global Climate Change page includes the claim that "97%" of climate scientists agree, leaving 3% hateful scientists. Strange idea of "hate." Like so many other times, it appears that the plan is to simply label something as "hate" in order to prevent anyone from examining the question.

No Wonder
Donald Trump is praising Putin for being shrewd, savvy, and "a peacekeeper" by invading Ukraine. "We could use that on our southern border." And people wonder why I've never been a fan of Mr. Trump. Wonder no more.

Bad Putin
Well, he did it. Putin invaded Ukraine. We all saw it coming. We all expected it. And he did it. And in a massive display of force to hurl the invader back ... we did nothing. Well, Biden vowed to "hold Russia accountable" and there will be sanctions because, after all, Russia really cares about that. We will freeze their assets as they roll over Ukraine and pick up a country in return. Should we intervene with arms? I won't say. But no one needs to fear the U.S. doing so with Biden at the helm. And I no longer wonder why apocalyptic passages in the Bible never include the U.S. in the end times.

On a Serious Note
TGC has a story from a missionary in Ukraine about why they're staying. I personally know a missionary there myself. He's married to a Ukrainian and they have a son in the Ukranian military. Similar to the botched evacuation of Afghanistan, some of the people who aren't leaving the Ukraine aren't leaving there by choice because they love the people and they love the Lord more than they love themselves. We all ought to be praying for these people and their families.

Hard to Beelieve
Prime Minister Trudeau imposed extreme measures to shut down the Freedom Convoy, explaining that he just needed "two weeks to flatten the curve of freedom" in Canada. In the wake of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, President Biden announced he would unfollow Putin on Twitter. Obviously in the Ukraine Biden's approval rating dropped to 0%. And, from the Genesius Times, Ukraine's president is demanding a full refund of the millions in bribes paid to the Bidens.

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

Imagine

Repeatedly we read in Scripture that the Christian walk -- apparently God's intention for everyone -- is a selfless walk. It is a life aimed outward, first toward God and second toward others around you. We know that a fundamental concept in the Christian walk is to die to self. Jesus said, "If anyone would come after Me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow Me" (Matt 16:24; Mark 8:34; Luke 9:23). In fact, He said, "Whoever does not take his cross and follow Me is not worthy of Me" (Matt 10:38). Paul wrote, "I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me" (Gal 2:20). He wrote to the Philippian Christians to "in humility count others more significant than yourselves" (Php 2:3). He offers Jesus as our example when He "emptied Himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men" (Php 2:5-8). And on and on.

I have tried to imagine this. What would it be like? It is completely contrary to the natural human being who seeks first his own welfare. So much so that it's hard to visualize. It doesn't mean, for instance, that we just stop feeding ourselves or doing anything for ourselves and just everyone else. You know this if you've ever been on an airplane. They tell you, "In the case of a decompression, an oxygen mask will deploy from the ceiling. Put it on yourself first before you help others." Why? Because if you pass out, you can't help others. So, in the same way, selflessness would not require not taking care of yourself. In order to do the most good for God and others, you need to be able to function. That would include food, clothing, shelter, exercise ... that sort of stuff. But I'm sure you can see it would mean a radical shift of priorities and purpose, a shift from "me" to others. Not "What would I enjoy?" or "What do I want?" as first questions.

Having eliminated a serious error in thinking about the concept, what might it look like? It would have lots of ramifications. If we operate from the position that "God will supply every need of yours according to His riches in glory in Christ Jesus" (Php 4:19), we are freed to move on. Work ceases to be a slave driver and becomes a ministry. Marriage cannot fail since all marriages fail because "I didn't get what I wanted or needed out of it." Offenses will not be taken for personal affronts. The "one anothers" of Scripture become a reality rather than mostly just a theory, a "grand idea." "How I look" or "what people think of me" becomes very much secondary when laid up against "What can I do for others?" We would not be offended if we didn't get credit for our deeds (since we're supposed to do them in order for the Father to get glory -- Matt 5:16). We would seek justice for others without demanding it for ourselves. We would seek the welfare of our neighbors without worrying overmuch about our own. Our first and highest priority would be God's glory rather than our comfort. Time, talent, and treasure would be expended in vastly different directions than our most common current lives. It would be an outwardly-focused life rather than the common "me first."

It all sounds nice, but it is so foreign. It is so foreign that many tell me it's not only not nice, but not right. It's evil. Even believers suggest that we shouldn't operate that way. I explained it once to a Christian counselor who, when I finished, looked at me with open mouth for a moment, then said, "That's ... crazy!" So I get that it doesn't sound natural. It's not ... for people with sin natures. But we were made for this. We were made to glorify God and love Him and we were made to love our neighbors not only as we love ourselves, but as Christ loves us. So doing this kind of radical thing would not only procure a better life; it would also be a more fulfilling one. Doing what we were made for. In the power of God. For His glory. And if that is unappealing, you should ask yourself if you know Him at all.

Tough Love

Paul's 2nd epistle to Corinth (the second one we have) is largely written to defend his ministry. In the first one he wrote some tough things, like "I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler -- not even to eat with such a one" (1 Cor 5:11) and the amazing, "you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord" (1 Cor 5:5). The letter was full of that kind of stuff. Apparently he wrote a second letter sent between 1 Corinthians and 2 Corinthians which was equally tough. Now, he had planned to visit Corinth on his way to Macedonia and then again when he finished in Macedonia, but he skipped that first one and hadn't yet accomplished the second, and it apparently upset the Corinthian church. So Paul explained. "I made up my mind not to make another painful visit to you," he wrote (2 Cor 2:1), "For I wrote to you out of much affliction and anguish of heart and with many tears, not to cause you pain but to let you know the abundant love that I have for you" (2 Cor 2:4). Paul wrote certainly one and possibly two harsh letters to the church at Corinth. By "harsh" I mean they weren't all rosy and friendly. By "harsh" I mean Paul violated what we might consider civility in order to address very real problems in the church. It hurt Paul to do it ("much affliction and anguish of heart"). But Paul did it for what I think is an unusual reason --- "the abundant love I have for you."

The concept rings strangely in our ears. "To cause pain ... out of abundant love?" In our culture we tend to think that "cause pain" of any sort cannot align with "abundant love." Causing pain is never loving. This, I think you'd have to agree, is the product of very shortsightedness. We all understand if you love your children you will take them to get stuck with needles at the doctor's office so that they won't die from diseases easily prevented ... by causing pain. We can all envision circumstances where it might be necessary to hurt a loved one in order to remedy a problem, like pulling on a broken leg in order to set it properly or taking away some entertainment in order to get them to do their homework. It is obvious when we think about it. Sometimes pain can be lovingly caused for a good reason. In these cases, love demands it. So if we expand our modern "warm affection" definition of love to include "what's best for the loved one," it's not hard to see that sometimes pain is necessary and sometimes avoiding it is not loving.

In the next part of 2 Corinthians Paul outlines the proper procedure in the case of sin in the church. First, there is "punishment enough" from "the majority" (2 Cor 2:6). It is proportionate, aimed, measured, and limited. Next, the one receiving the punishment is also in need of forgiveness and comfort (2 Cor 2:7). The self-righteous have a problem with this, I think. They're happy to inflict punishment but not to let it go. They are swift to see sins in others but not swift to forgive, let alone comfort. Of course, the failure does greater harm to the recipient, causing overwhelming sorrow (2 Cor 2:7). That is not love. There must be recognition of the sin and consequences for it, but it must be ended and then forgiveness and comfort given. The underlying message must be love (2 Cor 2:8) (Note the word "reaffirm" in that verse. Love was there before and it is still active.)

Today's world would like us to wink at sin. "Be more tolerant! Be less judgmental!" Scripture would indicate that this is not love. Love will do what is best for the loved one, even if that can be painful. Even if it causes you pain. This kind of love includes administering consequences, to be sure, but also forgiveness and comfort and, under and through all, love. Our failure to do this puts us in jeopardy of being outwitted by Satan (2 Cor 2:11), and not in a good way.

