I would guess that you who are at least somewhat acquainted with the Bible have a decent idea of where I would have found that title. 1 Corinthians 13 starts with the warning that, no matter how spiritually gifted you may be, without love you're nothing. You might know this because a part of this chapter is popular even in the secular world for warm-feeling wall hangings and for weddings. (They can get by with that because it mentions "love" but not "God," so it's okay.) The text is written in between chapter 12 on how spiritual gifts are given "for the common good" (1 Cor 12:7) so we can work together as the Body of Christ and chapter 14 on how we shouldn't misuse spiritual gifts. Thus, this "love chapter" is written around the gifts, but it's not limited to the gifts.
According to Paul, it is possible to take good things to far places ... and be of no use. You can take the miraculous gift of tongues and end up "a noisy gong" (1 Cor 13:1) or give away all you have and "gain nothing" (1 Cor 13:3). Paul says here that without love all the good -- even the miraculous good -- in the world will be useless ... at best. Potentially offensive or, even damaging.
When I say it, I bet you can see it. Like the "well-meaning" church lady that is swift to tell the young woman, "It's a sin to wear men's clothes" and alienates the young woman. It is biblically a sin (Deut 22:5) but the motivation isn't love; it's "righteous indignation" (an oxymoron when "righteous" actually has nothing to do with "indignation"). It is abundantly clear that Scripture holds homosexual behavior as a sin (Rom 1:26-27; 1 Cor 6:9-10), but pointing that out without love does more harm than good. Or a purely biblical example. Peter says we need to always be "prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you" (1 Peter 3:15), so many of us gear up for battle (we call it "Apologetics"), but if we do it without love, we will fail to complete the command: "yet do it with gentleness and respect."
Jesus said that the fundamental command is love. Love God and love your neighbor. Keeping that command satisfies the law. Failing to imbue all we do with love makes us pointless and possibly even wrong, even when we're right. We should test ourselves. Not just "Am I standing on what's right?", but also "Am I doing it in love?" Without love, we are nothing. Nothing as witnesses for Christ. Nothing as spouses and parents. Nothing as members of the Body of Christ. Don't be nothing.
Thursday, March 31, 2022
Wednesday, March 30, 2022
Talk to the Owner
The hymn, written in 1901, is titled, "This Is My Father's World." A classic. It speaks of nature glorifying God. It speaks of creation speaking to us everywhere about His wonders. The last verse, however, is particularly appropriate.
There is a tendency to think that things are out of control. Maybe you think the Left is out of control. Maybe you think it's the Right. Maybe you think the Russians are out of control. Or maybe just your spouse. Psalm 19 declares that God owns it all. "The heavens declare the glory of God" (Psa 19:1). In Psalm 50 God declares, "Every beast of the forest is mine, the cattle on a thousand hills. I know all the birds of the hills, and all that moves in the field is mine" (Psa 50:10-11). And He does whatever He pleases with it all (Psa 115:3). Maybe that's why we can take our concerns to Him and be given a peace that passes understanding (Php 4:6-7).
This is my Father’s world:We live in a world where the wrong seems strong. Truth is denied. Wrong is declared right and right wrong. God is openly opposed, even by self-identified Christians. "He doesn't know what He's talking about. He's not reliable. We know better." The wrong, whether it's moral or mental or emotional or spiritual, seems to be strong. It feels like things are out of control and getting worse. They're not.
Oh, let me ne’er forget
That though the wrong seems oft so strong,
God is the ruler yet.
There is a tendency to think that things are out of control. Maybe you think the Left is out of control. Maybe you think it's the Right. Maybe you think the Russians are out of control. Or maybe just your spouse. Psalm 19 declares that God owns it all. "The heavens declare the glory of God" (Psa 19:1). In Psalm 50 God declares, "Every beast of the forest is mine, the cattle on a thousand hills. I know all the birds of the hills, and all that moves in the field is mine" (Psa 50:10-11). And He does whatever He pleases with it all (Psa 115:3). Maybe that's why we can take our concerns to Him and be given a peace that passes understanding (Php 4:6-7).
Tuesday, March 29, 2022
Abandonment Issues - Our Own
Romans talks about the gospel as a display of God's righteousness (Rom 1:16-17) and then launches into the disturbing statement that God's wrath is being revealed (Rom 1:18). Paul describes the sequence. God reveals Himself in creation (Rom 1:19-20). Man rejects Him (Rom 1:21-23). And then it gets bad. Three times it says, "God gave them up ..." (Rom 1:24, 26, 28). And that's a bad thing. Describing the revelation of God's wrath, Paul refers to this process of abandonment. When God gets really angry, He leaves us alone. And that's not good.
The progression is clear. 1) God gave them them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity (Rom 1:24). That is, they had lusts in their heart and God removed the guards, released the restraints. "You want to go there," He said, in effect, "so go there," where "there" was "impurity." The first step in this sequence was dishonoring their bodies with each other. As a result, they "exchanged the truth about God for the lie" (Rom 1:25). It didn't get better. They worshiped the creature instead of the Creator. Like today. 2) "For this reason" God gave them up to "dishonorable passions" (Rom 1:26). The next stage of God withdrawing was "dishonorable passions." Vile, reproachful, shameful abiding desires. Moving from dishonoring their bodies, God turned them loose to abandoning the natural function in sexual relationships. That's an interesting phrase. Fornication and adultery are sinful (dishonoring the body), but not unnatural. They misuse the natural functions, but they are natural functions. This next step leaves the natural for the unnatural. And while it is part of a second judgment from God -- His second abandonment -- it incurs penalties of its own. They were "receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error" (Rom 1:27). Homosexual behavior is sinful, but it is also a consequence of sin and has its own specific consequences. 3) Finally, since they continued to refuse to acknowledge God, He gave them up "to a depraved mind" (Rom 1:28). There is a play on words here. It says "they did not see fit to acknowledge God." "Did not see fit" is δοκιμάζω -- dokimazō. It refers to a test. It says, essentially, that in their minds God failed the test. So, it makes sense that "depraved" is actually the word ἀδόκιμος -- adokimos. That's the negative of "see fit." It means that they cannot rightly test or evaluate. It means that they can't rightly examine and come to the correct conclusion. It means that they might see a man and think, "That might be a woman" because God gave them up to a mind that was not capable of thinking properly. In fact, Paul described a few things as a result of the first two "gave them up," but this has 4 subsequent verses of "do those things which are not proper" listing some 23 items as examples of "things which are not proper." The final "gave them up to" is a mind that doesn't work right anymore and suggests that it only gets worse -- continues to decay -- from there.
These are our own "abandonment issues." They are a product of our own refusal to submit to what God has revealed about Himself. Refusal. Paul says we "know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death" (Rom 1:32), but we press on. We deny God His glory and He responds in wrath by letting us go. It's not a good place to be. It is not peace or grace or being kept safe (Num 6:24-26). It is disaster. There is a solution. It is repentance and faith in Christ. It is being "transformed by the renewing of your mind" (Rom 12:2). It is not hopeless, but it is dire and anyone who suggest it isn't does so as a product of refusing to submit to God.
The progression is clear. 1) God gave them them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity (Rom 1:24). That is, they had lusts in their heart and God removed the guards, released the restraints. "You want to go there," He said, in effect, "so go there," where "there" was "impurity." The first step in this sequence was dishonoring their bodies with each other. As a result, they "exchanged the truth about God for the lie" (Rom 1:25). It didn't get better. They worshiped the creature instead of the Creator. Like today. 2) "For this reason" God gave them up to "dishonorable passions" (Rom 1:26). The next stage of God withdrawing was "dishonorable passions." Vile, reproachful, shameful abiding desires. Moving from dishonoring their bodies, God turned them loose to abandoning the natural function in sexual relationships. That's an interesting phrase. Fornication and adultery are sinful (dishonoring the body), but not unnatural. They misuse the natural functions, but they are natural functions. This next step leaves the natural for the unnatural. And while it is part of a second judgment from God -- His second abandonment -- it incurs penalties of its own. They were "receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error" (Rom 1:27). Homosexual behavior is sinful, but it is also a consequence of sin and has its own specific consequences. 3) Finally, since they continued to refuse to acknowledge God, He gave them up "to a depraved mind" (Rom 1:28). There is a play on words here. It says "they did not see fit to acknowledge God." "Did not see fit" is δοκιμάζω -- dokimazō. It refers to a test. It says, essentially, that in their minds God failed the test. So, it makes sense that "depraved" is actually the word ἀδόκιμος -- adokimos. That's the negative of "see fit." It means that they cannot rightly test or evaluate. It means that they can't rightly examine and come to the correct conclusion. It means that they might see a man and think, "That might be a woman" because God gave them up to a mind that was not capable of thinking properly. In fact, Paul described a few things as a result of the first two "gave them up," but this has 4 subsequent verses of "do those things which are not proper" listing some 23 items as examples of "things which are not proper." The final "gave them up to" is a mind that doesn't work right anymore and suggests that it only gets worse -- continues to decay -- from there.
These are our own "abandonment issues." They are a product of our own refusal to submit to what God has revealed about Himself. Refusal. Paul says we "know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death" (Rom 1:32), but we press on. We deny God His glory and He responds in wrath by letting us go. It's not a good place to be. It is not peace or grace or being kept safe (Num 6:24-26). It is disaster. There is a solution. It is repentance and faith in Christ. It is being "transformed by the renewing of your mind" (Rom 12:2). It is not hopeless, but it is dire and anyone who suggest it isn't does so as a product of refusing to submit to God.
Monday, March 28, 2022
Abandonment Issues
The Aaronic blessing is pretty well known.
It turns out that the opposite is also expressed in Scripture. Jesus told those who claimed to know Him, "I never knew you; depart from Me, you workers of lawlessness" (Matt 7:23). A turning away. On the cross, the only time Scripture describes Jesus as crying out was at one, single point: "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" (Matt 27:46). The ultimate pain Jesus endured on the cross was when His Father turned His back on Him.
We're not really concerned, most of the time, about God turning from us. I suppose that's because we're not acutely aware that He's looking. But according to that Aaronic blessing, God's face toward us is of real importance. It is our source of joy, grace, peace. When His face is toward us, we are kept -- maintained, guarded, protected. If not ... it's not good. Jesus's worst punishment when He took on our sin was that God forsook Him. Jesus had abandonment issues. Are we aware of it?
The LORD bless you and keep you; the LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you; the LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace. (Num 6:24-26)Truth is, it really only says one thing, but it says it in various ways to give us a full-orbed understanding. What does it mean to have the Lord bless you? He keeps you. He shines His face on you. He is gracious to you. He gives you peace. All facets of the same thing. So when Jesus gave us the "Beatitudes" (Matt 5:3-12), He was giving "blessings" -- the Lord keeping His face on you. As opposed, say, to curses -- the Lord turning His face from you. Not just "happy." Kept, blessed, given grace, peace.
It turns out that the opposite is also expressed in Scripture. Jesus told those who claimed to know Him, "I never knew you; depart from Me, you workers of lawlessness" (Matt 7:23). A turning away. On the cross, the only time Scripture describes Jesus as crying out was at one, single point: "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" (Matt 27:46). The ultimate pain Jesus endured on the cross was when His Father turned His back on Him.
We're not really concerned, most of the time, about God turning from us. I suppose that's because we're not acutely aware that He's looking. But according to that Aaronic blessing, God's face toward us is of real importance. It is our source of joy, grace, peace. When His face is toward us, we are kept -- maintained, guarded, protected. If not ... it's not good. Jesus's worst punishment when He took on our sin was that God forsook Him. Jesus had abandonment issues. Are we aware of it?
Sunday, March 27, 2022
The New Has Come
Paul wrote,
You can read the list. It's not controversial or obscure. We get it. But there is a question in it. At the end of the list Paul writes that it "amounts to idolatry." What amounts to idolatry? Most commentators link greed to idolatry. That's certainly interesting. The thinking is that when wanting more becomes a drive rather than a passing interest, it is because we have begun to worship "more." The word, translated "greed," refers more to selfishness grown to a passion, a grasping greed. That is idolatry.
I think that's true (of course), but I suspect that "greed" encompasses them all and, therefore, "idolatry" does, too. Greedy for sexual immorality. Greedy for impurity. Greedy for passions. Greedy for evil desires. Greedy for "what I want" and "I want it now." Idolatry. Maybe "what I want" is the idol or maybe I am the idol, demanding what I want as a matter of worship -- worship for me. Now, I know that we tend to think less of some sin than others, but we believers are all fairly certain that idolatry falls in among the worst sins. So this text should give us pause. Basically sins that are predicated on "my life" and "my pleasure" are contrary to "died with Christ" and replaces Christ in my life with the idol of me. That should give us pause.
Instead, Paul urges us to put away the old sins (Col 3:8-9) and "put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator" (Col 3:10). I guess we'd better get right on that if we are going to call ourselves followers of Christ.
Therefore consider the members of your earthly body as dead to immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed, which amounts to idolatry. For it is because of these things that the wrath of God will come upon the sons of disobedience, and in them you also once walked, when you were living in them. (Col 3:5-7)"Therefore," he says. What for? Because "You have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God. When Christ, who is our life, is revealed, then you also will be revealed with Him in glory" (Col 3:3-4). Okay, then. Those who "have died" in Christ ought to live differently. We ought to "consider the members of your earthly body as dead" to a variety of sin.
You can read the list. It's not controversial or obscure. We get it. But there is a question in it. At the end of the list Paul writes that it "amounts to idolatry." What amounts to idolatry? Most commentators link greed to idolatry. That's certainly interesting. The thinking is that when wanting more becomes a drive rather than a passing interest, it is because we have begun to worship "more." The word, translated "greed," refers more to selfishness grown to a passion, a grasping greed. That is idolatry.
I think that's true (of course), but I suspect that "greed" encompasses them all and, therefore, "idolatry" does, too. Greedy for sexual immorality. Greedy for impurity. Greedy for passions. Greedy for evil desires. Greedy for "what I want" and "I want it now." Idolatry. Maybe "what I want" is the idol or maybe I am the idol, demanding what I want as a matter of worship -- worship for me. Now, I know that we tend to think less of some sin than others, but we believers are all fairly certain that idolatry falls in among the worst sins. So this text should give us pause. Basically sins that are predicated on "my life" and "my pleasure" are contrary to "died with Christ" and replaces Christ in my life with the idol of me. That should give us pause.
Instead, Paul urges us to put away the old sins (Col 3:8-9) and "put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator" (Col 3:10). I guess we'd better get right on that if we are going to call ourselves followers of Christ.
Saturday, March 26, 2022
News Weakly - 3/26/22
Rampant Racism
Disney is in trouble for "racial stereotypes" when they hosted a performance by a Texas high school marching band. The drill team "wore fringed outfits and yelled 'scalp ‘em, Indians, scalp ‘em' near the entrance to the Magic Kingdom." The phrase is part of the school's "Cherokee" fight song. We are shocked, nay, deeply offended that a Disney would allow anyone to perform their school song in public! How dare they allow anyone to believe that Native Americans ever scalped anyone? Or wore fringed clothing?? What kind of lunacy is this?
Classic Case
A member of Russia's parliament is making demands. He wants Alaska returned to Russia. And reparations for the sanctions the U.S. has imposed as well as the parts of Russia (Alaska) now occupied by the U.S. Oh, yeah, and Fort Ross (a former Russian outpost on the California coast). Well, we're big on reparations, so you know we're all over that. Or not.
One-Upmanship
The Bible says that "The Lord disciplines the one He loves, and chastises every son whom He receives" (Heb 12:6). Wales knows better. They have banned all physical punishment of children. From their perspective, God may be pretty smart, but they're smarter. God may consider it love, but they consider it abuse. "And, please, England," they say, "side with us on this. Don't listen to some silly old God."
News You Can Trust
In 2018 Reuters wrote about Ukraine's "neo-Nazi problem." Today they criticize Russia for claiming that there is a neo-Nazi problem in the Ukraine. I wonder where Russia got the stupid idea that Ukraine had a neo-Nazi problem? If the media is our best source of truth, we're in big trouble.
Indoctrination
A parent was outraged when she saw a video of her preschool daughter chanting in class to remove Biden. "The teacher is indoctrinating her students," she complained. Of course, it was at Turning Point Christian School, a place you send your kids to be indoctrinated, and it would be vastly foolish to suggest that other schools are not indoctrinating your students, but, hey, if it gets a headline. Now, I'm not suggesting this teacher did right. Trying to drag preschoolers into political perspectives seems ludicrous at best. But a parent that is "just in shock" because she sent her child to a school and found she was being indoctrinated is painfully naive.
I'm Shocked if You're Shocked
When Biden pulled us out of Afghanistan and turned the country back over to the Taliban, they and he assured us that they'd certainly retain the rights of women in Afghanistan. So it is shocking, simply shocking, to learn that the Taliban has shown itself to be less than reliable by closing girls' high schools. If you're shocked, I'm shocked. Something about "leaving the fox to guard the henhouse."
Cheaper by the Dozen
California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a new law that makes abortions cheaper for people on private insurance plans. Because killing babies shouldn't be nearly as expensive as it is now. As opposed to Idaho's governor who signed into law a prohibition of aborion after 6 weeks. Quite a contrast.
The Cure is Worse ...
A study in the Journal of American Medical Association says in 2020 more people under the age of 65 died from alcohol-related causes than COVID. That's when the cure is worse than the disease.
Funny From Around the News
1. Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell bravely declared inflation was "too high" and would require aggressive response. The White House recommends that Americans "stop being so poor."
2. Hillary Clinton tested positive for COVID and asked fans for film recommendations. One high on the list was the 2016 film, 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi.
3. Joe Biden said, "There's going to be a new world order out there, and we've got to lead it." Fact-checkers assure you you're a conspiracy nut if that raises red flags in your head.
4. Biden's Supreme Court nominee, Ketanji Brown Jackson, said she could not define the word, "woman." She said, "I'm not a biologist." Elsewhere a kindergartener earned a PhD in biology by correctly distinguishing a woman from a man.
Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to figure out which of those stories were jokes and which were actually true (because, as it turns out, some were).
Disney is in trouble for "racial stereotypes" when they hosted a performance by a Texas high school marching band. The drill team "wore fringed outfits and yelled 'scalp ‘em, Indians, scalp ‘em' near the entrance to the Magic Kingdom." The phrase is part of the school's "Cherokee" fight song. We are shocked, nay, deeply offended that a Disney would allow anyone to perform their school song in public! How dare they allow anyone to believe that Native Americans ever scalped anyone? Or wore fringed clothing?? What kind of lunacy is this?
Classic Case
A member of Russia's parliament is making demands. He wants Alaska returned to Russia. And reparations for the sanctions the U.S. has imposed as well as the parts of Russia (Alaska) now occupied by the U.S. Oh, yeah, and Fort Ross (a former Russian outpost on the California coast). Well, we're big on reparations, so you know we're all over that. Or not.
One-Upmanship
The Bible says that "The Lord disciplines the one He loves, and chastises every son whom He receives" (Heb 12:6). Wales knows better. They have banned all physical punishment of children. From their perspective, God may be pretty smart, but they're smarter. God may consider it love, but they consider it abuse. "And, please, England," they say, "side with us on this. Don't listen to some silly old God."
News You Can Trust
In 2018 Reuters wrote about Ukraine's "neo-Nazi problem." Today they criticize Russia for claiming that there is a neo-Nazi problem in the Ukraine. I wonder where Russia got the stupid idea that Ukraine had a neo-Nazi problem? If the media is our best source of truth, we're in big trouble.
Indoctrination
A parent was outraged when she saw a video of her preschool daughter chanting in class to remove Biden. "The teacher is indoctrinating her students," she complained. Of course, it was at Turning Point Christian School, a place you send your kids to be indoctrinated, and it would be vastly foolish to suggest that other schools are not indoctrinating your students, but, hey, if it gets a headline. Now, I'm not suggesting this teacher did right. Trying to drag preschoolers into political perspectives seems ludicrous at best. But a parent that is "just in shock" because she sent her child to a school and found she was being indoctrinated is painfully naive.
I'm Shocked if You're Shocked
When Biden pulled us out of Afghanistan and turned the country back over to the Taliban, they and he assured us that they'd certainly retain the rights of women in Afghanistan. So it is shocking, simply shocking, to learn that the Taliban has shown itself to be less than reliable by closing girls' high schools. If you're shocked, I'm shocked. Something about "leaving the fox to guard the henhouse."
Cheaper by the Dozen
California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a new law that makes abortions cheaper for people on private insurance plans. Because killing babies shouldn't be nearly as expensive as it is now. As opposed to Idaho's governor who signed into law a prohibition of aborion after 6 weeks. Quite a contrast.
The Cure is Worse ...
A study in the Journal of American Medical Association says in 2020 more people under the age of 65 died from alcohol-related causes than COVID. That's when the cure is worse than the disease.
Funny From Around the News
1. Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell bravely declared inflation was "too high" and would require aggressive response. The White House recommends that Americans "stop being so poor."
2. Hillary Clinton tested positive for COVID and asked fans for film recommendations. One high on the list was the 2016 film, 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi.
3. Joe Biden said, "There's going to be a new world order out there, and we've got to lead it." Fact-checkers assure you you're a conspiracy nut if that raises red flags in your head.
4. Biden's Supreme Court nominee, Ketanji Brown Jackson, said she could not define the word, "woman." She said, "I'm not a biologist." Elsewhere a kindergartener earned a PhD in biology by correctly distinguishing a woman from a man.
Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to figure out which of those stories were jokes and which were actually true (because, as it turns out, some were).
Friday, March 25, 2022
God Laughs
I would imagine you've seen the picture (drawing, not photo) of Jesus laughing. Kind of makes Him more ... you know ... personable. There is no record of Jesus laughing (I'm not suggesting He didn't; there's just no record.), but there are references to God laughing. Did you know that?
David wrote, "The wicked plots against the righteous and gnashes his teeth at him, but the Lord laughs at the wicked, for He sees that his day is coming" (Psa 37:12-13). Another psalmist wrote in response to the question, "Why do the nations rage and the people plot in vain?", "He who sits in the heavens laughs; the Lord holds them in derision" (Psa 2:4). In the first one God laughs because He sees their day coming and in the second, He laughs because He "will speak to them in His wrath and terrify them in His fury" (Psa 2:5). Same thing. When Saul sent some of his men to watch for David, David responded, "But you, O LORD, laugh at them; you hold all the nations in derision" (Psa 59:8). God laughs at the schemes of men, the wicked in their "cleverness." Solomon quotes God as saying to the unrepentant fool, "I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when terror strikes you, when terror strikes you like a storm and your calamity comes like a whirlwind, when distress and anguish come upon you" (Prov 1:26-27).
God laughs at our puny attempts to circumvent His plans. He is amused at the wicked who think they're getting something over on Him. He finds it funny when we think we're going to get away with something. He laughs because He knows the outcome. He knows the outcome because He will do it. Keep that in mind the next time you become concerned about how trying times may seem or how evil people can be. You may not be amused, but God sure is.
David wrote, "The wicked plots against the righteous and gnashes his teeth at him, but the Lord laughs at the wicked, for He sees that his day is coming" (Psa 37:12-13). Another psalmist wrote in response to the question, "Why do the nations rage and the people plot in vain?", "He who sits in the heavens laughs; the Lord holds them in derision" (Psa 2:4). In the first one God laughs because He sees their day coming and in the second, He laughs because He "will speak to them in His wrath and terrify them in His fury" (Psa 2:5). Same thing. When Saul sent some of his men to watch for David, David responded, "But you, O LORD, laugh at them; you hold all the nations in derision" (Psa 59:8). God laughs at the schemes of men, the wicked in their "cleverness." Solomon quotes God as saying to the unrepentant fool, "I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when terror strikes you, when terror strikes you like a storm and your calamity comes like a whirlwind, when distress and anguish come upon you" (Prov 1:26-27).
God laughs at our puny attempts to circumvent His plans. He is amused at the wicked who think they're getting something over on Him. He finds it funny when we think we're going to get away with something. He laughs because He knows the outcome. He knows the outcome because He will do it. Keep that in mind the next time you become concerned about how trying times may seem or how evil people can be. You may not be amused, but God sure is.
Thursday, March 24, 2022
Reconciliation
According to Paul, "We are ambassadors for Christ" (2 Cor 5:20). Our ministry as ambassadors, Paul says, is "the ministry of reconciliation" (2 Cor 5:18) -- God reconciling the world to Himself (2 Cor 5:19).
How does that work? Well, first, what's the problem? Reconciliation is the process of restoring friendly relations. "Restoring" suggests that at one time there were friendly relations, then there were not, and now reconciliation is in order. Humans since the Fall have been at odds with God -- hostile to God (Rom 8:7) -- and something has to occur to restore relations. The problem is we have neither the inclination nor the ability to do it from our end, so God has to do it. So how did He do it?
We're aware that Christ died for our sins. They are paid in full. No punishment to come. But "without sin" is not sufficient. In order to be reconciled to God, we have to be not just "blameless," but "fully righteous." Washing away the dirt is not enough; we need to be fully good. So, "For our sake He made Him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God" (2 Cor 5:21).
This truth is massive. It cannot be yawned at. In order to restore our relationship with God, He sent His Son to die so that our sins would be paid in full -- He made Him to be sin who knew no sin -- and then He made us into His righteousness. He didn't just make us without sin; He filled us up to perfection -- Christ's perfection. We can see better from this vantage point what he meant when he wrote, "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come" (2 Cor 5:17). In Christ the new has come ... starting with reconciliation -- a restored relationship with God -- and continuing through all sorts of new things. Transformed people (2 Cor 3:18).
How does that work? Well, first, what's the problem? Reconciliation is the process of restoring friendly relations. "Restoring" suggests that at one time there were friendly relations, then there were not, and now reconciliation is in order. Humans since the Fall have been at odds with God -- hostile to God (Rom 8:7) -- and something has to occur to restore relations. The problem is we have neither the inclination nor the ability to do it from our end, so God has to do it. So how did He do it?
We're aware that Christ died for our sins. They are paid in full. No punishment to come. But "without sin" is not sufficient. In order to be reconciled to God, we have to be not just "blameless," but "fully righteous." Washing away the dirt is not enough; we need to be fully good. So, "For our sake He made Him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God" (2 Cor 5:21).
This truth is massive. It cannot be yawned at. In order to restore our relationship with God, He sent His Son to die so that our sins would be paid in full -- He made Him to be sin who knew no sin -- and then He made us into His righteousness. He didn't just make us without sin; He filled us up to perfection -- Christ's perfection. We can see better from this vantage point what he meant when he wrote, "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come" (2 Cor 5:17). In Christ the new has come ... starting with reconciliation -- a restored relationship with God -- and continuing through all sorts of new things. Transformed people (2 Cor 3:18).