The LORD is My Portion

I've been told that the gospel, boiled down, is simply, "Don't worry; life will get better." Oh, sure, that's an oversimplification and, to be sure, it's not for everyone (some of you should expect it to get much worse), but I think that lots of people think that God's basic job is making our lives more comfortable. So we pray for the comfortable and we seek the comfortable and when something uncomfortable happens, God is really in trouble. He didn't answer my prayer. He didn't do what was right.

So prevalent is this notion that I think that a prophet like Jeremiah would have been in very limited company, even among Christians. Jeremiah was God's prophet to Judah before their exile. He was promised by God that he would fail. Well, no, that's not quite accurate. He was promised that they wouldn't listen. And ... they didn't. Jeremiah wrote Lamentations after the fall of Jerusalem, and he was definitely uncomfortable. Interestingly, God's prophet assigned the source of his calamity to God. And he had a long list of calamity (Lam 3:1-18). He concludes, "My endurance has perished; so has my hope from the LORD" (Lam 3:18). Without hope he goes on to say, "But this I call to mind, and therefore I have hope" (Lam 3:21). What rescues Jeremiah from despair?

The steadfast love of the LORD never ceases; His mercies never come to an end; they are new every morning; great is Your faithfulness. (Lam 3:22-23)

It's hard to imagine, given his string of complaints about God. It's hard to explain, given his God-promised certainty that things would not get better in his lifetime. It is not ... natural. Jeremiah says, "The LORD is my portion, therefore I will hope in Him" (Lam 3:24). Not "I'm sure things will get better." Just ... Him.

What about you? What about me? Is the LORD your portion? Is the LORD alone enough? Do we require comfort -- better things, circumstances, feelings, whatever -- to find hope in the Lord? Is God's job description to make us comfortable? Or is He enough? Is He -- God, Himself, alone -- our portion? Or are we expecting more?

The Righteousness of God

Paul said that the gospel was "the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes" (Rom 1:16) because "in it the righteousness of God is revealed" (Rom 1:17). He goes on to say, "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness" (Rom 1:18). That's quite a leap, isn't it? Jump from "the righteousness of God" to "the wrath of God" in a single thought? In that word, "for," he links "the righteousness of God is revealed" with "the wrath of God is revealed." That is, the gospel reveals God's righteousness as it reveals God's wrath. Many -- self-professed Christians included -- don't really believe in the wrath of God. They think if it exists it would certainly not be "righteousness." You can't have wrath and be righteous at the same time. Is this true?

The wrath of God is not a rarity in Scripture. It is all through the Old Testament and, as it turns out, the New as well. In His parable about Lazarus and the rich man, the rich man died and was "in torment" (Luke 16:19-31). Jesus warned if people didn't repent they would perish (Luke 13:1-5). John wrote that those who did not obey the Son would have God's wrath abiding on them (John 3:36). Paul wrote that it was God's will to "make His power and wrath known" (Rom 9:22). He told the Colossians to consider the members of your earthly body as dead to immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed, which amounts to idolatry" and went on to say, "For it is because of these things that the wrath of God will come upon the sons of disobedience" (Col 3:5-6). Jesus died in order to saves us from the wrath of God (Rom 5:9). The New Testament is full of warnings about God's wrath.

So what does God's wrath have to do with God's righteousness? God's wrath is the right response to Man's rebellion. In fact, every sin is just that -- rebellion. Think about it. God is the Creator and the Master and He says ... and we say, "No." God is the Provider and promises all the best and we say, "Your promises and power are inadequate; we want something else." It is idolatry at its core. We serve the creature rather than the Creator (Rom 1:25) in our sin. The right response -- the just response -- is wrath. Not a temper tantrum. Not a pity party. The correct response to rebellion against God. As Jesus expressed in the Temple (John 2:14-17; Matt 21:12-13). If God had no wrath for our sin, God would not be just.

So Paul starts out his exposition about how the gospel reveals God's righteousness by laying out God's right requirement for wrath toward sin ... and how much is due. Paul outlines the sin problem and says, "And we know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who practice such things" (Rom 2:2). He warns, "Because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed. He will render to each one according to his works" (Rom 2:5-6). Which only goes to magnify "the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith" (Rom 3:24-25), because "propitiation" is not necessary for a God who is not angry, and a God who does not deal wrath for sin is not righteous. Which ends up magnifying God's righteousness ... and grace and mercy.

Fear Not?

There is an ad campaign lately for the streaming company, Sling. They show people doing incredibly stupid things because they have confidence after having watched so much stuff on Sling. "You can be confident of the best programming on Sling," they say. "Maybe too confident." The commercials are somewhat amusing, but the ad misses on a very important point. The characters were "too confident" that they could do things they actually couldn't because they had watched Sling. But Sling specifies the confidence -- "you can be confident of the best programming." Not everything. And, in fact, if you take the commercial at face value, they are warning you not to have too much confidence ... in Sling's best programming.

In Scripture we are told a lot about the fear of the Lord. It is vital. It is important. It's terribly wrong to fail to have it. We are also told repeatedly, essentially, "Fear not." So, what's that all about? We are told "There is no fear of God before their eyes" (Rom 3:18) as if it's wrong and "Perfect love casts out all fear" (1 John 4:18) as if it's good. So which is it? Are we supposed to fear or not? The normal mode of operation is "I'll go with what I like and reject the other." What I think is going on here is precisely the same thing as that Sling commercial. You need to take into account what we're talking about fearing. When it says, "Fear not," why is it saying that?

To answer that, let's first ask, "What does the 'fear of the Lord' look like?" It's not terror. It's not panic. It's not "deer in the headlights." Here's what God says. "And now, Israel, what does the LORD your God require of you, but to fear the LORD your God, to walk in all His ways, to love Him, to serve the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul ..." (Deut 10:12). Here Moses calls on Israel "to fear the LORD your God" and then explains precisely what that means. It means to walk in all His ways, to love Him, to serve Him with all your heart and soul. In Proverbs 3:7 Solomon writes, "Don't be wise in your own eyes; fear the Lord and turn away from evil." Same thing. The fear of the Lord is to turn away from evil and follow God. In fact, God commanded them "to fear the LORD our God, for our good always, that He might preserve us alive" (Deut 6:24). Fearing God is beneficial -- "for our good always." The Bible favors the fear of the Lord.

So, when we see "fear not" kinds of stuff, what is that? In Genesis 15 Abram was told to "fear not" not because he was afraid of God, but because he had no heir. So God told him he had nothing to fear because God was His shield (Gen 15:1). God told Joshua not to be afraid as he entered Canaan because "the Lord your God is with you wherever you go" (Josh 1:9). These "fear nots" are not "Don't fear God;" they are "Don't worry about your circumstances because I am your God."

What's my point? Sling suggested you can be "confident," but (rightly) specified what you could be confident about ... and then suggested you could be over-confident ... about their programming. Scripture says that the fear of the Lord is a very, very good thing. Scripture never says the opposite. So when it says, "Fear not," we need to pay attention to what it is saying we need not fear. We need not fear enemies or circumstances or troubles or the unknown. We need not fear them because God is with us. To assign "fear not" to a blanket "anything at all" is not only poor hermeneutics; it's lousy reasoning. Sling thinking.

Sidenote: "Hey, what about that 'perfect love casts out fear' thing? Doesn't that say we don't need to fear God?" No. And here's why. First, not one of us lives in "perfect love." Thus, if that text meant "You don't have to fear God," it is predicated on perfect love ... something none of us possess. Second, it specifies the fear that is not necessary -- "fear has to do with punishment." I don't fear falling off a cliff because I fear punishment. I don't fear running into traffic because I fear punishment. Conversely, if I loved perfectly, I'd be an idiot to not fear those kinds of things. They're not about punishment. If I love perfectly, I will not be sinning. In that, I will have no fear of consequences of sin. Currently, I don't love perfectly, but because I am perfectly forgiven, I am not much concerned about the consequences of sin. Jesus took that on my behalf. But I still fear God. I still fear displeasing Him, getting in His way, letting Him down. Because I'm afraid of punishment? No, because He's worth so much more than my poor performance.