Wednesday, March 23, 2022
Isaiah's God
The prophet Isaiah was God's voice to Judah in the 8th century BC. Isaiah saw God (Isa 6:1), so Isaiah had a somewhat more personal and clearer perspective on God than many. It's interesting, then, that some of the most startling statements about God come from Isaiah's book.
Isaiah didn't believe in salvation by works. He believed, instead, in God's wrath ... and mercy. He wrote, "I will give thanks to You, O LORD, for though You were angry with me, Your anger turned away, that You might comfort me. Behold, God is my salvation; I will trust, and will not be afraid; for the LORD GOD is my strength and my song, and He has become my salvation" (Isa 12:1-2). Further, Isaiah was a firm believer in the Suffering Servant Messiah. Any Jewish reader can see Jesus in Isaiah 53 with statements like, "He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces He was despised, and we esteemed Him not. Surely He has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed Him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But He was pierced for our transgressions; He was crushed for our iniquities; upon Him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with His wounds we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned, every one, to his own way; and the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all" (Isa 53:3-6).
Even more striking is Isaiah's strong statements on the sovereignty of God. He quotes God as saying, "I am the LORD, and there is no other, besides Me there is no God; I equip you, though you do not know Me" (Isa 45:5). God goes on to say, "I form light and create darkness; I make well-being and create calamity; I am the LORD, who does all these things" (Isa 45:7). That may not be consistent with our popular perception, but God says it. God says, "Woe to him who strives with Him who formed him, a pot among earthen pots! Does the clay say to him who forms it, 'What are you making?' or 'Your work has no handles'?" (Isa 45:9). No, God, but we do. God repeatedly says, "I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me" (Isa 43:10-12; 44:6; 45:5; 46:9) followed with things like, "declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, 'My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all My purpose'" (Isa 46:10). That's sovereignty, absolute and unassailable.
Perhaps one of the most disturbing (to our ears) attributes of God is found in the interaction God had with Isaiah after Isaiah repented of being a man of unclean lips (Isa 6:5-7). God asked, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?" and Isaiah answered, "Here am I! Send me" (Isa 6:8). So God commissioned him to tell His people, "'Keep on hearing, but do not understand; keep on seeing, but do not perceive.' Make the heart of this people dull, and their ears heavy, and blind their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed" (Isa 6:9-10). "How long?" Isaiah asked (Isa 6:11) and God, essentially, told him "Until the end." That was God's plan. That was God's intent. Success for Isaiah's mission would be that he told them and they did not listen. John understood this text to say that God blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts "lest they see with their eyes, and understand with their heart, and turn, and I would heal them" (John 12:39-40).
We're often ready and willing to speak for God. We're often misinformed when we do. Isaiah was God's mouthpiece to the people of his day and he had a different vision of God than most of us. God sent His Son to die for us. Sure, we like that. But in Isaiah's view God is thoroughly sovereign in all things even to not saving some. And he thought that was a good thing.
Isaiah didn't believe in salvation by works. He believed, instead, in God's wrath ... and mercy. He wrote, "I will give thanks to You, O LORD, for though You were angry with me, Your anger turned away, that You might comfort me. Behold, God is my salvation; I will trust, and will not be afraid; for the LORD GOD is my strength and my song, and He has become my salvation" (Isa 12:1-2). Further, Isaiah was a firm believer in the Suffering Servant Messiah. Any Jewish reader can see Jesus in Isaiah 53 with statements like, "He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces He was despised, and we esteemed Him not. Surely He has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed Him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But He was pierced for our transgressions; He was crushed for our iniquities; upon Him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with His wounds we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned, every one, to his own way; and the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all" (Isa 53:3-6).
Even more striking is Isaiah's strong statements on the sovereignty of God. He quotes God as saying, "I am the LORD, and there is no other, besides Me there is no God; I equip you, though you do not know Me" (Isa 45:5). God goes on to say, "I form light and create darkness; I make well-being and create calamity; I am the LORD, who does all these things" (Isa 45:7). That may not be consistent with our popular perception, but God says it. God says, "Woe to him who strives with Him who formed him, a pot among earthen pots! Does the clay say to him who forms it, 'What are you making?' or 'Your work has no handles'?" (Isa 45:9). No, God, but we do. God repeatedly says, "I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me" (Isa 43:10-12; 44:6; 45:5; 46:9) followed with things like, "declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, 'My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all My purpose'" (Isa 46:10). That's sovereignty, absolute and unassailable.
Perhaps one of the most disturbing (to our ears) attributes of God is found in the interaction God had with Isaiah after Isaiah repented of being a man of unclean lips (Isa 6:5-7). God asked, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?" and Isaiah answered, "Here am I! Send me" (Isa 6:8). So God commissioned him to tell His people, "'Keep on hearing, but do not understand; keep on seeing, but do not perceive.' Make the heart of this people dull, and their ears heavy, and blind their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed" (Isa 6:9-10). "How long?" Isaiah asked (Isa 6:11) and God, essentially, told him "Until the end." That was God's plan. That was God's intent. Success for Isaiah's mission would be that he told them and they did not listen. John understood this text to say that God blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts "lest they see with their eyes, and understand with their heart, and turn, and I would heal them" (John 12:39-40).
We're often ready and willing to speak for God. We're often misinformed when we do. Isaiah was God's mouthpiece to the people of his day and he had a different vision of God than most of us. God sent His Son to die for us. Sure, we like that. But in Isaiah's view God is thoroughly sovereign in all things even to not saving some. And he thought that was a good thing.
Tuesday, March 22, 2022
Settled
For believers these days, we might be concerned when we look around us. Nations rise against nations. Conspiracies, real and imagined, abound. Prices rise and morals fall. We're not even happy with our own government. And that's just generalities. In each experience we're encountering trials and difficulties.
So we ask, "Why?" and "What can we do?" and "Where is God in all of this?" What we don't seem to ask is "Why do the nations rage and the peoples plot in vain?" (Psa 2:1). We don't see God as sitting in heaven laughing (Psa 2:4). We don't seem to know that our God reigns.
Things look difficult. From poverty and sickness and race relations to wars and global economics and pandemics, the world has reason to be thin-skinned and worried. We do not. "If God is for us, who can be against us?" (Rom 8:31). Indeed, "We are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Rom 8:37-39). Let that truth settle into your being.
So we ask, "Why?" and "What can we do?" and "Where is God in all of this?" What we don't seem to ask is "Why do the nations rage and the peoples plot in vain?" (Psa 2:1). We don't see God as sitting in heaven laughing (Psa 2:4). We don't seem to know that our God reigns.
Things look difficult. From poverty and sickness and race relations to wars and global economics and pandemics, the world has reason to be thin-skinned and worried. We do not. "If God is for us, who can be against us?" (Rom 8:31). Indeed, "We are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Rom 8:37-39). Let that truth settle into your being.
Monday, March 21, 2022
Tough Times
We live in beleaguered times. Nations war with nations. People die from bombs and greed. Viruses invade bodies. Money if fleeting and prices are rising and hate is rampant and love is strangled and it looks bad for the home team. So a passage like this might come in handy right about now ...
Let all the earth fear the LORD;Maybe, just maybe, you see hope in it. Maybe you hear promise from God, a hand in life that you don't see clearly but can certainly count on even if your eyes don't grasp why. "Our soul waits for the Lord, for our heart rejoices in Him." Or you can count on good news from the news media. Maybe not a good idea.
Let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of Him.
For He spoke, and it was done;
He commanded, and it stood fast.
The LORD nullifies the counsel of the nations;
He frustrates the plans of the peoples.
The counsel of the LORD stands forever,
The plans of His heart from generation to generation.
Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD,
The people whom He has chosen for His own inheritance.
The LORD looks from heaven; He sees all the sons of men;
From His dwelling place He looks out
On all the inhabitants of the earth,
He who fashions the hearts of them all,
He who understands all their works.
The king is not saved by a mighty army;
A warrior is not delivered by great strength.
A horse is a false hope for victory;
Nor does it deliver anyone by its great strength.
Behold, the eye of the LORD is on those who fear Him,
On those who hope for His lovingkindness,
To deliver their soul from death
And to keep them alive in famine.
Our soul waits for the LORD;
He is our help and our shield.
For our heart rejoices in Him,
Because we trust in His holy name.
Let Your lovingkindness, O LORD, be upon us,
According as we have hoped in You. (Psa 33:8-22)
Sunday, March 20, 2022
Christ and the Church
Paul writes an extremely unpopular perspective on marriage in Ephesians 5. He starts with "submit to one another" (Eph 5:21) and then launches into this horrendous (at least to modern ears) command, "Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord" (Eph 5:22). "Me? Submit to him?? He doesn't even know enough to come in out of the rain!" So unbelievers and believers alike rebel at such a notion. "Submit to one another" isn't too bad, but in no sense should wives submit to their husbands. It is too abusive, too controlling, and, frankly, too abused. How many husbands in the name of Christ have used that text to abuse their wives? "Nope! We're not gonna do it!" And even Christians opt out on a direct and unequivocal command from Scripture. It doesn't get better at the end. Paul tells husbands to love their wives "as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her" (Eph 5:25) and most women don't balk at that, but at the end, when Paul sums up his instructions, he says, "Let each one of you love his wife as himself," which we're fine with, "and let the wife see that she respects her husband" (Eph 5:33). Maybe. Right up until you find that the text actually says "fears her husband," and then it's right out. Wives, Paul says, are required to submit to their husbands "as to the Lord" and to fear their husbands. This just will not do.
It's interesting to note a critical piece in the midst of this text that serves to explain and tie it all together. Paul says,
Paul tells wives to submit to their husbands "as to the Lord" and tells husbands to love their wives "as Christ loved the church." He connects marriage with "Christ and the church." In this analogy the husband represents Christ and the wife represents the church. Now, we know that the church is the body of Christ (1 Cor 12:27). So Paul is drawing a comparison here. As the church submits to Christ, wives submit to their husbands (Eph 5:24) and, as the church is the body of Christ, Christ loved the church as He loved His own body, so husbands ... do that. It puts a different twist on the whole thing. If a wife sees her husband as Christ's representative, then she should submit to him as she submits to Christ and fear him as she fears the Lord. Which is what Paul said at the beginning. We are to submit to one another "out of fear for Christ" (Eph 5:21). Not panic. Not terror. A fear of forsaking Christ or her husband. A fear of harming Christ's reputation or her husband's.
The world would have us believe that there is no difference between male or female when it is patently obvious that there is. The world would have us believe that submitting to another is wrong when the Scriptures are quite clear that it isn't. A wife that submits to the Lord and, therefore, submits to His representative isn't a doormat or a fool. A husband that lays down his life -- especially as he continues to live it* -- for his wife is no fool. He is loving her as Christ loved the church. If we keep that connection -- "Christ and the church" connected to "husband and wife" -- we will likely find that we operate more as we are designed rather than in the rebellion the world urges upon us.
________
* It's one thing to give your life literally. It's the last thing you do. It's another thing to "give your life" -- death to self -- while continuing with living every day.
It's interesting to note a critical piece in the midst of this text that serves to explain and tie it all together. Paul says,
"Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. (Eph 5:31-32)Paul had just said that husbands must love their wives "as their own bodies" (Eph 5:28). Now he says, "The two shall become one flesh," a quote from Genesis (Gen 2:24). So husbands and wives are "one flesh." It would only make sense, then, that husbands should love their wives as their own bodies because they are. A husband that loves his wife as he loves his own body is loving himself. But what about this "Christ and the church" thing?
Paul tells wives to submit to their husbands "as to the Lord" and tells husbands to love their wives "as Christ loved the church." He connects marriage with "Christ and the church." In this analogy the husband represents Christ and the wife represents the church. Now, we know that the church is the body of Christ (1 Cor 12:27). So Paul is drawing a comparison here. As the church submits to Christ, wives submit to their husbands (Eph 5:24) and, as the church is the body of Christ, Christ loved the church as He loved His own body, so husbands ... do that. It puts a different twist on the whole thing. If a wife sees her husband as Christ's representative, then she should submit to him as she submits to Christ and fear him as she fears the Lord. Which is what Paul said at the beginning. We are to submit to one another "out of fear for Christ" (Eph 5:21). Not panic. Not terror. A fear of forsaking Christ or her husband. A fear of harming Christ's reputation or her husband's.
The world would have us believe that there is no difference between male or female when it is patently obvious that there is. The world would have us believe that submitting to another is wrong when the Scriptures are quite clear that it isn't. A wife that submits to the Lord and, therefore, submits to His representative isn't a doormat or a fool. A husband that lays down his life -- especially as he continues to live it* -- for his wife is no fool. He is loving her as Christ loved the church. If we keep that connection -- "Christ and the church" connected to "husband and wife" -- we will likely find that we operate more as we are designed rather than in the rebellion the world urges upon us.
________
* It's one thing to give your life literally. It's the last thing you do. It's another thing to "give your life" -- death to self -- while continuing with living every day.
Saturday, March 19, 2022
News Weakly - 3/19/22
In Russia
Comic Yakov Smirnoff made a routine with the phrase, "In Russia." "In Russia homosexuality is a crime and the punishment is seven years in prison, locked up with the other men. There is a three year waiting list." Like that. So, now, in Russia protesters are being arrested ... for blank posters. One woman was arrested for holding a sign that said, "Two words" in Russian. Tell me again why some of you want to eliminate democracy.