Glorified

The Bible is clear. Our primary purpose for being created is to glorify God. God said He made us for His glory (Isa 43:7). Jesus said we were to do our good works in such a way that God is glorified (Matt 5:16). We are told that whatever we do we are to glorify God (1 Cor 10:31). In Psalm 35:26 David famously says, "Oh, magnify the LORD with me and let us exalt His name together." Elsewhere he says, "I will praise the name of God with a song; I will magnify Him with thanksgiving" (Psa 69:30). Glorifying God. It's a common theme in Scripture.

What does it mean, though, to "magnify" Him? If we say we are to "magnify" His glory, what are we trying to say? We use the term "magnify" in two different senses. We might use it in the sense of a microscope. The purpose here is to make very small things visible. Thus, "microscope." We take something microscopic and blow it up big enough to examine. There is another sense of "magnify," however. That would be the telescope. With a telescope we look at things that aren't small, but are not well visible to our eyes. You can see a star quite clearly, but it appears small and, frankly, insignificant. But with a telescope you can magnify that image and see how truly huge that star really is. It's not small; it just looks that way because of the distance. In a similar way, we magnify God. He's not small. He's not minor. He's not "micro." We are just not seeing Him right.

We are called over and over to glorify God. The truth is we never add to that glory. We never increase His glory. We only highlight it. We point to it. We draw attention to it. We "Ascribe to the LORD the glory due His name" (1 Chron 16:29). An entire life lived with God's glory as its aim is a truly purpose-filled life as it is designed to be. And the tendency of man is to exchange the glory of the immortal God for ... our own. So we need to be telescopes directing attention to the true magnificence of God in all His glory.

News Weakly - 2/19/2022

Submit or Die
As the pandemic winds down, California is aiming to be the first in the nation to ban employment to those who refuse to submit to the vaccine. Assembly Bill 1993 will mandate that everyone who wants to work will need to prove vaccine status. Now aren't you Californians glad you ended that recall? Last one out remember to turn off the lights.

It's okay, though, because California is schizophrenic. They planning that mandate for vaccines on one hand while we all saw the maskless crowd at the Super Bowl on the other. "There will be no vaccination, testing or masking requirements" at Coachella because people at large music festivals cannot give or get COVID. Vaccine mandates and no masking. Makes sense in California.

By Any Other Name
The Reuters story was about a website being hacked that was for a "Christian fundraising site" that was providing funds for the Canadian Freedom Convoy. Hacking? Bad. A "Christian" site called "GiveSendGo" funding a Canadian protest? Worse. Don't gather funds under a missional heading and give it to something -- anything -- else. Nothing at all to do with "Christian."

Random
The City of New York, while in the process of dropping mask mandates, fired more than 1400 workers who refused to be vaccinated. Remember when America used to be "the land of the free"? Remember when "informed consent" was the law? Ah, freedom. Those were the good ol' days.

Tough Break
A priest in Phoenix resigned after discovering that the last two years of infant baptisms he had performed were invalid because of a word. He was supposed to say, "I baptize you ..." but actually said, "We baptize you ..." Now, since Roman Catholic theology holds that baptism confers cleansing of original sin and regeneration, it's looking bad for thousands of babies. That is, if you're a Catholic. Not so much for those that believe in believer's baptism and don't require some sort of extremely precise wording that doesn't actually come from Scripture.

End Democracy!
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is worried that we won't be a democracy in 10 years because of those who are trying to ensure that only people who are authorized to vote can vote. I think it's odd since 1) we're a republic and 2) she's in favor of socialism which requires no democracy at all, so if she had her way she'd be glad to have no democracy. (Black Republican Senator Tim Scott calls it a false narrative.)

Social Ills
A new paper is out saying that "Gender differences extend to cancer treatments, with women having a higher risk of severe side effects from certain [cancer] treatments." Now, if gender is a social construct and you are whatever gender you think you are, then men who think they're women will need to be concerned about increased risk that they acquire by thinking they're female, right? Or do we just suspend credulity when we wish?

Fake News You Can Trust
Some good ones this week. Like the story about the nation preparing to celebrate 2 years of "two weeks to flatten the curve." Or the guy who donated to the truck convoy under the name "Hunter Biden" so the Washington Post wouldn't "dox" him. Or the one about China's president criticizing Trudeau's heavy-handed approach.

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

Economics

Economics is a social science that deals with production, distribution and consumption of goods and services. Sure. But we really understand it to be much more general than that. It is a management concept. It is the management of limited resources. Those resources can be just about anything, from advanced banking to personal energy. If you have an unlimited amount of X where X is any resource you may wish to consider, you don't have to be economical about it. You don't have to manage it. You can spray it everywhere, so to speak. But we live in a finite world and resources are always limited and we have to figure out how to manage that.

Turns out that Jesus talked about that. Jesus famously said, "Which of you, desiring to build a tower, does not first sit down and count the cost, whether he has enough to complete it?" (Luke 14:28). "Really, Jesus? You're concerned about building towers?" Not so much. Look at the context.

Now great crowds accompanied Him, and He turned and said to them, "If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple. Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple." (Luke 14:25-27)

Ah! Context makes a big difference. It wasn't tower-building that Jesus was concerned about. It was being His follower. If you want to be His follower, there will be a cost. Be sure you know the cost before you set out to do it, because if you don't, it won't end well for you (Luke 14:29-30).

Jesus's economics, then, was around the cost of being His disciple. What was that cost? Do you know? It first cost everything. Everything. There can be nothing of higher priority than Christ. Not parents or wife or children or family. Not even you. Next, it requires pain and sacrifice. "Bear his own cross" (Luke 14:27). We often suggest that being a Christian is easy. "Just repent and believe, and you're in!" Maybe so, but "repent and believe" is much bigger than "You and me, Jesus; You and me. We'll be pals." If "repent" is μετανοέω -- metanoeō -- literally to "think differently," that "change your mind" is huge. Love God first and foremost. All that other stuff, including yourself, is much lower in priority. That is what Jesus was referencing when He told His disciples to "count the cost."

If economics is the management of limited resources, biblical economics in this context refers to the limited resource of you. "The cost" of being Christ's disciple is ... everything. The payout is huge. But Jesus was abundantly clear. If you want to be His disciple, it requires making Him your highest priority, dying to self, and following Him. That, in essence, is the change of mind that "repent" includes. And, oh, by the way, that cost is well worth what we receive in exchange.

Getting Comfortable

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our affliction, so that we may be able to comfort those who are in any affliction, with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God. (2 Cor 1:3-4)

The topic of the first chapter of 2 Corinthians is affliction ... and comfort. Paul starts out his letter blessing God because He is 1) the Father of Christ, 2) the Father of mercies, and 3) the God of all comfort. Why is "comfort" so important here? Why does Paul pick that attribute at this moment? Because everyone encounters "affliction" and everyone needs comforting.

Paul explains the afflictions he and his fellows encountered in their mission. They were "utterly burdened beyond our strength" and "dispaired of life itself" (2 Cor 1:8). These afflictions were so severe that they were sure they were going to die. But, he says, "If we are afflicted, it is for your comfort and salvation; and if we are comforted, it is for your comfort" (2 Cor 1:6). Why? Because in all our affliction the God of comfort comforts us so that we may comfort others (2 Cor 1:3-4).

That makes sense, doesn't it? If you are encountering problems, do you ask someone who has never had problems or someone who had endured the same ones? If you have a sports injury, you're much more likely to ask for a recommendation for a doctor from someone who's had the same than a random stranger. So one reason God allows suffering -- "affliction" -- is so that we are equipped to help others. But don't miss this important point. This is far beyond asking a fellow cancer sufferer about where to get cancer help. The comfort we're talking about is not merely mutual suffering. This comfort is from God. This comfort is from the "God of all comfort" (2 Cor 1:3). This is the supreme comfort. God gives it to us and we can share it with others.

Paul's suffering to near-death proportions was for the comfort of others (2 Cor 1:6). And Paul's first point in comforting others is "On Him we have set our hope that He will deliver us again" (2 Cor 1:10). His trials were so intense for the purpose of making him "rely not on ourselves but on God who raises the dead" (2 Cor 1:9). So our first work of comforting others is joining God's work of comfort by praying (2 Cor 1:11). In the end, there can be no better comfort than to know we are in the hands of Him who can raise the dead, the Father of mercies, the God of all comfort. As Jeremiah said, "The LORD is my portion, therefore I will hope in Him" (Lam 3:24).

Fear Not

In Romans Paul talks about the gospel. He begins by talking about the bad news -- sin. He sums up by quoting various passages from the Old Testament:

"None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one." "Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive." "The venom of asps is under their lips." "Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness." "Their feet are swift to shed blood; in their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they have not known." "There is no fear of God before their eyes." (Rom 3:10-18)

Now, that's interesting, isn't it? In Romans 1 he winds up with a list of evils that we all recognize (Rom 1:29-32). But not here at the end of his "bad news" section. Here he lists those things; things like a lack of understanding, not doing good, deceiving, curses, and look at that one -- "No fear of God." Really, Paul? You want to leave that as your finale?

I think so. I think that the last statement -- "There is no fear of God before their eyes" -- is perhaps the most significant. We modern Christians, however, are not well equipped to deal with that. We've been told that we're not supposed to fear God, so "no fear of God" is a good thing, right? We've been told that "the fear of God" is really just "reverential awe" and not actually fear, so "no fear of God" is the correct place to be, right? And it's odd because the language behind Paul's phrase is not obscure. The word is φόβος -- phobos -- from which we get our "phobias." It doesn't mean "reverence" but "alarm; fright." Thayer says it is "that which strikes terror." But we're very wise moderns, so when the word "fear" is used where we deem it appropriate, we'll translate it that way. When it is not, we'll redefine it to suit our preference (like Eph 5:33 -- "respect"?).

God deserves our fear. He has earned it. Every time a biblical character encounters God, the universal response is terror. When God's prophet, Isaiah, saw God, he was terrified ("undone") because he was a man of unclean lips (Isa 6:1-5). Now, we would have said, "Eh, it's all right. God's very forgiving. No problem." Isaiah was afraid. When the disciples in the boat encountered a storm, they were afraid. Then Jesus stilled the storm, they were "very much afraid" (Mark 4:35-41). Not us. "Cool!" Jesus told Peter to drop his nets on the other side and they caught more fish than they could handle. Instead of doing what you might expect -- "Uh, hey, Jesus, could we get a contract with you to drop by here once a week and do that?" -- he responded, "Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord" (Luke 5:4-8). Not us. No fear of God. Just "respect" or "reverential awe."

If there was fear -- genuine fear based on the very real danger of maligning our Lord, the God of the Universe -- then sin would definitely decrease. Even among the forgiven. Because even if we are forgiven there are very real temporal consequences of sin because God is holy. If we were afraid of disparaging God and afraid of impugning His character and afraid of displeasing Him, our attitudes and actions would change. If we loved God so much that hurting Him scared us, we would avoid doing that which displeases Him at all costs.

We've worked hard to eliminate the fear of God. We -- Christians -- consider it a better understanding to shift to "reverence" and "respect" than "fear" because, well, we're not supposed to fear God. But if the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge (Prov 1:7) and the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom (Prov 9:10) and the fear of the Lord is hatred of evil (Prov 8:13), perhaps fear is the right response to God. Perhaps the fear of the Lord is a good thing. Perhaps we're not doing anybody any favors by turning aside the fear of God. Perhaps there is a proper fear and we're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Don't Be That Guy

The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you. (Rom 2:24)

Jesus said, "By this all people will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another" (John 13:35). Well, that's pretty clear. Not really tough to understand. Not hard to interpret. Jesus said it in the giving of a "new commandment" He issued -- "that you love one another." Hey, hold on a minute, there, Jesus. That's not a new command. No, that wasn't, but His standard was. "Just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another" (John 13:34). Oh, now that was new. Not merely, "As you love yourself," but "As I have loved you." That is, with total abandon. At great price. He loved us to His own death. Jesus loved in a way that exemplified humility (Php 2:3-8). "There," Jesus said, "love each other that way." And that would be the hallmark of Jesus's disciples. That kind of love.

How are we doing? I'd say not so good. Instead of "Look how much those Christians love each other," we find a lot more of "The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you" (Rom 2:24). Christians aren't known for their love for each other. We're known for our infighting. We're known for our judgmental attitudes, particularly toward those with whom we disagree. And that category is ever expanding. We're known for mistreating sinners rather than calling for repentance. Now, I get it. Some of what we do is love; it just doesn't necessarily look like that to the world. I get it. Warning a person whom God says will not inherit the kingdom (1 Cor 6:9-10) to repent looks judgmental, but it isn't always. When a call for repentance is out of a deep concern for the well-being of others, it's not judgmental. But for so long we've hid behind that "It's not judgmental if it's out of love" while not calling for repentance out of love that we're now getting to the point where we're proud of being judgmental without love. We even malign our fellow believers for being concerned about being respectful and gentle in our discussions (1 Peter 3:15).

I don't want that to be me. I don't want to be one who causes people to blaspheme the reputation of God because I opted to refuse to love like Jesus loved. I don't want to make self-centeredness and self-righteousness my standard of "good." I don't want to find my joy in exercising the "Someone is wrong on the Internet" option. I cannot afford to fail to stand (Jude 1:3; 1 Cor 5:1-2), but my stand must be for Christ and not me -- my pet ideas, my favorite politicians, my personal preferences. I want to be known as one who loves ... like Christ loved me.

Right Racism

As we all know, racism is a problem. The belief that a particular race is inherently superior to other races (the standard definition of the term) causes no end of problems, and that's if you define it that way. Our later definition is now "white people." Which causes more problems. But let's stick, for a moment, with the original notion. Are some races superior to others? If we say the human race is superior to other nonhumans races, I think that's a pretty safe bet. But, of course, no one is willing to go with that. And, if we're fair, all subraces among the human race are of equal value simply on the basis of being human. In that sense, then, the answer is that racism by that definition is foolishness. Or is it?

I think there is one version that is not. I think there is one version in which a particular race among humans is demonstrably superior. Peter, writing to believers, wrote, "You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for His own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light" (1 Peter 2:9). Peter declares believers a "chosen race" and goes on to illucidate the superiorities of that "race." They are uniquely a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God's own possession, declaring God's excellencies.

There is, of course, one other key component in this particular version of race that makes it different. In this and only this version of race anyone can join. In fact, the urgent command of the Lord of this race is "Go and make disciples." The plea for people to join is broadcast wide. And none of us get to claim personal superiority for having become part of this race because none of us did anything to obtain it. It is a gift (Eph 2:8-9). So while the general error of the human race to subdivide and then declare superiority of one subdivision over another is an ongoing problem, this version of race is, quite literally, a Godsend.

Related

In Isaiah 6 we read about Isaiah seeing the Lord (Isa 6:1-7). According to Isaiah, the defining characteristic of God in this event was "holy, holy, holy." That is, not merely "holy" and not even just "holy, holy," but three times "holy." It's a Hebraism that expresses our "-er" and "-est" suffixes, as if it was "holy, holier, holiest." It's like underlining and bold print and italics all at once. He's really, really, really holy. But ... just what is this thing called "holy"?

The Hebrew word is qâdôsh. We translate it to "holy," and rightly so, but the minute we do we start the removal process. What do we mean by "holy"? We mean "sacred" or "specified for religious purposes" or "saintly." Well, now, I'm not sure any of those quite work here. So perhaps "consecrated" would work better. "Consecrate" means "to set apart." And, in fact, in its basic definition, qâdôsh means "set apart; other." We think of "saintly" as "other than sin" and "specified for religious purposes" as "other than secular" and "sacred" as "set apart for God," so perhaps you get the idea. The basic concept of the Hebrew "holy" is "other." In that, God is "Other, other, other" -- "other" to the highest degree. He is not us.

It should come as a surprise, then, to hear of the doctrine of adoption. We, who are not God (because He is OTHER) but merely made by God, are redeemed (paid for; ransomed) by God's Son "so that we might receive adoption as sons" (Gal 4:4-5). God sent His Son to die on our behalf so that He could save us, sure, but, much, much more, that He could adopt us. If you belong to Him, "you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God" (Gal 4:7). We were predestined for adoption through Jesus Christ (Eph 1:5). We received the "Spirit of adoption" (Rom 8:15). In that Spirit, we cry, "Abba, Father."