Latest Terrorist Threat
Have you noticed this trend of late? Someone will, say, cut you off in traffic ... and then flip you off. Or a parent will blame the teacher because their child misbehaves. Well, there is an actual growing terrorism threat from guys known as "incels" -- involuntary celibates. They can't develop relationships with women ... so they target them. They blame the women for their failures. Terrorism from the entitled.
Learning Disability
In January of 1974 the sun rose at 8:30AM ... because the government wanted permanent Daylight Savings Time. As a result, children died on their way to school in the dark. But that's okay; let's do it again. Hey, I know! Let's test out the old adage, "Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
Disconnected
Actor Arnold Scharzenegger posted a video that's trending on Russian Twitter. He tells Putin, "You started this war, and you can stop it." Putin, of course, realizes that he's facing the Terminator and is scrambling to recall his troops. We're largely agreed that this war ought to stop. I don't know why we think actors are the best ones to address it.
For Women
Lia Thomas won the Division I national title in 500-yard freestyle swimming, finishing 1.75 seconds ahead of the closest actual woman in the competition. Lia is a biological male and females just need to get used to the new version of men's rights masquerading as "women's rights."
Not Your Mother's Pixar
Pixar, the makers of such cute animations as Toy Story and Wall-E, and Up, have decided to force your kids to watch an animated on-screen same-sex kiss with their rendition of Lightyear. That is, let's very carefully insert this very blatant message for your kids to absorb because you're not paying attention.
Bumbling Bee
The Babylon Bee put out a headline that read, "99.9% Of Americans Support Sending Mitt Romney To Fight In Ukraine." In light of the Scharzenegger story, I think we should send Arnold instead.
Meanwhile, reports are out that Hunter Biden will be indicted soon and that the story of his emails that was tossed in 2020 is actually true. The nation JUST wishes there had been some way they could have known about the story before they elected his dad.
Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
Comic Yakov Smirnoff made a routine with the phrase, "In Russia." "In Russia homosexuality is a crime and the punishment is seven years in prison, locked up with the other men. There is a three year waiting list." Like that. So, now, in Russia protesters are being arrested ... for blank posters. One woman was arrested for holding a sign that said, "Two words" in Russian. Tell me again why some of you want to eliminate democracy.
Latest Terrorist Threat
Have you noticed this trend of late? Someone will, say, cut you off in traffic ... and then flip you off. Or a parent will blame the teacher because their child misbehaves. Well, there is an actual growing terrorism threat from guys known as "incels" -- involuntary celibates. They can't develop relationships with women ... so they target them. They blame the women for their failures. Terrorism from the entitled.
Learning Disability
In January of 1974 the sun rose at 8:30AM ... because the government wanted permanent Daylight Savings Time. As a result, children died on their way to school in the dark. But that's okay; let's do it again. Hey, I know! Let's test out the old adage, "Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
Disconnected
Actor Arnold Scharzenegger posted a video that's trending on Russian Twitter. He tells Putin, "You started this war, and you can stop it." Putin, of course, realizes that he's facing the Terminator and is scrambling to recall his troops. We're largely agreed that this war ought to stop. I don't know why we think actors are the best ones to address it.
For Women
Lia Thomas won the Division I national title in 500-yard freestyle swimming, finishing 1.75 seconds ahead of the closest actual woman in the competition. Lia is a biological male and females just need to get used to the new version of men's rights masquerading as "women's rights."
Not Your Mother's Pixar
Pixar, the makers of such cute animations as Toy Story and Wall-E, and Up, have decided to force your kids to watch an animated on-screen same-sex kiss with their rendition of Lightyear. That is, let's very carefully insert this very blatant message for your kids to absorb because you're not paying attention.
Bumbling Bee
The Babylon Bee put out a headline that read, "99.9% Of Americans Support Sending Mitt Romney To Fight In Ukraine." In light of the Scharzenegger story, I think we should send Arnold instead.
Meanwhile, reports are out that Hunter Biden will be indicted soon and that the story of his emails that was tossed in 2020 is actually true. The nation JUST wishes there had been some way they could have known about the story before they elected his dad.
Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
Friday, March 18, 2022
Good and Ready
"When are you going to get to fixing that broken door?" his wife asked him. "When I'm darned good and ready," was his answer. We're like that, aren't we? "When is God going to fix things?" When will He fix the war in Ukraine? Our national troubles? The whole COVID problem? The hardships of the poor? Cancer? My sore joints? The whole thing? We know He can and we know He ought to. We just want to know when. And God says, "When I'm good and ready."
The whole reason Jesus showed up on the scene, lived a sinless life, and died on the cross was because of this attitude we all have. Paul describes it this way. "They exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever" (Rom 1:25). We worship the creature. Primarily us. But God doesn't. We actually believe that God owes us. Oh, maybe not consciously. Maybe not audibly. But we feel it deep in our flesh. So we're not happy when God doesn't come through for us when we know He was supposed to.
Still, Scripture says (for instance), "The prayer of faith will save the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven" (James 5:15). Well, now, look. That's pretty comprehensive. It's a very straightforward "if-then." If: the prayer of faith; then: save the sick. So, we still ask, maybe now with a little humility, but, still, "When are You going to do that?" We've prayed. We've prayed in faith. We have trusted. It is promised. When? And God answers, "When I'm good and ready." When it is good to do so and when it is the right time to do so. And like children we are so impatient, aren't we? Maybe it's now. Maybe it's tomorrow. Maybe it's when we get to heaven. He will do it when it is good to do it and when it is the right time. So we have to ask ourselves, "Is that alright with you?"
The whole reason Jesus showed up on the scene, lived a sinless life, and died on the cross was because of this attitude we all have. Paul describes it this way. "They exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever" (Rom 1:25). We worship the creature. Primarily us. But God doesn't. We actually believe that God owes us. Oh, maybe not consciously. Maybe not audibly. But we feel it deep in our flesh. So we're not happy when God doesn't come through for us when we know He was supposed to.
Still, Scripture says (for instance), "The prayer of faith will save the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven" (James 5:15). Well, now, look. That's pretty comprehensive. It's a very straightforward "if-then." If: the prayer of faith; then: save the sick. So, we still ask, maybe now with a little humility, but, still, "When are You going to do that?" We've prayed. We've prayed in faith. We have trusted. It is promised. When? And God answers, "When I'm good and ready." When it is good to do so and when it is the right time to do so. And like children we are so impatient, aren't we? Maybe it's now. Maybe it's tomorrow. Maybe it's when we get to heaven. He will do it when it is good to do it and when it is the right time. So we have to ask ourselves, "Is that alright with you?"
Thursday, March 17, 2022
Hard Labor
They tell me the only man-made thing in heaven will be the scars on Jesus's hands. Poetic, I suppose, but I'm not sure it's accurate. I'm not saying it's not. I'm just thinking about it.
We have come to believe that "work" is bad and "leisure" is good. Christians even believe that work is part of the curse from sin. Now, it doesn't take a lot of effort to see this isn't biblically true. For instance, In Genesis God made Man and then set him in the Garden and put him to work (Gen 2:15). No sin. No error. God assigned work to Adam immediately. One of his first jobs was to name all the animals (Gen 2:19-20). Work, work, work! Clearly this was not a curse. It was a gift from a loving God. So why do we think of work as a curse? Well, in chapter 3 of Genesis, work is mentioned as part of the curse (Gen 3:17-19). Note, however, that it wasn't mere work; it was hard work. God told Adam, "By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread" because prior to this event work wasn't hard. In essence, Adam was sentenced to hard labor because of sin. Labor itself was never the curse.
It turns out that work is not, by definition, a curse for sin. It turns out that we are actually designed for work. The redeemed human is "created in Christ Jesus for good works" (Eph 2:10). We are commanded to "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" (Php 2:12). Spiritually and physically work is good for us. Oh, sure, so is rest (e.g., Exo 23:12). Even God rested (Gen 2:2). I'm not suggesting that work is good and leisure is bad. I'm suggesting that the Bible says that work is good, even if hard labor is hard, and we find fulfillment in it. If it is true that we were made to work, then, why wouldn't there be man-made things in heaven? And why shouldn't we find joy in work here and now?
We have come to believe that "work" is bad and "leisure" is good. Christians even believe that work is part of the curse from sin. Now, it doesn't take a lot of effort to see this isn't biblically true. For instance, In Genesis God made Man and then set him in the Garden and put him to work (Gen 2:15). No sin. No error. God assigned work to Adam immediately. One of his first jobs was to name all the animals (Gen 2:19-20). Work, work, work! Clearly this was not a curse. It was a gift from a loving God. So why do we think of work as a curse? Well, in chapter 3 of Genesis, work is mentioned as part of the curse (Gen 3:17-19). Note, however, that it wasn't mere work; it was hard work. God told Adam, "By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread" because prior to this event work wasn't hard. In essence, Adam was sentenced to hard labor because of sin. Labor itself was never the curse.
It turns out that work is not, by definition, a curse for sin. It turns out that we are actually designed for work. The redeemed human is "created in Christ Jesus for good works" (Eph 2:10). We are commanded to "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" (Php 2:12). Spiritually and physically work is good for us. Oh, sure, so is rest (e.g., Exo 23:12). Even God rested (Gen 2:2). I'm not suggesting that work is good and leisure is bad. I'm suggesting that the Bible says that work is good, even if hard labor is hard, and we find fulfillment in it. If it is true that we were made to work, then, why wouldn't there be man-made things in heaven? And why shouldn't we find joy in work here and now?
Wednesday, March 16, 2022
Clay Pots
You may have heard of the group, Jars of Clay. They took their name from Scripture. Paul wrote, "But we have this treasure in jars of clay, to show that the surpassing power belongs to God and not to us" (2 Cor 4:7). Interesting text. The "jars of clay" here refers to ... us. Paul represents us as clay pots. Not worth much on their own. Easily replaceable. Not particularly outstanding. What makes clay pots worth much is not their existence, but their content. People in Paul's day could use jars of clay for urinals or for storing silver. You can imagine which version would be worth more. But it wasn't the pot that was valuable; it was the content.
The important question, then, for us clay pots is what treasure is Paul talking about? In the previous verse he wrote, "For God, who said, 'Let light shine out of darkness,' has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ" (2 Cor 4:6). That treasure. Moses begged God, "Please show me Your glory" (Exo 33:18) and God did ... with special provisions to keep him safe from God's glory. Moses's reflected glory was fading (2 Cor 3:13), but the glory we've been given is "the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ," a glory that does not fade.
Why would God put that incomparable treasure in clay pots? It's very simple (and not mere conjecture). No one can say, "This pot is great!" No. We have this treasure "to show that the surpassing power belongs to God and not to us." That is, we get no credit in this. We have nothing to boast about. On the other hand, no pot is too poor. No pot is worthless. The treasure does not depend on the abilities of the pot. God can use every single one of us in carrying this treasure. And to both embrace our true condition as a "clay pot" and to recognize the treasure God has invested in us is amazing.
The important question, then, for us clay pots is what treasure is Paul talking about? In the previous verse he wrote, "For God, who said, 'Let light shine out of darkness,' has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ" (2 Cor 4:6). That treasure. Moses begged God, "Please show me Your glory" (Exo 33:18) and God did ... with special provisions to keep him safe from God's glory. Moses's reflected glory was fading (2 Cor 3:13), but the glory we've been given is "the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ," a glory that does not fade.
Why would God put that incomparable treasure in clay pots? It's very simple (and not mere conjecture). No one can say, "This pot is great!" No. We have this treasure "to show that the surpassing power belongs to God and not to us." That is, we get no credit in this. We have nothing to boast about. On the other hand, no pot is too poor. No pot is worthless. The treasure does not depend on the abilities of the pot. God can use every single one of us in carrying this treasure. And to both embrace our true condition as a "clay pot" and to recognize the treasure God has invested in us is amazing.
Tuesday, March 15, 2022
A Clean Heart
We Christians like to go to great measures to help us prevent sins. And it's actually biblical. Jesus went so far as to recommend, "If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away" (Matt 18:8), by which we understand Him to say, "Do whatever is necessary to avoid sinning." Paul tells the Corinthian Christians, "Flee from sexual immorality" (1 Cor 6:18) and "Flee from idolatry" (1 Cor 10:14). He tells Timothy, "Flee youthful passions" (2 Tim 2:22). We are, indeed, supposed to take measures to avoid sin. Here's the problem. These measures are useful and even commanded, but they are not sufficient or effective ... on their own. Look, we can make all the laws we want on matters of morality and it won't make anyone a better person. Something more is required.
Psalm 51 is David's famous repentance psalm for his sin with Bathsheba. In it, he says things like "Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight" (Psa 51:4) and "I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me" (Psa 51:5). At one point he writes, "Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me" (Psa 51:10). Ah! There's something important. Jesus told His disciples, "What comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander" (Matt 15:18-19). So while we pray, "Lead us not into temptation" (Matt 6:13), the truth is we can find it very well on our own. The truth is that our sin problem is a heart problem before it ever becomes a problem of actions.
Thus, David's prayer. If we want to get anywhere in our struggle with sin, we will certainly need to use means. We might employ software and accountability relationships to battle a desire for pornography. We might have a rule for ourselves to never be alone with a member of the opposite sex without our spouse. We might use tricks and methods, eliminate bad influences and try to engage with people and devices to get us to do good. But the absolutely essential beginning and ongoing part to make any of those effectual will be to receive that clean heart. Probably on an ongoing basis. Without fail. As a matter of practice. Because out of the heart comes all manner of sin, so scrubbing up the outside won't really clean up the problem, will it? And, interestingly, the only means of obtaining that clean heart is from God ... who then gets the credit ... as it should be.