The Holiness of God is a central aspect of God that encompasses all of His attributes. With that in view, the magnitude of His adoption of sinful humans becomes bigger than we could imagine. We are being conformed to the image of His Son so the He might be the firstborn among many brothers (Rom 8:29) ... us! We can have peace with God (Rom 5:1), but far beyond that we can be God's children, joint heirs with Christ, welcome in the arms of our Heavenly Father. We -- dead sinners, hostile to God, but raised now to newness of life -- can be related to ... the Holy God.

News Weakly - 2/12/22

When Freedom Isn't Free
Sure, you're free, but that doesn't mean you're free. At least, that's what a father in New Brunswick, Canada, discovered. Because he was unvaccinated, he lost custody of his three children. He offered research that questioned the safety of Pfizer's vaccine, but the judge discarded it because of the advice of "our public health officials" who obviously can't be wrong. The story includes that of a woman in Chicago who lost visitation rights there, too. Her doctor recommended she not get vaccinated because of prior adverse reactions to vaccines. The judge didn't care. Sure, you're free, but that doesn't mean you're free.

"It Has to Stop"
As the Freedom Convoy rumbles on in Canada, Prime Minister Trudeau is urging the protesters, "It has to stop." Either he or I am unclear on something. A protest is designed to accomplish something. "Because I said so" isn't the answer. So maybe Trudeau is unclear. Or maybe it's just me, and Trudeau meant, "Freedom has to stop." It is Canada, after all.

Trust the Science
A study out of Israel affirms that sufficient vitamin D may positively influence the outcome of COVID infection. Wouldn't that stink if we found out, "Here, take this vitamin and be safe" was safer and more effective than "Here, take this experimental vaccine and ... oh, again and ... oh, again ..."? Not to worry. Big Pharma and the government won't trust that science.

Unclear on the Concept
Climate activists in Germany took to the streets ... literally. Fifteen of them glued themselves to the asphalt of motorways demanding cuts in greenhouse gas emissions ... apparently unaware that they would cause terrific traffic jams producing ... excess greenhouse gas emissions. Previously they had placed food on the roadways ... to protest wasting food. Just really unclear on the concept. Like the "Freedom Convoy" blocking the bridge between Canada and Detroit. You know that's not "freedom," right?

Trust the Science! Oh, Nevermind
The CDC is warning that omicron is still upon us and "now is not the moment" to drop mask mandates, so it's a bit surprising that some of the most tightly controlled places are dropping mask mandates. Perhaps it's not surprising that Sweden is ending COVID testing -- they were always a bit more open than the rest of us -- and Nevada has dropped mask mandates, but places like New York and California and beyond are dropping mask requirements and easing restrictions. Surprisingly, even Dr. Fauci thinks we're at the end of the pandemic. So while the CDC still demands obedience, even the most rigid states are getting tired of it.

Believe What I Want You To
TikTok, in the classical concern over truth, is banning "misgendering, deadnaming, and content promoting disordered eating." Ok, now, hold on. I get "misgendering" -- using the correct pronoun against a person's misguided wishes. "Deadnaming" is the term they made up for calling, say, Caitlin Jenner "Bruce Jenner." That is, calling by their given name rather than the name they decided to switch to because they can't tell what gender they were born with. But what is "disordered eating"? The story lists examples like "short-term fasting and overexercising." Now, the medical profession says that short-term fasting can enhance cancer treatment and enhance memory and even promote weight loss, and, of course, the Bible favors it for spiritual purposes, but, sure, we'll go with TikTok on this instead. They got the "misgendering" and "deadnaming" thing wrong, so they can't be wrong about this.

Hate Crimes and Misdemeanors
Florida is working on a bill that will ban sexual orientation and gender ideology from cirriculum for the primary grade levels. It doesn't ban private conversations. But clearly it is, in Biden's words, a "hateful bill." Why? Because labels matter and "hate" is a powerful label so no one will have to think about it. Because if you can influence more kids to be more confused about gender and orientation, you will build back better.

Nice Work If You Can Get It
Army investigators have been looking into the Afghanistan evacuation debacle. Senior military commanders said the administration didn't grasp the danger. Well, now we know that's not true. Biden said so. Sounds vaguely like, "Dominion, did your voting machines cheat?" "No." "Well, then, there you have it!" It's good to be king president. He said it' it's true. End of story.

Another COVID-Related Death
Bob Saget died last month in Florida. In the latest report we learn that he died from blunt head trauma after an "unwitnessed fall" that caused skull fractures and bleeding in the brain and, eventually, death. Oh, and he had COVID. Another COVID-related death.

A, Bee, Sees?
More from your best source for fake news. In an attempt to save his career, Joe Rogan has agreed to only spread CDC-approved misinformation. I wasn't sure if the next story about the media spreading misinformation about Joe Rogan to prevent him from spreading misinformation wasn't true. On the truckers' protest in Canada, the story is how the prime minister wants to stop them from shutting down the city he was shutting down. Oh, and there is one about truckers looting Nike stores and burning some police cars so GoFundMe will reinstate them. Makes sense.

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

Revive Us Again

The story goes that a public high school in West Virginia required the students to attend an "evangelical Christian revival assembly" where they were told that those "who did not follow the Bible would go to hell when they died." The story is problematic.

On the surface, a "revival" requires "vival" to get to "revival." That is, you can't revive something that never lived. So suggesting that getting kids who don't know Jesus need to be "revived" is nonsense. They are spiritually dead and need to be "vived" before they can be "re-vived."

Okay, a technicality, but there is more. First, the school claims it was voluntary, offered during an open period where you can read or study or ... listen to guest speakers. Two teachers brought their entire class. Only two. Beyond this, it is a sad commentary in the story when the high school senior says, "The separation of church and state is one of the country's founding basic tenets." That's interesting because you can't find it in the Constitution. You can't find it in the Bill of Rights. You can't find it in any of the amendments. It's not there. Many believe what this senior said, but it is, in fact, not part of the founding basic tenets. What is in there is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." That is, the government doesn't get to establish a religion. The government doesn't get to restrict the church. From that angle it is part of the original tenets. But the "separation of church and state" itself is not. Indeed, the notion that you can keep "the church" out of "the state" is only possible ... if you ban the church. Politicians with religious beliefs will go to Washington and make laws based on the principles of those religious beliefs and we can't stop it. It wasn't until Everson v. Board of Education (1947) that SCOTUS shifted to an interpretation that was aimed at a total (and impossible) separation of the two. Since then, of course, the government has moved more and more to the elimination of first concept of the First Amendment, religious freedom. But, sadly, actual history is on the decline in schools and in society, so we're largely without these facts these days. So the aim now is to eliminate even volutary religion from schools ... in direct contradiction to the First Amendment.

Of course, from a more "religious" -- a more Christian -- point of view, there is another problem. Who is teaching these kids that if they don't follow the Bible they would go to hell? They called it "evangelical Christian," a reference to "the good news" -- the Gospel. This is what Paul called "another gospel" which is "not a gospel," and what Paul called "anathema" -- cursed (Gal 1:6-10). While it is true that only faith in the death and resurrection in Christ will save us (according, even, to Christ -- John 14:6), we are saved by grace through faith and not of works (Eph 2:8-9). Teaching otherwise is not true, not "evangelical," not Christian. It is "anathema."

Those kids need Jesus. They don't need lies. They need life. They don't need "revival." They need forgiveness of sins. They don't need a "work for salvation" message. And, if they are given the genuine gospel and are saved, it would be the best possible thing. But, of course, Satan and his minions (you might call them demons or you might call them the ACLU or whatever) will work to stop that kind of goodness from happening to as many as possible.

Whatever You Do

In 1 Corinthians 8-10 Paul discusses the concept of what we term "Christian Liberty." You know, the idea that if God hasn't commanded or forbidden something, we're free to choose for ourselves. In these chapters, Paul limits the concept, though. On one hand, he says we should avoid harming the conscience of others. He says, for instance, that eating meat sacrificed to idols is harmless, but to refuse anyway "for the sake of conscience" (1 Cor 10:28) and then explains, "I do not mean your conscience, but his" (1 Cor 10:28-29). "Sinning against your brothers and wounding their conscience when it is weak," he claims, "you sin against Christ" (1 Cor 8:12).