Psalm 51 is David's famous repentance psalm for his sin with Bathsheba. In it, he says things like "Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight" (Psa 51:4) and "I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me" (Psa 51:5). At one point he writes, "Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me" (Psa 51:10). Ah! There's something important. Jesus told His disciples, "What comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander" (Matt 15:18-19). So while we pray, "Lead us not into temptation" (Matt 6:13), the truth is we can find it very well on our own. The truth is that our sin problem is a heart problem before it ever becomes a problem of actions.
Thus, David's prayer. If we want to get anywhere in our struggle with sin, we will certainly need to use means. We might employ software and accountability relationships to battle a desire for pornography. We might have a rule for ourselves to never be alone with a member of the opposite sex without our spouse. We might use tricks and methods, eliminate bad influences and try to engage with people and devices to get us to do good. But the absolutely essential beginning and ongoing part to make any of those effectual will be to receive that clean heart. Probably on an ongoing basis. Without fail. As a matter of practice. Because out of the heart comes all manner of sin, so scrubbing up the outside won't really clean up the problem, will it? And, interestingly, the only means of obtaining that clean heart is from God ... who then gets the credit ... as it should be.
Monday, March 14, 2022
Do Unto Others
Interesting phrase. Lots of people, Christians or otherwise, know it. They could complete it with reasonable accuracy. Jesus said to treat others as you want them to treat you (Matt 7:12). The fabled "golden rule." It's interesting, then, because while so many can tell you what it says, they don't really think about what it means.
First, while we all see what it says -- "do to others ..." -- we think of it in the negative. "Don't do to others what you don't want them to do to you." We'll tell our kids when they were mean, "How would you like it if someone did that to you?" This, of course, isn't far off. It is reasonable. It is consistent with Jesus's intent, but it is not consistent with His words. He puts it in the positive. It is not "avoid;" it is "do." It is a command to act rather than not to act. How would you like to be treated? Do that. It's not a prohibition; it's an injunction.
Second, it is easily problematic if we don't think it through. Anyone can tell a husband, "Do not buy your wife that Makita electric chainsaw for her birthday because you wish she'd buy it for yours." Obviously. But ... isn't that what Jesus tells you to do? "I'd like someone to buy me that Makita, so I'll do that for my wife." So it's not as simple as that as we can all plainly see. It requires thought. It isn't in the details but the attitude. "I would like people to be kind to me, so I'll be kind to them" is a good start, for instance, but what does "kind" look like ... to them? You want them to be kind to you in the way you recognize kindness, right? So what does it look like from their perspective? Kindness or love or friendship or generosity or humility or respect or ... lots and lots of good things have lots and lots of valid expressions. We would like to be treated with those good principles, so we should treat others with them, but we need to consider them in it. Consider an example. "I would like to be treated with love, so I will treat others with love." Good start! "My wife would see a new car as love, so I'll buy her a new car." Okay ... maybe. Let's go with that. "My 12-year-old would like a car, too, so I'll buy her a car." Definitely not! The expression of love to your wife is not the same as the expression of love to your child. These virtues with which we'd like to be treated are not a monolith, expressed in the same way to all people.
So it gets less concrete than we originally thought. "Do unto others" includes the obvious "don't do what you don't want done to you," but that completely misses the original intent. We are to be proactively treating others as we would like to be treated, yet, not in a woodenly literal way. This means relationship. This means love. This means knowing others and understanding what expressions of these virtues communicates them to the other person. Clearly, being this kind of good person is more complicated than we think. Good thing that "it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure" (Php 2:13).
First, while we all see what it says -- "do to others ..." -- we think of it in the negative. "Don't do to others what you don't want them to do to you." We'll tell our kids when they were mean, "How would you like it if someone did that to you?" This, of course, isn't far off. It is reasonable. It is consistent with Jesus's intent, but it is not consistent with His words. He puts it in the positive. It is not "avoid;" it is "do." It is a command to act rather than not to act. How would you like to be treated? Do that. It's not a prohibition; it's an injunction.
Second, it is easily problematic if we don't think it through. Anyone can tell a husband, "Do not buy your wife that Makita electric chainsaw for her birthday because you wish she'd buy it for yours." Obviously. But ... isn't that what Jesus tells you to do? "I'd like someone to buy me that Makita, so I'll do that for my wife." So it's not as simple as that as we can all plainly see. It requires thought. It isn't in the details but the attitude. "I would like people to be kind to me, so I'll be kind to them" is a good start, for instance, but what does "kind" look like ... to them? You want them to be kind to you in the way you recognize kindness, right? So what does it look like from their perspective? Kindness or love or friendship or generosity or humility or respect or ... lots and lots of good things have lots and lots of valid expressions. We would like to be treated with those good principles, so we should treat others with them, but we need to consider them in it. Consider an example. "I would like to be treated with love, so I will treat others with love." Good start! "My wife would see a new car as love, so I'll buy her a new car." Okay ... maybe. Let's go with that. "My 12-year-old would like a car, too, so I'll buy her a car." Definitely not! The expression of love to your wife is not the same as the expression of love to your child. These virtues with which we'd like to be treated are not a monolith, expressed in the same way to all people.
So it gets less concrete than we originally thought. "Do unto others" includes the obvious "don't do what you don't want done to you," but that completely misses the original intent. We are to be proactively treating others as we would like to be treated, yet, not in a woodenly literal way. This means relationship. This means love. This means knowing others and understanding what expressions of these virtues communicates them to the other person. Clearly, being this kind of good person is more complicated than we think. Good thing that "it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure" (Php 2:13).
Sunday, March 13, 2022
The Least of These
I heard it again today. "The least of these," a phrase from Scripture popularized by, of all people, Barak Obama. We need to care for "the least of these." By which we are to understand that we are to care first for "the least of these" children and, by extension, the rest of marginalized and oppressed mankind. "The least of these." I heard it again today from a Christian source and they intended the same idea, so that must be what it means, right?
The phrase comes from a parable in Matthew 25. It's the one about the sheep and the goats. The sheep are surprised when the King says, that they gave Him food and drink and shelter (Matt 25:35-37). "When did we do that? "When you did it to the least of these, you did it to Me" (Matt 25:41). Except that that's not quite what He said.
We ought to do good to those around us, it's true. As Paul says, "So then, while we have opportunity, let us do good to all people," but he goes on to say, "and especially to those who are of the household of the faith" (Gal 6:10). We ought (in the sense of moral obligation) to be doing good to all around us. This text from the lips of Jesus isn't about that obligation. This text is about taking care of the least of the saints, God's people. The text is about loving one another -- those in the body of Christ. How are we doing at that?
The phrase comes from a parable in Matthew 25. It's the one about the sheep and the goats. The sheep are surprised when the King says, that they gave Him food and drink and shelter (Matt 25:35-37). "When did we do that? "When you did it to the least of these, you did it to Me" (Matt 25:41). Except that that's not quite what He said.
And answering, the King will say to them, 'Truly I say to you, In so far as you did it to one of these, the least of My brothers, you did it to Me.' (Matt 25:40)The story actually defines "these." It refers to "My brothers." Who are His brothers? The adopted (Rom 8:15; Gal 4:5; Eph 1:5). Those who are "predestinated to be conformed to the image of His Son, for Him to be the First-born among many brothers" (Rom 8:29). This isn't a blanket "all children" or "everyone on earth." This isn't a reference to "the brotherhood of Man." It is a reference to Christ's brothers: those who have believed. It is an echo of Jesus's "By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another" (John 13:35). That "one another" isn't "all people" either. It refers to His disciples. It refers to all of them, but not all mankind.
We ought to do good to those around us, it's true. As Paul says, "So then, while we have opportunity, let us do good to all people," but he goes on to say, "and especially to those who are of the household of the faith" (Gal 6:10). We ought (in the sense of moral obligation) to be doing good to all around us. This text from the lips of Jesus isn't about that obligation. This text is about taking care of the least of the saints, God's people. The text is about loving one another -- those in the body of Christ. How are we doing at that?
Saturday, March 12, 2022
News Weakly - 3/12/22
For Better or Worse?
Is it ironic that a company called "Better" first fired 900 employees by telling them on a Zoom call last year and are now firing 3,000 more by making their most recent check a severance check? I'd hate to see "Worse" in action.
In that vein ("better or worse") I found it hard to gather a News Weakly entry this week. The more I see, the less I know. The media -- mainstream, social, whatever -- seems as if it is bent on not telling us what is or isn't going on, but simply what they want us to think. And it's not just the "Left." Oh, it is definitely the Left, but I think the Right is doing the same. Someone told me, "I believe only half of what I see and none of what I read" and I'm thinking these days that that's pretty generous. Maybe the story about an Indianan teen who got stuck in a tree trying to rescue a cat has sufficient truth to buy into (primarily because there seems to be little to gain in making it up), but I don't know what to believe on the big stories. Did the U.S. finance biological weapons labs in Ukraine or not? I don't know. How much more is up in the air on the air? It's disturbing. Are gas prices going through the roof because of the Middle East or Russia or is it a worse conspiracy? Was January 6th an insurrection or not? How involved was the FBI? Is Putin the evil face or is Ukraine President Zalenskyy a thug? (And how do you spell Zelenskyy?) (Note: Representative Cawthorn did not say Putin was right -- says so in the story -- but that both are problematic. But that's not what our media will portray.) It feels like telling stories from the news these days is very possibly perpetuating a lie. I don't know what to believe anymore because all sources seem to have gone out of their way to prove themselves unreliable. A "News Weakly" entry seems to be all that anyone is doing ... news weakly.
Is it ironic that a company called "Better" first fired 900 employees by telling them on a Zoom call last year and are now firing 3,000 more by making their most recent check a severance check? I'd hate to see "Worse" in action.
In that vein ("better or worse") I found it hard to gather a News Weakly entry this week. The more I see, the less I know. The media -- mainstream, social, whatever -- seems as if it is bent on not telling us what is or isn't going on, but simply what they want us to think. And it's not just the "Left." Oh, it is definitely the Left, but I think the Right is doing the same. Someone told me, "I believe only half of what I see and none of what I read" and I'm thinking these days that that's pretty generous. Maybe the story about an Indianan teen who got stuck in a tree trying to rescue a cat has sufficient truth to buy into (primarily because there seems to be little to gain in making it up), but I don't know what to believe on the big stories. Did the U.S. finance biological weapons labs in Ukraine or not? I don't know. How much more is up in the air on the air? It's disturbing. Are gas prices going through the roof because of the Middle East or Russia or is it a worse conspiracy? Was January 6th an insurrection or not? How involved was the FBI? Is Putin the evil face or is Ukraine President Zalenskyy a thug? (And how do you spell Zelenskyy?) (Note: Representative Cawthorn did not say Putin was right -- says so in the story -- but that both are problematic. But that's not what our media will portray.) It feels like telling stories from the news these days is very possibly perpetuating a lie. I don't know what to believe anymore because all sources seem to have gone out of their way to prove themselves unreliable. A "News Weakly" entry seems to be all that anyone is doing ... news weakly.
Friday, March 11, 2022
Objective and Subjective
What is "objective" and "subjective"? In our language, "subjective" generally refers to opinion and "objective" refers to verifiable fact. Okay, fine, but how? Well, it's in the terms. We have a subject and an object. In a sentence like "Bob is eating a banana", Bob is the subject and the banana is the object. A subject does something and an object is something. This is how we arrive at "objective truth" versus "subjective truth." "Subjective truth" refers to truth that is mine, from me, my opinion. I am the subject. "Objective truth" is truth that is not affected by the subject. It is an object on its own. It stands out there for the subject to discover, but not create, because it is an object on its own. So we debate "Is truth subjective or objective?" Is there truth that is true regardless of our opinion or is all truth a matter of opinion? (Note: If you believe the latter, I'd rather you not design any of the airplanes I might fly in.)
The two are part of other debates we have. An ever-popular argument is whether or not morality is subjective or objective. Is morality simply a product of the opinion of the individual or, perhaps, the group, or is there objective morality -- that which is good or bad all on its own regardless of the opinion of the group or individual? The Bible argues in both cases that truth and morality is objective, that there is an ultimate, unchanging truth and an ultimate, unchanging right and wrong and your opinions don't matter on these issues. Sure, there is subjective truth. "I love pizza" is true for me as long as I haven't eaten a bad one, for instance, and then it becomes false. There is subjective morality such as "It's wrong for me to drink alcohol because I tend toward alcoholism." The problem is not that subjective morality and truth exist; the problem is that too many believe that all morality and truth is subjective. They aren't.
There are easy ways to demonstrate that both truth and morality exist as objective. I'm not going there right now. But in thinking through this stuff recently, I came across a subjective/objective concept I hadn't considered before. Is love subjective or objective? Now, before we answer, we'll all agree that there is love that is "a matter of opinion" -- subjective love. My pizza example above is such a love. But what about objective love? I would argue that the world's current version of "love" is purely subjective. It is based only on "how I feel about it." It is only about my feelings. And I would argue that biblically we are commanded to love objectively, where the one who is loved is the object of love and not a matter of how we feel about them. If I love my wife, for instance, objectively, then how I feel about her isn't relevant. She exists and, therefore, is loved. She is, therefore she is loved. I would argue that if we -- Christians -- loved like that, where our love is resting on the object rather than our own feelings, we would love much better than we do now. Just a thought.