In the conclusion of this Paul makes what appears to be a surprising leap. "So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God" (1 Cor 10:31). But it's not a leap. On the question, "How do I choose what to do when God has not commanded?" the answer is easy -- do all to the glory of God. "But is it a sin to ..." "Do all to the glory of God." It is a broad, sweeping statement. "Whatever you do." How you relate to people, how you do your work, how you dress in the morning -- whatever you do. The question isn't "Is it sin or not?" The question is "Does it glorify God?"

It gets more interesting if you finish reading the epistle. In the last chapter Paul writes, "Let all that you do be done in love" (1 Cor 16:14). Another equally broad, sweeping statement. "Okay, Paul, make up your mind. All for the glory of God or all in love?" we are tempted to ask. The answer, of course, is "Yes." The two are tightly linked. You see, God is love (1 John 4:8) -- God defines love and produces love (1 John 4:19). Love, then, as demonstrated and expressed by God, glorifies God. Which is why Jesus said, "By this all people will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another" (John 13:35). Love marks the believer and love glorifies God. Therefore, whatever you do, do all for the glory of God and do it in love.

Of course, that makes for a life lived looking outward. Looking toward what God wants. Looking for the good of your neighbors (1 Cor 10:24). Thinking of others as more important than yourself (Php 2:3). And that is not natural. Which is fine for us because "it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure" (Php 2:13). In whatever you do.

My Ways Are Not Your Ways

In John 11 we find the famous story of the raising of Lazarus. You remember the story. Lazarus was the brother of Mary and Martha and a beloved friend of Jesus. Word was sent to Jesus to tell Him that Lazarus was ill. Jesus, the text says, "stayed two days longer in the place where He was" (John 11:6). Then He told His disciples, "Lazarus has died, and for your sake I am glad that I was not there, so that you may believe. But let us go to him" (John 11:14-15). They went and Martha told Him "If You had been here my brother would not have died" (John 11:21) and Mary repeated the same (John 11:32). Then Jesus went to the grave, and "Jesus wept" (John 11:35). The mourners' responses were interesting. Some said, "See how He loved him" while others said, "If He can open the eyes of the blind, couldn't He have kept him from dying?" (John 11:36-37). You know the rest. They told Him to let it go. "He stinketh" (John 11:39 - KJV). But Jesus called him from the grave and Lazarus lived again.

It's instructive to see the responses. Both sisters assured Jesus that if He had been there Lazarus wouldn't have died. Some of the crowd thought so, too. Jesus knew that. He intentionally stayed away. He planned for Lazarus to die. Some knew better than Jesus. If He had come when He had been called, Lazarus wouldn't have died. That's us, isn't it? We are on the verge of suffering loss of various kinds. We call out to God ... and He fails to come in time. He fails to heed our prayer. The loss occurs. And we tell God, "If You had been here my brother would not have died." What Jesus alone knew, however, was that He had a better plan. His plan was "that you may believe" (John 11:15). Indeed, it was His theme. He told Martha her brother would rise again and asked, "Do you believe this?" (John 11:23-26). When He prayed to the Father to raise Lazarus, He said He did it "that they may believe that You sent Me" (John 11:42).

Serious loss is a trouble we all face at some point. And serious loss is regularly a problem for us in our relationship with God. He fails to save us from it and, at our best, we believe at least that He could have. He just didn't. We fail to believe that He has something better in mind. We fail to trust Him. We fail to rely on His power and grace, His faithfulness, His goodness, His love. We replace Him with our own "better" wisdom that He failed to follow. To our own loss. We are promised good. We are also told that His ways are not our ways. Are we okay with that, or will only be satisfied if He bows to our superior ideas?

Minority Report

The story of 1 Kings 22 is an interesting one. The king of Israel, Ahab, asks the king of Judah, Jehoshaphat, to go to war with him (1 Kings 22:2-3). All well and good. Then it gets interesting. Jehoshaphat was a godly king, so his only requirement is, "Inquire first for the word of the Lord" (1 Kings 22:5). Ahab trots out 400 guys to affirm his war plans (1 Kings 22:6). (Where did he find 400 "prophets of God" when his wife was in the business of killing them? I'd say they weren't prophets of God.) Jehoshaphat says, essentially, "I'd like a second opinion" (1 Kings 22:7). Ahab said there was another, "but I hate him, for he never prophesies good concerning me" (1 Kings 22:8). So they summoned Micaiah with instructions to agree with the other prophets (1 Kings 22:13). So here comes Micaiah. The kings are there in all their regalia and 400 prophets giving them a cheerleading session (1 Kings 22:10-12) and says, "Your plan is golden, king" (1 Kings 22:15). Ahab knew better. "Speak to me nothing but the truth in the name of the Lord" (1 Kings 22:16). So, he does. He tells them God showed him Israel scattered with no king (1 Kings 22:17). He told them of his vision, where God asked the host of heaven how to kill Ahab and one piped in and said, "I'll go lie to his prophets," and God said, "Go" (1 Kings 22:19-23). It cost Micaiah. Ahab had him locked up on bread and water "until I return" which, of course, wasn't going to happen. But Micaiah was right and Ahab died by a random arrow. Good story, really.

It's interesting, though, to look at it in terms of the principles embodied. Note, first, the importance of "the word of the Lord." Jehoshaphat, the godly king, wasn't going anywhere without it. That's important for you and me. Jehoshaphat heard 400 prophets ... and sensed that they weren't telling the "word of the Lord." Could you? Only one guy told them what God said. The messenger told Micaiah, "Tell him what he wants to hear." He dictated to Micaiah what God was supposed to say. But when they summoned him, Micaiah told them, "What the LORD says to me, that I will speak" (1 Kings 22:14). He wasn't intimidated by "experts" or "the crowd." One thing and one thing only was true -- whatever God said. It should be to us as well. I noticed an interesting juxtaposition in the text. Micaiah came to a threshing floor with not one but two kings in robes and crowds, but he wasn't impressed. Why? Because his message came from God "sitting on His throne, and all the host of heaven standing beside Him on His right hand and on His left" (1 Kings 22:19). The human throng didn't compare. It shouldn't to us, either.

These are lessons for today. God's word is reliable and authoritative. It isn't dictated by the loudest or most numerous voices. It says what it says clearly and truthfully. Our job is not to reinterpret it. This message was, "The LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets" (1 Kings 22:23). That's a message that might cause most of us to hesitate. "Can He do that?" But it's what Micaiah was told and what he faithfully reported. We don't get to correct God's word or deny it or modify it. The lead prophet, Zedekiah, essentially called Micaiah arrogant (1 Kings 22:24), but Micaiah wasn't being arrogant. He was reporting the truth from the clear word of God. Even though it cost him. So what about you? Are you going with the crowd and the experts that modify what God says to suit what they want, or are you willing to stand on what God says regardless of the consequences? They will hate you because you don't tell them the things they want to hear. Micaiah's was the ultimate "minority report," but he was right and God was served. Your turn.

Racism or Not?

Whoopi said the Holocaust was not about race; it was about people doing bad things to people. Maybe Whoopi was thinking, "Don't diminish white racism by adding in white discrimination against whites." I don't know. But to me we're back in the problem of words.

Biology recognizes three major races. Some stretch it out to four. Some up to seven or more. That's because "race" is hard to define. Essentially, it is not a scientific classification. That leaves you with one -- human. It is a social construct. In that, South Africa, for instance, recognizes 4 while Myanmar recognizes 8, for instance. But even the best known "race" -- whites -- aren't clearly defined. There are those that break them out into different racial groups. That's because "human race" is not satisfactory. Are the Jewish people a "race." Hitler thought so. But, seriously, do we want to go off of what Hitler believed to be true? Wikipedia calls them an "ethnoreligious group." They are a difficult group to categorize because of the vague religious aspect. A Jewish person can be Jewish in religious perspective or not. A person not of Jewish descent can convert to Judaism and be a Jew without any biological connection. And while the Jewish "clan" started out in the Middle East, a good number of them today are white, not "people of color."

The Jews have been the subject of hate for millennia, no doubt. Biblically, it's clear that if they hadn't been God's chosen race, they wouldn't exist today. Enslaved, embattled, overrun and dispersed, returned, dispersed again ... there is little rational explanation as to why "Jewish" is even a thing today ... except that God did it. But, biblically, there is a problem. Peter wrote, "You are a chosen race" (1 Peter 2:9). Who? All believers. Well, now, that puts a kink in all of this, doesn't it? And if there are those that hate Christians, aren't they actually being racist?

Postscript: Please note. I define "race" as "humans" over against "nonhumans," so I am not actually arguing that hating Christians is racism. I'm just pointing out the problem of words ... and God's truth.

Saved

I'm sure you've heard of the concept of "Christianese." It refers to the language we Christians speak. Our own jargon. We use words like "Trinity" as if they're real although they are unique to Christianity and we use more common words like "justification" and "salvation" with particular ideas in mind rather than the ones normally used by the general public. It's our own shorthand, our own mode of communication. Unfortunately, I think sometimes our own shorthand shortchanges us. We lose sight of the actual intent of some of our jargon and then miss out on some of its wonder.

Take "salvation," for instance. What do we mean by that? Well, we're saved from sin. Yeah!! Good!! But ... is that all? "Isn't that enough?" some might ask. Maybe, but I think there is more.

In the Bible the word has multiple uses. There is, indeed, our common concept -- sasved from the penalties of sin. But it goes beyond that. In Numbers God told Israel when they entered Canaan "you shall be saved from your enemies" (Num 10:9). That's standard "saved" there, not "saved from sin." In fact, that concept is very common in Scripture (e.g., Deut 33:29; 2 Sam 19:9; 2 Sam 22:4; Neh 9:27; Psa 18:3; Psa 44:7; Luke 1:71). In Acts 27 Paul, on the ship in the storm, warned the centurion, "Unless these men stay in the ship, you cannot be saved" (Acts 27:31). Clearly not "saved from the penalty of sin." In Acts 2 Peter urged his listeners to "Save yourselves from this crooked generation" (Acts 2:40). That is, repenting and being baptized -- becoming one "whom the Lord our God calls to Himself" (Acts 2:39) -- helps protect us from the world of sin.

Christianity is predicated on the concept of Salvation. So we throw out that word as if it means one thing. And then we forget just what it is. Biblically it means "saved from wrath" (Rom 5:9). Biblically it is not, in that sense, something we can do. It is only accomplished by Christ's death and resurrection on our behalf. We are "saved by grace through faith" (Eph 2:8-9) and not by anything we do. And it is ongoing (Rom 13:11). But beyond that it is so much more. We are sustained by God (1 Cor 1:8-9). We are continually kept by God from stumbling (Jude 1:24-25; 1 Peter 1:5; Php 1:6). We are saved from calamity by a Sovereign, loving Father, saved from evil in a world that intends it, saved from a sinful world that would mislead and destroy us. We are radically saved, and the best part -- saved from God's just wrath -- is just that ... only part. If you trust in Christ, you are saved ... in more ways than one. Let's not let jargon rob us of great blessings.

News Weakly - 2/5/2022

Essential Qualifications
With the retirement of Justice Breyer, the president will nominate the best candidate he can for the next Supreme Court Justice. Let's see ... necessary qualifications ... well, of course, black ... and female. I mean, that's obviously the most important qualifications. Imagine that ... using the Supreme Court for affirmative action instead of interpreting law. Oh, and liberal, of course. Conservatives stink. The sooner we can eliminate them from the courts ... and the nation, for that matter ... the better.

Media Ban
If you don't know the book, Maus, it's a graphic novel about the effects of the Holocaust on a family. A Tennessee school district removed it from their cirriculum for 8th graders because of concerns about graphic nudity and profanity ... for 8th graders. The media has spun this up to a "ban" and the public has bought it ... literally. In other news, porn sales are through the roof after schools have refused to include it in their cirriculum as well.

Caught in a Truth
Whoopi Goldberg sure stepped in it this week. On The View they were discussing the removal of Maus from a Tennessee 8th grade cirriculum. They were calling it "a ban" and "racism." Whoopi had the gall to say the Holocaust was "not about race. It's not. It's about man’s inhumanity to other man." She warned, "The minute you turn it into race, it goes down this alley." Well, she apologized. It isn't about man's inhumanity to man; it's about white supremacy. It's always about white supremacy. You might ask Whoopi; she has been suspended. (But, seriously, teaching 8th graders to read with graphic novels?)

Counting the Cost
The story is simple. "Starbucks plans to keep raising menu prices due to inflation and the labor shortage." No big thing. Unless, of course, you catch that "inflation and labor shortage" thing. Inflation, they tell me, is due to the government lockdown for COVID. (To this day I don't understand the plan of "Lockdown the healthy!" instead of protecting the at-risk and quarantining the sick.) And the labor shortage is also a government-induced COVID effect. Imagine that! Add to that the massive new government spending which changes tax structures which will get passed along to you, the consumer. And so on. The real cost of lockdowns and government overspending comes out of your pocket, but you don't notice because "It's just Starbucks increasing their prices."

Making Sense of it All
Kaiser Health News is reporting that "Boosted Americans are 97 times less likely to die of COVID than the unvaccinated." Now, let's make sense of that. According to the story, out of 100,000 people who got COVID without vaccination, 9.7 died. Of the vaccinated, it was 0.7 deaths. Let's see ... 9.7 divided by 0.7 is about 14, so the unvaccinated are 14 times more likely to die than the vaccinated ... even though we're looking at a worst case death rate of 0.0097%. (Did I do that math right?) Now if you're boosted, that death rate drops to 0.1 in 100,000, so you get that "97 times" figure for the boosted. What they don't tell you is that large numbers of vaxxed and boosted have had COVID and the death rate for them is not zero. And they lump together the group called "unvaccinated" without regard to natural immunity, an entirely different category of people. In other words, they're giving you statistics for their agenda without regard for reality. Sorry, I can't make sense of this stuff.

More Hate
Another state his signed a ban on guys who identify as girls from competing in girls' sports. The media plays this up to a "transgender ban," but no state that I can find currently bans girls who identify as guys from competing in guys' sports. All of these "bans," then, are with women in mind -- making sports safe and fair for women. Libs hate that. Now, I think this would be a simple thing. Just require that anyone who wishes to play a school sport prove their gender. Done! Oh, wait, I forgot. There is no scientific test for transgender. Yeah, "believe the science." Looks like Libs hate that, too.

One-Liners
The Bee had a string of stories that required only the headline. One-liners. Like "White House Cat Already Tired Of Being Blamed For All These Accidents On Oval Office Carpet." Or "Joe Biden Beats Out Brussels Sprouts For America's Least Favorite Vegetable." Oh, and "Trump Designing Much, Much Higher Wall To Keep Out Biden's Migrant Flights." That kind of thing. You may have to think for a moment, but ...

Bad Company (Not the Band)

Growing up I heard this verse over and over again. "Bad company corrupts good morals" (1 Cor 15:33). Most reasonable people will nod and agree, even if they aren't Christians. You tend to be like those you tend to be around. All well and good. However, if you look at the verse, there's something odd.

Paul throws this admonition in the middle of chapter 15 of his first letter to the church at Corinth. Chapter 15 is discussing the reality and importance of the Resurrection. So why does Paul stick a warning regarding who you hang with in the middle of all this? The sentence makes sense on its own, but it doesn't seem to relate at all to the topic at hand. Did Paul just make his own rabbit trail or something? Let's take a look.

First, the word there for "company" isn't clearly "company" in Greek. The word is ὁμιλία -- homilia -- and can mean company or conversation. (You can see the connection to our "homily.") So some translators prefer "Bad communication corrupts good morals." The King James goes with "evil communications," for instance. All of the older translations I found agree. So to be most correct, it would seem, the idea is "The evil that your associations communicate to you will corrupt good morals."