The two are part of other debates we have. An ever-popular argument is whether or not morality is subjective or objective. Is morality simply a product of the opinion of the individual or, perhaps, the group, or is there objective morality -- that which is good or bad all on its own regardless of the opinion of the group or individual? The Bible argues in both cases that truth and morality is objective, that there is an ultimate, unchanging truth and an ultimate, unchanging right and wrong and your opinions don't matter on these issues. Sure, there is subjective truth. "I love pizza" is true for me as long as I haven't eaten a bad one, for instance, and then it becomes false. There is subjective morality such as "It's wrong for me to drink alcohol because I tend toward alcoholism." The problem is not that subjective morality and truth exist; the problem is that too many believe that all morality and truth is subjective. They aren't.
There are easy ways to demonstrate that both truth and morality exist as objective. I'm not going there right now. But in thinking through this stuff recently, I came across a subjective/objective concept I hadn't considered before. Is love subjective or objective? Now, before we answer, we'll all agree that there is love that is "a matter of opinion" -- subjective love. My pizza example above is such a love. But what about objective love? I would argue that the world's current version of "love" is purely subjective. It is based only on "how I feel about it." It is only about my feelings. And I would argue that biblically we are commanded to love objectively, where the one who is loved is the object of love and not a matter of how we feel about them. If I love my wife, for instance, objectively, then how I feel about her isn't relevant. She exists and, therefore, is loved. She is, therefore she is loved. I would argue that if we -- Christians -- loved like that, where our love is resting on the object rather than our own feelings, we would love much better than we do now. Just a thought.
Thursday, March 10, 2022
Easy Answer
Do you ever question your salvation? Do you ever wonder if you're actually saved? Jesus offered a quick and easy test.
By this all people will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another. (John 13:35)You're "people," so you should be able to know if you are His disciple. You should be able to ask yourself, "Do I actually demonstrate love for His people?" If the answer is "No," you might need to do something about that. Like repent and turn to Christ.
Wednesday, March 09, 2022
Unquestionable
Have you noticed how current crises (plural for crisis) seem to be narrowing our minds? Consider. First there was the big explosion around racism in America. You whites are the reason because all whites are racists and no one who is not white can be racist. No, you can't question that. We'll give you CRT to educate you and anti-racism training to train you and it will all work out fine. No, you can't disagree. That's racist. It's misinformation. It's conspiracy theory. Stop it. Then there was the whole sexual harrassment scandal. Believe the women. We will cancel anyone accused because "innocent until proven guilty" does not apply if a woman accuses a man; all males are sexist abusers. DO NOT QUESTION it. That simply makes you out to be a hater. Well, of course, unless it's "one of our boys." Then, of course, COVID hit and all discussion around COVID was shut down. Yes, you needed to wear masks. No, you can't suggest otherwise. You can't even ask. "But ... Science keeps asking." Too bad; you can't. That's misinformation and conspiracy theory. Yes, you need to get the vaccine. No, you can't consider other treatment options and you can't ask questions about them. No, you can't question its efficacy. That's misinformation and conspiracy theory. We will tell you what's true and you CANNOT question it. Except that not all whites are racists, not all racists are white, not all males accused are actually harrassers, and a lot of that COVID "truth" has turned out to be false. But it doesn't matter. If you disagree you're a ... fill in the blank. A rightwing whacko. A religious zealot. A conspiracy nut. An anti-vaxxer. A hater. And not in a good way.
So now we're all commiserating with Ukraine over this Russian invasion. It's awful. And everyone is up in arms ... almost literally. But there are questions. There are stories about labs for biological weapons in Ukraine, far too close to the border. Some of those stories are built around American involvement and financing. There are stories out there about Ukraine releasing and arming criminals who use the civilian population as cover to attack Russians, so Russians are targeting civilian populations. There are bizarre discrepancies like Europe beating their breast against Russia ... but still buying all their gas from them. There are questions. But, oh, no, you can't ask those questions. You can't even think about them. Why? Don't worry about it. We'll give you the truth and you can stop looking elsewhere. Don't buy into that misinformation and conspiracy stuff. Don't be fooled.
I'm not saying there are conspiracies or lies going on. I'm simply pointing out that the American government and media (and elsewhere, too) have not been the most reliable sources of information for several years now. There is news and there is "what we want you to believe" and those who view or even question the difference are castigated, ridiculed, and marginalized. So we clearly are expected to be in lockstep here with the government lines and the media streams and thinking or questioning are out. It appears to be a pattern. Don't ask questions; we'll tell you what we want you to think. It feels like a pattern expressly addressed in the Bill of Rights ... but I think the pattern is to eliminate that, too, isn't it?
So now we're all commiserating with Ukraine over this Russian invasion. It's awful. And everyone is up in arms ... almost literally. But there are questions. There are stories about labs for biological weapons in Ukraine, far too close to the border. Some of those stories are built around American involvement and financing. There are stories out there about Ukraine releasing and arming criminals who use the civilian population as cover to attack Russians, so Russians are targeting civilian populations. There are bizarre discrepancies like Europe beating their breast against Russia ... but still buying all their gas from them. There are questions. But, oh, no, you can't ask those questions. You can't even think about them. Why? Don't worry about it. We'll give you the truth and you can stop looking elsewhere. Don't buy into that misinformation and conspiracy stuff. Don't be fooled.
I'm not saying there are conspiracies or lies going on. I'm simply pointing out that the American government and media (and elsewhere, too) have not been the most reliable sources of information for several years now. There is news and there is "what we want you to believe" and those who view or even question the difference are castigated, ridiculed, and marginalized. So we clearly are expected to be in lockstep here with the government lines and the media streams and thinking or questioning are out. It appears to be a pattern. Don't ask questions; we'll tell you what we want you to think. It feels like a pattern expressly addressed in the Bill of Rights ... but I think the pattern is to eliminate that, too, isn't it?
Tuesday, March 08, 2022
Abandonment
In the Bible the concept of the wrath of God is not rare or hard to find. It is clear from the beginning to the end. It is mindless to deny. Even the tired old "I like the God of the New Testament, but I don't like the God of the Old Testament" is foolish given that Jesus spoke more about Hell than Heaven and Revelation is the culmination of God's wrath. God has many attributes and characteristics, and one, to our dismay, is wrath. But what is God's wrath? In God's case, wrath is His righteous response to sin. Man's wrath doesn't achieve God's righteousness (James 1:20), but God's wrath does every time. And God's wrath takes several different forms. There is the eternal wrath of God that is displayed in the final judgment. Before that there is what they term His eschatological wrath which refers to the wrath poured out in the end times in Revelation. There is His consequential wrath where we experience temporal wrath for real-time events; we reap what we sow. There are more, but one that doesn't get mentioned much in Christian circles is His abandonment wrath. This wrath is displayed by God not doing something, but by His withdrawing. We see it in the Aaronic blessing, where we are blessed and kept by His face shining on us (Num 6:23-27), and, thus, it is a curse if God turns away. But the best place to see it is in Romans 1.
Paul introduces the gospel as "the power of God for salvation" because "in it the righteousness of God is revealed" (Rom 1:16-17) and immediately launches not into how the righteousness of God is revealed, but into how righteousness is a problem ... because of our sin problem (Rom 1:18-3:20). Paul lays the basic problem of sin at the foot of man's suppression of the truth about God (Rom 1:18-19). And in the rest of the chapter he explains the sequence of events. Humans know about God because God has made it evident, but they suppress that and become futile in their thinking. They (we) exchange God's glory for worshiping God's creation. And then Paul says,
According to our culture, it's not loving to interfere. Don't be judgmental. Don't point out sin. Love encourages people to "be yourself" even if "yourself" is sinful. According to Scripture, our sin begins with suppressing the truth about God and without changing courses God abandons us to all manner of sin as a consequence. God says, in essence, "You want to go this way? I won't stop you ... but you won't like the outcome. It will not be pleasant." God abanoning people to sin is an expression of wrath. When the Christians in Corinth exercised that kind of "tolerance," Paul reprimanded them for it (1 Cor 5:1-2). Because love dictates that we bear one anothers burdens (Gal 6:2), even if that requires that we make efforts to turn them from sin (Gal 6:1). God's wrath is real and it has a range of applications. His abandonment is not relief; it is judgment. That's why we pray for His real presence in our lives. Our world considers it freedom, but it is a terrifying thing to be abandoned by God.
Paul introduces the gospel as "the power of God for salvation" because "in it the righteousness of God is revealed" (Rom 1:16-17) and immediately launches not into how the righteousness of God is revealed, but into how righteousness is a problem ... because of our sin problem (Rom 1:18-3:20). Paul lays the basic problem of sin at the foot of man's suppression of the truth about God (Rom 1:18-19). And in the rest of the chapter he explains the sequence of events. Humans know about God because God has made it evident, but they suppress that and become futile in their thinking. They (we) exchange God's glory for worshiping God's creation. And then Paul says,
Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. (Rom 1:24-25)And there it is. God's wrath towards Man's suppression of the truth of who He is isn't displayed here in action, but by inaction. He "gave them over." Why? Because they bought the lie. That leads to all sorts of further sin (Rom 1:26-27) which leads to a second abandonment (Rom 1:28) which leads to all manner of sin. In God's wrath He ... let them go. Abandonment as punishment. We can see this in Hebrews 12. The author there talks about God's discipline. It can be painful, but it is out of love (Heb 12:5-6). He says there, "Whom the Lord loves, He disciplines" (Heb 12:6) and goes on to say, "But if you are without discipline, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate children and not sons" (Heb 12:8). This is another example of God's abandonment wrath. He simply withdraws.
According to our culture, it's not loving to interfere. Don't be judgmental. Don't point out sin. Love encourages people to "be yourself" even if "yourself" is sinful. According to Scripture, our sin begins with suppressing the truth about God and without changing courses God abandons us to all manner of sin as a consequence. God says, in essence, "You want to go this way? I won't stop you ... but you won't like the outcome. It will not be pleasant." God abanoning people to sin is an expression of wrath. When the Christians in Corinth exercised that kind of "tolerance," Paul reprimanded them for it (1 Cor 5:1-2). Because love dictates that we bear one anothers burdens (Gal 6:2), even if that requires that we make efforts to turn them from sin (Gal 6:1). God's wrath is real and it has a range of applications. His abandonment is not relief; it is judgment. That's why we pray for His real presence in our lives. Our world considers it freedom, but it is a terrifying thing to be abandoned by God.
Monday, March 07, 2022
Training
We're all familiar with training. We've all done it. We all do it. What is it? Formally, training is teaching to make fit or qualified or proficient. It is the process of discipline. Fine. Easy stuff. But there is an interesting aspect to our usual training. We train for "no reason." No, not technically "no reason," but we train for things we are not currently doing. Doctors train to become doctors first by doing doctor things on nonhumans. You don't want them learning (and failing) on a real person. Soldier types learn to fight before they go to war. You don't want them finding out the hard way they don't have a clue. Teams train together before they compete with other teams. The training is ultimately for a purpose, but initially it is not direct, typically.
This is why you hear students say, "Aw, why do I have to learn (fill in their least favorite subject material)? I'm never gonna use it." It's because they're not using it. Their only use for it is in the classroom, and that, generally, is pretty useless. So why do we train them in the classroom? So they have it readily at hand when they need it.
We could learn from this in our spiritual walk. We often press in to learn about what God thinks about what's currently going on. How do I deal with an illness, a loss, a temptation? How do I handle hard times that I'm facing? How do I choose from among the options before me? All understandable and real. But what if we had trained in advance? What if we studied Scripture, for instance, and found that God was Sovereign. Really Sovereign. Meh. That's nice. Moving on. If it isn't a pressing need, we can just glance over it. But what if we trained in it? What if we examined it, looked at what God had to say about it, see how far "sovereign" really goes? What if we grasped the edges of it and see what it encompasses. What if we renewed our minds on the topic so that we thought that way even if it wasn't a pressing need? If we trained in it before we needed it, you know what would happen? Our habit, our instinctive, our gut response would be different when we needed it. We could response with "God is Sovereign" at the moment we needed it instead of having to claw our way under pressure through Scripture to possibly, finally find some relief in it.
The military trains their people long and hard so that their instinctive responses are what they need to be in military situations. Making critical responses instinctive can give a soldier an edge over others who have to think about it first. That's the point of training. If we can make godly responses a matter of instinct before we have to use them, it would make us more solid, more confident, more responsive, better prepared. The military does it. Perhaps we ought to be training in righteousness the same way. Oh! I know just the place to do it (2 Tim 3:16-17)!
This is why you hear students say, "Aw, why do I have to learn (fill in their least favorite subject material)? I'm never gonna use it." It's because they're not using it. Their only use for it is in the classroom, and that, generally, is pretty useless. So why do we train them in the classroom? So they have it readily at hand when they need it.
We could learn from this in our spiritual walk. We often press in to learn about what God thinks about what's currently going on. How do I deal with an illness, a loss, a temptation? How do I handle hard times that I'm facing? How do I choose from among the options before me? All understandable and real. But what if we had trained in advance? What if we studied Scripture, for instance, and found that God was Sovereign. Really Sovereign. Meh. That's nice. Moving on. If it isn't a pressing need, we can just glance over it. But what if we trained in it? What if we examined it, looked at what God had to say about it, see how far "sovereign" really goes? What if we grasped the edges of it and see what it encompasses. What if we renewed our minds on the topic so that we thought that way even if it wasn't a pressing need? If we trained in it before we needed it, you know what would happen? Our habit, our instinctive, our gut response would be different when we needed it. We could response with "God is Sovereign" at the moment we needed it instead of having to claw our way under pressure through Scripture to possibly, finally find some relief in it.
The military trains their people long and hard so that their instinctive responses are what they need to be in military situations. Making critical responses instinctive can give a soldier an edge over others who have to think about it first. That's the point of training. If we can make godly responses a matter of instinct before we have to use them, it would make us more solid, more confident, more responsive, better prepared. The military does it. Perhaps we ought to be training in righteousness the same way. Oh! I know just the place to do it (2 Tim 3:16-17)!
Sunday, March 06, 2022
Comfortable Sins
We Christians can be pretty harsh when it comes to sin. "The Bible says that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God, so ..." and we press ... hard. We have certain sins that are the nail we keep pounding, so to speak. Sure, it's often because it's the nail that's standing up, so to speak. Abortion wasn't much of a topic of conversation among believers before 1973 because we all understood it was wrong. Homosexual behavior wasn't ever seen among believers as not a sin, but we weren't writing and preaching on it much before the latter part of the 20th century because everyone else knew it was a sin, too. So we really hit the "biggies" hard. Sexual sin, adultery, murder, stealing ... you know what I mean. The big ones. We give no quarter.
There are, however, other sins, no less sinful, but certainly less. They're less because, well, we probably indulge in them ourselves. They're not the same level of evil that we see in what "those other folks do." This is us. So if we gossip or tell a fib or cheat on our taxes or ... well, you get the idea ... it's not a big deal. We won't be flooding the Internet with our moral outrage over those things. They're more ... comfortable sins.
I see two primary problems with these comfortable sins. First, our hypocrisy is showing. "The Bible says that your sin is evil, so we're calling you on that. Oh, sure, the Bible says that my little sin is also evil, but I'm giving me a pass on that one." Hypocrisy. This is the kind of thing that makes the heathen blaspheme because of us (Rom 2:24). When our words and our deeds don't match, we surrender the right to speak about their sins. Second, if we're holding this tenuous line of "This sin is unacceptable but that sin isn't so bad," we'll find that the line moves. Without moorings, it drifts. After awhile the closer "unacceptable sins" have been embraced as "acceptable" and then "comfortable sins." Eventually we end up embracing all but the worst, and those don't look all that bad. For many Christians, for instance, pornography has gone from evil to "What's really wrong with it?" to "I do it from time to time." This drift eventually leaves us with a "debased mind" that embraces all manner of sin, calls good evil, and encourages inventive sinning (Rom 1:28-32).
What about you? What are your comfortable sins? Perhaps it's greed or gluttony. Perhaps it's disrespect or dishonesty. Maybe it's envy or malice, slander or insolence, pride or apathy. Maybe you have your own set of them. I'm not talking about the sins you do that you struggle against. Those aren't "comfortable." It isn't hypocrisy to say, "This is a sin and I know it because I struggle against it, too." I'm talking about the ones you do that you defend. "Nothing wrong with that." "I can covet if I want to. That's not a bad thing." "Gentleness and respect is for sissies, not true believers." "Lust isn't always a bad thing." We have them and often we're so comfortable with them that we don't even see them. Apathy, worry, selfishness, lust, a love of comfort; it's a long list, I think. Do you have them? Do you see them? If the goal is perfection (Matt 5:48), then none of us should endure comfortable sins in ourselves. We do so at our own peril.
There are, however, other sins, no less sinful, but certainly less. They're less because, well, we probably indulge in them ourselves. They're not the same level of evil that we see in what "those other folks do." This is us. So if we gossip or tell a fib or cheat on our taxes or ... well, you get the idea ... it's not a big deal. We won't be flooding the Internet with our moral outrage over those things. They're more ... comfortable sins.
I see two primary problems with these comfortable sins. First, our hypocrisy is showing. "The Bible says that your sin is evil, so we're calling you on that. Oh, sure, the Bible says that my little sin is also evil, but I'm giving me a pass on that one." Hypocrisy. This is the kind of thing that makes the heathen blaspheme because of us (Rom 2:24). When our words and our deeds don't match, we surrender the right to speak about their sins. Second, if we're holding this tenuous line of "This sin is unacceptable but that sin isn't so bad," we'll find that the line moves. Without moorings, it drifts. After awhile the closer "unacceptable sins" have been embraced as "acceptable" and then "comfortable sins." Eventually we end up embracing all but the worst, and those don't look all that bad. For many Christians, for instance, pornography has gone from evil to "What's really wrong with it?" to "I do it from time to time." This drift eventually leaves us with a "debased mind" that embraces all manner of sin, calls good evil, and encourages inventive sinning (Rom 1:28-32).
What about you? What are your comfortable sins? Perhaps it's greed or gluttony. Perhaps it's disrespect or dishonesty. Maybe it's envy or malice, slander or insolence, pride or apathy. Maybe you have your own set of them. I'm not talking about the sins you do that you struggle against. Those aren't "comfortable." It isn't hypocrisy to say, "This is a sin and I know it because I struggle against it, too." I'm talking about the ones you do that you defend. "Nothing wrong with that." "I can covet if I want to. That's not a bad thing." "Gentleness and respect is for sissies, not true believers." "Lust isn't always a bad thing." We have them and often we're so comfortable with them that we don't even see them. Apathy, worry, selfishness, lust, a love of comfort; it's a long list, I think. Do you have them? Do you see them? If the goal is perfection (Matt 5:48), then none of us should endure comfortable sins in ourselves. We do so at our own peril.
Saturday, March 05, 2022
News Weakly - 3/5/22
You Keep Using That Word
Satellite pictures show a 40-mile military convoy approaching Kyiv in Ukraine. (Why isn't someone shooting up that slow-moving, target-rich convoy?) Meanwhile, Ukraine applied to become an EU member and Russia denies they are at war while they bomb largely civilian populations, preferring instead to use terms like "special operation" and "peacekeeping" efforts ... a lot like the "mostly peaceful" smash-and-burn riots we recall in 2020. So is the Kremlin getting their word usage from the Democrats or vice versa? (I thought it was odd that Putin would invade Ukraine to insure that Ukraine didn't become part of NATO and that nuclear weapons didn't end up on his border ... by expanding his border to connect to various countries that are part of NATO. Think Latvia, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia).
A Sanction that Hurts
The World Taekwondo organization has struck deep in the heart of the Russian president, stripping him of his honorary taekwondo black belt over the invasion of Ukraine. I'm sure that will bring the man to his knees.
Shift
Kind of surprising. The Senate -- Democrat-controlled -- voted to block a bill that would make the right to kill babies in the womb a federal law. And a poll says that 71% of Americans support restrictions on baby-killing. So that's a surprise shift, given that our current media-overlords only tell us that abortion is the right thing.
Senseless
In California a father took his kids and chaperone to a church (on a Monday?) and shot them all, including himself. Details are sketchy, but Governor Newsom calls it "another senseless act of gun violence in America." Now, he's right, of course, but notice something. If this is a "senseless act of gun violence," doesn't that suggest that there are "sensible acts" of gun violence? Didn't Newsom just confirm that there are bad uses and good uses of guns?
Government that Cares
Remember all those homes lost a couple months ago in that Colorado fire? Well, looking out for those victims, the City Council is requiring that rebuilding must meet net zero emissions standards ... leaving all who suffered the loss underinsured and out of luck. But, hey, if we're going to save the planet, it's gonna cost. That's okay. What else is government for?
Another Hole in the Boat of Rights
A substitute teacher in Virginia's Arlington Public Schools was suspended after suggesting to students that they consider multiple news sources and said he thought Putin's choice to invade Ukraine made sense from Putin's perception. In Russia, had he expressed the opposing viewpoint, he may have been shot, but in a country with a "freedom of speech" guarantee, you'd think that someone could express an opinion as an opinion and not be fired for it. But, then, again, we're no longer very keen on First or Second Amendment rights, so we shouldn't be surprised, should we?
Couldn't Be Clearer
These are not "anti-trans sports bans." No matter what the media or the LGBT community try to tell us. Iowa became the second state this year to pass legislation preventing "transgender women and girls" from participating in female sports teams. "What?" you say. "That's clearly a transgender ban." It's not. It's a safety measure for women. Because a male who is now a female can do serious harm to the emotional and physical wellbeing of women in sports. Because of very real, unavoidable, physical differences between males and females. It's not a transgender ban because no one has yet banned transgender men from competing against males. Don't buy the hype.
And Now for Something Different
Congresswoman Boebert was criticized for heckling the president at the State of the Union address ... by the same people that voted to keep killing babies legal.
The White House is urging Americans not to go to fight in Ukraine, but Beto O'Rourke is recruiting a battalion of NERF gun sharpshooters to go and fight for Ukraine. Look out, Mr. O'Rourke. The Russians are using Tie fighters.
Must be true; I saw it on CNN and read it on the Internet.
Satellite pictures show a 40-mile military convoy approaching Kyiv in Ukraine. (Why isn't someone shooting up that slow-moving, target-rich convoy?) Meanwhile, Ukraine applied to become an EU member and Russia denies they are at war while they bomb largely civilian populations, preferring instead to use terms like "special operation" and "peacekeeping" efforts ... a lot like the "mostly peaceful" smash-and-burn riots we recall in 2020. So is the Kremlin getting their word usage from the Democrats or vice versa? (I thought it was odd that Putin would invade Ukraine to insure that Ukraine didn't become part of NATO and that nuclear weapons didn't end up on his border ... by expanding his border to connect to various countries that are part of NATO. Think Latvia, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia).
A Sanction that Hurts
The World Taekwondo organization has struck deep in the heart of the Russian president, stripping him of his honorary taekwondo black belt over the invasion of Ukraine. I'm sure that will bring the man to his knees.
Shift
Kind of surprising. The Senate -- Democrat-controlled -- voted to block a bill that would make the right to kill babies in the womb a federal law. And a poll says that 71% of Americans support restrictions on baby-killing. So that's a surprise shift, given that our current media-overlords only tell us that abortion is the right thing.
Senseless
In California a father took his kids and chaperone to a church (on a Monday?) and shot them all, including himself. Details are sketchy, but Governor Newsom calls it "another senseless act of gun violence in America." Now, he's right, of course, but notice something. If this is a "senseless act of gun violence," doesn't that suggest that there are "sensible acts" of gun violence? Didn't Newsom just confirm that there are bad uses and good uses of guns?
Government that Cares
Remember all those homes lost a couple months ago in that Colorado fire? Well, looking out for those victims, the City Council is requiring that rebuilding must meet net zero emissions standards ... leaving all who suffered the loss underinsured and out of luck. But, hey, if we're going to save the planet, it's gonna cost. That's okay. What else is government for?
Another Hole in the Boat of Rights
A substitute teacher in Virginia's Arlington Public Schools was suspended after suggesting to students that they consider multiple news sources and said he thought Putin's choice to invade Ukraine made sense from Putin's perception. In Russia, had he expressed the opposing viewpoint, he may have been shot, but in a country with a "freedom of speech" guarantee, you'd think that someone could express an opinion as an opinion and not be fired for it. But, then, again, we're no longer very keen on First or Second Amendment rights, so we shouldn't be surprised, should we?
Couldn't Be Clearer
These are not "anti-trans sports bans." No matter what the media or the LGBT community try to tell us. Iowa became the second state this year to pass legislation preventing "transgender women and girls" from participating in female sports teams. "What?" you say. "That's clearly a transgender ban." It's not. It's a safety measure for women. Because a male who is now a female can do serious harm to the emotional and physical wellbeing of women in sports. Because of very real, unavoidable, physical differences between males and females. It's not a transgender ban because no one has yet banned transgender men from competing against males. Don't buy the hype.
And Now for Something Different
Congresswoman Boebert was criticized for heckling the president at the State of the Union address ... by the same people that voted to keep killing babies legal.
The White House is urging Americans not to go to fight in Ukraine, but Beto O'Rourke is recruiting a battalion of NERF gun sharpshooters to go and fight for Ukraine. Look out, Mr. O'Rourke. The Russians are using Tie fighters.
Must be true; I saw it on CNN and read it on the Internet.
Friday, March 04, 2022
COVID Takeaway
I learned a very valuable lesson from COVID over the past couple of years.
The drumbeat of these couple of years has been "Trust the science!" They have thrown it at us the whole time. They've had to counter conspiracy theorists (not science) and crackpots (not science) and outlandish social media extremists (not science) and religious crackpots (not science) and have continued to tell us over and over, "Trust the science!"
Now, mind you, I work with science. I am surrounded with researchers, very bright individuals whose specialty is largely biology and medicine. When it comes to science, these people know their stuff. So it isn't a surprise that they, too, have urged us all to "Trust the science!" I have been surprised to see the amazing way that these same brilliant individuals ... have opted to ignore the science. And, of course, by no means are these atypical. It has been there in full force among a great number of our "Trust the science!" voices.
In early 2020 they discovered this new coronavirus, but the science said it wouldn't be a big deal. By March it was. The CDC was on the job, warning us all to isolate for two weeks to flatten the curve. We did. And it didn't work. Masks, they assured us, weren't necessary. Some thought otherwise, but, no, the CDC told us, don't bother. Oh, hang on, yes, do bother. Maybe even double mask. Because the science wasn't clear. When the vaccine came through, the Democrats warned us not to trust the science because it was Trumpian ... until, of course, we elected one of their boys, and then we could, once again, trust the science. The Vaccine would save us all. It didn't. Well, at least it would save the vaccinated. Sitting in a room with two PhD scientists fully vaccinated and double masked they explained to me why everyone needed to be vaccinated. "That's the only way to be safe." "But ... you've been vaccinated. Aren't you safe?" Yes, science told us. But we weren't. "You vaccinated are now free to go without masks because it's safe" they told us in June, 2021, but by August they had backtracked ... quickly. It wasn't. Vaccinated people could get, transmit, and even die from COVID. So you need to get vaccinated. Trust the science. Science said, "People with natural immunity are more immune than the vaccinated" and "Vaccinated people are more immune than those with natural immunity." Trust the science. "Natural immunity lasts 3 months ... 6 months ... 16 months ..." Trust the science. And while immunity is not accurately measured by antibodies (you don't, for instance, have antibodies to, say, measles even though you've been vaccinated), it has been the standard measurement for immunity from the start of this pandemic. Trust the science. Most recently the CDC informed us that the science had changed ... again. Now you only need to wear a mask if you're in a high-risk area. Did my bright research associates say, "Oh, look, we're not in a high-risk area, so we can take off our masks"? No, of course not. They did not trust the science and trusted, instead, their carefully cultivated, overly fertilized, heavily watered fear.