So how does this relate to the topic he was in? Well, Paul started with "We all know and believe in Christ's Resurrection" (1 Cor 15:1-11) and went on to "So how is it that some of you say there is no resurrection?" (1 Cor 15:12) and follows their own logic to its absurd and unacceptable conclusions (1 Cor 15:12-19). In verse 33, then, he offers some advice -- "Be not deceived ..." and that phrase we've been looking at. That is, "Don't be deceived by those people who are telling you there is no resurrection." Or any other false doctrines. You can see this because his very next statement is "Become sober-minded as you ought, and stop sinning; for some have no knowledge of God. I speak this to your shame" (1 Cor 15:34). In other words, "Think it through, brothers and sisters. Use the minds God has given you. Follow the truth and you won't be sinning. You know better than this."

It's very relevant today. We have people all around us spouting "truths" -- people we trust. Only the "truths" they spout are contradictory, especially to Scripture. In the world you have people saying things like, "We won't accept your kind around here because we're very inclusive." Use your head. That's just foolish. (Paul's term was ἄφρων -- aphrōn -- meaning "mindless." See 1 Cor 15:36.) And we do it regularly. We listen to people without engaging our brains and end up following falsehoods. We listen, according to Paul, to people who "have no knowledge of God" telling us about God. Stop it! It is all around us, within and without. So guard yourselves in those to whom you listen. If they are irrational and inconsistent with Scripture, you should see that and move on. Like "There is no resurrection." See the contradiction, reject it, and move on.

The Importance of the Resurrection

One of the primary sticking points, actually from the beginning, for the Christian faith in general and the gospel in particular is the Resurrection. Just getting people to take it as real can be difficult. In Acts, Paul was having a pleasant discussion with the local intellectuals who were actually interested in what he had to say ... right up until he mentioned the Resurrection. Luke's account says, "Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some began to sneer" (Acts 17:32). Because it's a problem. It's a problem because we don't see people rising from the dead every day. It's a problem because if it is true, it has huge implications. So, what if we just went without it? I mean, how important can it be? Can't we just agree to disagree? Isn't the important part that Jesus died for our sins? Why push this "resurrection of the dead" thing?

Paul addressed this in his first letter to the church at Corinth. He begins by handing them what they already know and believe. "Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you," he starts (1 Cor 15:1) and goes on with what that gospel was.

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures. (1 Cor 15:3-4)

He goes on from there to offer evidence -- proofs. Eyewitnesses. Verifiable. "Just go ask them." But "of first importance" was that Jesus died for our sins and that He rose on the third day. "So we preach," he concluded, "and so you believed" (1 Cor 15:11). So what's the big deal?

The next thing Paul did was address the claim that there was no such thing as resurrection (1 Cor 15:12). If there was no such thing, he said, then Christ didn't rise. And if Christ didn't rise then "our preaching is vain" and "your faith also is vain" (1 Cor 15:14). Worse, those who believe it would be lying about God (1 Cor 15:15). Further, we're still in our sins (1 Cor 15:17). Beyond that, there is no hope for those who have died (1 Cor 15:18). "If we have hoped in Christ in this life only," Paul concludes, "we are of all men most to be pitied" (1 Cor 15:19).

What's so important about the Resurrection? Everything. Without it, Christianity is nonsense and life is useless. "If the dead are not raised, 'Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die'" (1 Cor 15:23). In the negative, then, if there is no resurrection, there is no hope and no purpose to life but temporary pleasure and then oblivion. On the positive side, if the Resurrection is true, there are some amazing ramifications. We have hope for new bodies (1 Cor 15:35-49). We have hope for eternal life -- imperishable (1 Cor 15:50). We have hope for immortality (1 Cor 15:53). Death is defeated! (1 Cor 15:54-57). And, very practically, we have a solid reason to "be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord" (1 Cor 15:58).

There has always been and will always be as long as this world abides those who argue against any resurrection in general and the Resurrection of Christ in particular. It started the day He rose again (Matt 28:11-15). It hasn't stopped. It's primarily because on this singular claim, a fact attested to by over 500 eyewitnesses (1 Cor 15:6), is our greatest source of hope and our greatest reason to serve God with joy and confidence. The Resurrection of Christ is not optional. It is essential. Don't ever let them tell you otherwise.

2/2/22

It's "Twosday." This particular day is the only day this century that will be all twos. (Okay, full disclosure, there will be a 2/22/22 coming up, but you get the idea.) Cool, right? Okay, maybe. So what's special about this day?

It's Groundhog Day. So on Twosday we discover the fake weather forecast from an oblivious rodent. How nice!

It's my brother's birthday. Happy Birthday!! Okay, you guys don't much care, but ...

By this date in 1349 at least 200 people a day were being buried in London as a result of the Black Death. Oh, that's not good.

On this day in 1653 New Amsterdam became a city. Oh, sorry, you're probably not familiar with that town. Today we call it "New York City." Know it now?

The opening of the first Winter Olympics in 1924?

Oh, oh! Here's one! Today is California Kiwi Fruit Day! Well ... it is. Marmot Day in Alaska? Hey, I'm trying here.

Oh, I got one. On this day in 1922 it was 2/2/22. Twosday!

There are lots of reasons to celebrate Twosday, although I don't really include most of the above. The best, I think, is quite old. "This is the day that the LORD has made; let us rejoice and be glad in it" (Psa 118:24). Sure, that's every day. But it's a good reason to celebrate.

That's Power

I was looking at Romans 1 and found something interesting. Look at the verses starting with verse 16. That one starts with "for," as does 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21. Go down a couple more and you get "therefore" (24), "because" (25) and "for" again (27). Don't miss these cues. Paul is writing a single thought here. It's just kind of hard to follow. So let's just look at the first verse in that string and see if we can unpack it. To do that, we'll need to start with the premise.

"So I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome. (Rom 1:15)

Verse 15 is the first thought ... almost, since it starts with "so." That is, it is a natural result of the previous verses. But his point is clear. He is eager to preach the gospel. Then,

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel" (Rom 1:16a).

That is, "I am eager to preach the gospel because I am not ashamed of the gospel." Ashamed? Why would he be ashamed? Obviously, Paul is aware that there are reasons that some people might believe the gospel to be something to be ashamed of. Why? Remember, Paul was the guy originally trying to kill Christians. Remember, in Paul's own ministry, his treatment everywhere he went for preaching the gospel. He was persecuted in Antioch (Acts 13:50). They tried to stone him in Iconium (Acts 14:5) and they succeeded in Lystra (Acts 14:19) There were riots, beatings, and impisonment in Philippi (Acts 16:22-24), riots in Thessalonica (Acts 17:5-6), and he had to sneak out of Berea (Acts 17:13). He was mocked in Athens (Acts 17:32). He was reviled in Corinth (Acts 18:6) and Sosthenes was beaten. There was a riot in Jerusalem (Acts 21:34ff) where he was arrested and sent to Rome. And, remember, he wrote to Corinth and told them "The word of the cross is foolishness" (1 Cor 1:18). "I am eager to preach the gospel," he had said, "because I am not ashamed of the gospel." Why?

"For it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek" (Rom 1:16b).

Paul said, "I am eager to preach the gospel because I'm not ashamed of it. I'm not ashamed of it because God's power is revealed in it." What power? "The power of salvation." Are there exceptions? "Yes; you must believe." Okay, anything else? "No. It includes the Jews and it includes the non-Jews." When you look at the list of Paul's history with the gospel and then hear him say he was eager to preach it and was not ashamed of it and gives, as his reason, that it was the power of God for salvation, how big must that power be? I mean, if it's a simple thing, it wouldn't be significant enough to overcome Paul's instinct of self-preservation, would it? If it was easy, it wouldn't be worth dying for, would it? But this power of God for salvation is not easy. It is one of a kind. Every other religion on the planet is predicated on "You be good enough and you'll get there." Every one. The gospel alone is the power of God for salvation based solely on faith. Not nationality. Not works. Not effort.

Now, the next verse and the next and the next and so on are all linked into this thought. You can't really stop at verse 16 because he goes on to explain more from there. But the first look here should give you a glimpse of just how big the gospel really is. It isn't minor. It isn't "things are gonna be okay" in simplistic terms. It isn't "Don't worry; be happy." It is something that normal people would be ashamed of but that is actually a visual display of God's power in that it saves people who believe. It's huge! So how about you? Are you ashamed of the gospel? Do you even know what it is? Don't miss it!