"Trust the science" sounds reasonable. Reasonable, even "sciency" people have both declared it and ignored it. The only real rule, it seems, is "Believe what you want." So my valuable lesson is that science changes all the time (because that's what it's designed to do -- adjust) and makes a lousy god to trust. And people intrinsically know this. They'll only urge "Trust the science" if it agrees with their hunches. (Feel free to carry that handy lesson over into other areas of life.) (Think, for instance, "racism" and "inclusion" and "tolerance" and such.)
The drumbeat of these couple of years has been "Trust the science!" They have thrown it at us the whole time. They've had to counter conspiracy theorists (not science) and crackpots (not science) and outlandish social media extremists (not science) and religious crackpots (not science) and have continued to tell us over and over, "Trust the science!"
Now, mind you, I work with science. I am surrounded with researchers, very bright individuals whose specialty is largely biology and medicine. When it comes to science, these people know their stuff. So it isn't a surprise that they, too, have urged us all to "Trust the science!" I have been surprised to see the amazing way that these same brilliant individuals ... have opted to ignore the science. And, of course, by no means are these atypical. It has been there in full force among a great number of our "Trust the science!" voices.
In early 2020 they discovered this new coronavirus, but the science said it wouldn't be a big deal. By March it was. The CDC was on the job, warning us all to isolate for two weeks to flatten the curve. We did. And it didn't work. Masks, they assured us, weren't necessary. Some thought otherwise, but, no, the CDC told us, don't bother. Oh, hang on, yes, do bother. Maybe even double mask. Because the science wasn't clear. When the vaccine came through, the Democrats warned us not to trust the science because it was Trumpian ... until, of course, we elected one of their boys, and then we could, once again, trust the science. The Vaccine would save us all. It didn't. Well, at least it would save the vaccinated. Sitting in a room with two PhD scientists fully vaccinated and double masked they explained to me why everyone needed to be vaccinated. "That's the only way to be safe." "But ... you've been vaccinated. Aren't you safe?" Yes, science told us. But we weren't. "You vaccinated are now free to go without masks because it's safe" they told us in June, 2021, but by August they had backtracked ... quickly. It wasn't. Vaccinated people could get, transmit, and even die from COVID. So you need to get vaccinated. Trust the science. Science said, "People with natural immunity are more immune than the vaccinated" and "Vaccinated people are more immune than those with natural immunity." Trust the science. "Natural immunity lasts 3 months ... 6 months ... 16 months ..." Trust the science. And while immunity is not accurately measured by antibodies (you don't, for instance, have antibodies to, say, measles even though you've been vaccinated), it has been the standard measurement for immunity from the start of this pandemic. Trust the science. Most recently the CDC informed us that the science had changed ... again. Now you only need to wear a mask if you're in a high-risk area. Did my bright research associates say, "Oh, look, we're not in a high-risk area, so we can take off our masks"? No, of course not. They did not trust the science and trusted, instead, their carefully cultivated, overly fertilized, heavily watered fear.
"Trust the science" sounds reasonable. Reasonable, even "sciency" people have both declared it and ignored it. The only real rule, it seems, is "Believe what you want." So my valuable lesson is that science changes all the time (because that's what it's designed to do -- adjust) and makes a lousy god to trust. And people intrinsically know this. They'll only urge "Trust the science" if it agrees with their hunches. (Feel free to carry that handy lesson over into other areas of life.) (Think, for instance, "racism" and "inclusion" and "tolerance" and such.)
Thursday, March 03, 2022
Exclusivity
The word of the day is "inclusivity." Companies have hired "inclusivity" departments to inculcate "inclusivity" into the business atmosphere. People get "inclusivity" training and organizations urge, nay, require "inclusivity" everywhere. Those who will not yield to "inclusivity" (and here is why I keep putting it in quotes) will be excluded. That's because they've opted to define "inclusivity" as "inclusive ... to the extent that we want and not beyond." Fine. Have at it. However, the issue becomes a problem for Christians. That's because Jesus said, "No one comes to the Father except through Me" (John 14:6). That's because the earliest teachings of Christianity included, "There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12). The clear teaching of the Bible is that salvation occurs only by faith in Christ and no one else gets saved. That is pretty exclusive.
Here's the problem. This kind of exclusivity flies in the face of modern sentiment. However, it is required by evident reason. If people can come to God by any means and not solely by Jesus, then Jesus lied. If there is salvation by any number of roads, then the Bible is wrong. And if the Savior lied, then He ceases to be the Savior and Christianity doesn't become more inclusive; it becomes a false religion. Inclusivity, then, excludes Christianity.
Here's the thing. If we go for "inclusivity" over biblical, then we have a problem. We say, "All religions are valid." But almost all religions claim that they alone are valid. Logically, then, those religions that claim to be exclusive cannot all be valid because they cannot be both all valid and the only valid religion. Given Jesus's words alone, let alone the rest of the texts that make Christianity exclusive, if other religions are valid, we can logically conclude one thing: Christianity is not a valid religion.
That leaves us with the uncomfortable choice. Is Christianity indeed exclusive in a world that demands inclusive? Yes, it is. So we have to ask ourselves, "So, who are you going to believe? Your feelings regarding inclusivity or God?"
Here's the problem. This kind of exclusivity flies in the face of modern sentiment. However, it is required by evident reason. If people can come to God by any means and not solely by Jesus, then Jesus lied. If there is salvation by any number of roads, then the Bible is wrong. And if the Savior lied, then He ceases to be the Savior and Christianity doesn't become more inclusive; it becomes a false religion. Inclusivity, then, excludes Christianity.
Here's the thing. If we go for "inclusivity" over biblical, then we have a problem. We say, "All religions are valid." But almost all religions claim that they alone are valid. Logically, then, those religions that claim to be exclusive cannot all be valid because they cannot be both all valid and the only valid religion. Given Jesus's words alone, let alone the rest of the texts that make Christianity exclusive, if other religions are valid, we can logically conclude one thing: Christianity is not a valid religion.
That leaves us with the uncomfortable choice. Is Christianity indeed exclusive in a world that demands inclusive? Yes, it is. So we have to ask ourselves, "So, who are you going to believe? Your feelings regarding inclusivity or God?"
Wednesday, March 02, 2022
Change
I recently wrote about what we really mean by "Jesus loves you just the way you are." It's not in the sense of "Don't ever change," but that His love is not conditioned on us. Why the distinction? Because we all need to change. We need to change from the sinful, God-hating, spiritually dead people we start out as. We all need to be "sanctified" -- we all need to be conformed to the image of Christ. Okay ... but how? Most sincere believers will spend their lives pursuing methods -- Bible reading, prayer, good deeds, going to church, and so on. It's what they call "means of grace." The truth is, "means" don't get you there any more than holding hammer and nails get the boards attached. They're good tools, but not all that are needed. I say that because the task at hand is not possible ... on our own. No amount of good tools, of "means of grace," will change a person into the image of Christ. We need more.
In 2 Corinthians Paul used Moses's veil as a metaphor for our veils that prevent us from seeing. Paul says the rules simply give a veil over the heart (2 Cor 3:15). Then he says,
We, as a race, like programs. We like structures. We like "hands on." So tell Christians "Read your Bible and pray and go to church and you'll be a good Christian" feels ... structured. And it seems feasible because, well, those things are good and do assist in our aim to be more like Christ. The bottom line, though, is that those means are not sufficient for the end we have in view. The end is "to be conformed to the image of His Son" (Rom 8:29) and "good Christian" is not good enough. What we need is the Spirit at work. What we need is the power of God. And what we need is to look fully in His face to transform us from one glory to another. That's where real change comes from.
In 2 Corinthians Paul used Moses's veil as a metaphor for our veils that prevent us from seeing. Paul says the rules simply give a veil over the heart (2 Cor 3:15). Then he says,
But when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit. (2 Cor 3:16-18)Do you see that? The process turns our eyes away from the rules, the Law, the standards, and turns us toward the Lord. When we turn to the Lord, that veil is removed. The Lord is the Spirit, we have the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. Notice what he says next. According to the text, as we behold the glory of the Lord, we are transformed.
We, as a race, like programs. We like structures. We like "hands on." So tell Christians "Read your Bible and pray and go to church and you'll be a good Christian" feels ... structured. And it seems feasible because, well, those things are good and do assist in our aim to be more like Christ. The bottom line, though, is that those means are not sufficient for the end we have in view. The end is "to be conformed to the image of His Son" (Rom 8:29) and "good Christian" is not good enough. What we need is the Spirit at work. What we need is the power of God. And what we need is to look fully in His face to transform us from one glory to another. That's where real change comes from.
Tuesday, March 01, 2022
The Secret of Contentment
Paul wrote, "I have learned to be content in whatever circumstances I am" (Php 4:11). Wow, imagine that! Imagine being content in whatever circumstances you find yourself. It's really hard sometimes to imagine because contentment is so hard to find and harder to maintain. What's the secret? When Paul wrote that, he listed his secret. "I can do all things through Him who strengthens me" (Php 4:13), an oft misunderstood text that is not saying, "God can make me a superman to do whatever I want" but a claim that contentment in all circumstances is acquired "through Him who strengthens me." Paul wasn't alone. Asaph had something to say about it. "Asaph?" Yes, Asaph was King David's go-to Levite for ministers before the ark of the LORD (1 Chr 16:3-7). Asaph wrote a dozen psalms (Psa 50 and 73-83) that are part of Scripture in our book of Psalms. In Psalm 73 Asaph offers some insights into the question of contentment.
Asaph begins by telling about a particular problem he had. Let's call it "covetousness." He really envied the wicked (Psa 73:2-15). I mean, look at them. They have all they want. They don't seem to pay for their evils. They mock and oppress and no one stops them. They seem to say, "God doesn't know a thing!" Asaph looks at them and concludes, "Surely in vain I have kept my heart pure And washed my hands in innocence" (Psa 73:13). He was on the verge of tossing his faith (Psa 73:2) right up until "I came into the sanctuary of God; Then I perceived their end" (Psa 73:17). Asaph turned from covetous to contented. It started when he realized that crime doesn't pay, so to speak -- when he saw that they don't get away with everything and it will end badly for the wicked -- but where he really turned was when he recognized that the Lord was always with him (Psa 73:23). That's when Asaph breaks free. "Whom have I in heaven but You? And besides You, I desire nothing on earth" (Psa 73:25). He began with "But as for me" by contrasting the blessings of God for pure in heart (Psa 73:1-2) with his doubts and ends with "But as for me" by contrasting the wicked and their consequences (Psa 73:26-27) with "the nearness of God" (Psa 73:28).
That's it. No "stuff." No life improvements. No "better off." Things didn't turn for him. Asaph realized the secret to contentment. It's not in sufficient things, people, or circumstances; it's in a sufficient God. It's not in more, but in the "enough" of God's presence. God, by Himself, is all that is needed. Besides Him, there is nothing more to be desired. When we are discontented, it is because we lack confidence in Him. When we lack confidence in Him we covet, believing that we deserve things He hasn't supplied. Let's call that "sin." With Him there is ultimate contentment. He is the secret to contentment.
Asaph begins by telling about a particular problem he had. Let's call it "covetousness." He really envied the wicked (Psa 73:2-15). I mean, look at them. They have all they want. They don't seem to pay for their evils. They mock and oppress and no one stops them. They seem to say, "God doesn't know a thing!" Asaph looks at them and concludes, "Surely in vain I have kept my heart pure And washed my hands in innocence" (Psa 73:13). He was on the verge of tossing his faith (Psa 73:2) right up until "I came into the sanctuary of God; Then I perceived their end" (Psa 73:17). Asaph turned from covetous to contented. It started when he realized that crime doesn't pay, so to speak -- when he saw that they don't get away with everything and it will end badly for the wicked -- but where he really turned was when he recognized that the Lord was always with him (Psa 73:23). That's when Asaph breaks free. "Whom have I in heaven but You? And besides You, I desire nothing on earth" (Psa 73:25). He began with "But as for me" by contrasting the blessings of God for pure in heart (Psa 73:1-2) with his doubts and ends with "But as for me" by contrasting the wicked and their consequences (Psa 73:26-27) with "the nearness of God" (Psa 73:28).
That's it. No "stuff." No life improvements. No "better off." Things didn't turn for him. Asaph realized the secret to contentment. It's not in sufficient things, people, or circumstances; it's in a sufficient God. It's not in more, but in the "enough" of God's presence. God, by Himself, is all that is needed. Besides Him, there is nothing more to be desired. When we are discontented, it is because we lack confidence in Him. When we lack confidence in Him we covet, believing that we deserve things He hasn't supplied. Let's call that "sin." With Him there is ultimate contentment. He is the secret to contentment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)