News Weakly - 4/30/2022

This is what we think of your "climate change"
China has spoken. "Oh, you want to save the planet? You want to make the world a better place? You want to stop 'global climate change'? Well here's what we say." They have decided to promote coal for power in an effort to revive their sluggish economy. Apparently, they are competing with the U.S. to be #1 in CO₂ emissions. Never be satisfied with being #2, eh?

Sidenote: It's interesting if you look at the question from some sources. (This one lays it squarely on the U.S. military.) Most say that the U.S. is currently #1, but it turns out they say so because of history, not current output. According to this story, "The total proportion of global carbon emissions coming from the US is less than half that of China." So it looks like China is #1. And it looks like there is anti-American bias in places. Could that be?

Logical Fallacy
Chris Pratt (Guardians of the Galaxy) is a self-professed Christian, so, as we all know, he's got to go. Marvel rewrote the character as bisexual and Pratt is "part of a church whose leading figures espoused homophobic views," so he's got to go. Apparently none of those outraged are familiar with the classic logical fallacy, "guilty by association." Cancel this man ... now.

Making it clear
When does life begin? We want to know. One side says, "At conception" and another says, "At birth." In an attempt to clarify, a few states are going all in on their abortion laws. California aims to legalize "perinatal" abortion which would mean that a mother could terminate her child's life up to a week after birth. Maryland is shooting for 4 weeks after birth. Colorado is looking at 28 days as well. When does life begin? When we say it does. And don't go thinking you're safe, either.

A Racist in Every Corner
Elon Musk purchased Twitter, ostensibly to make it a free speech platform instead of the "free speech" platform (where "free speech" is in scare quotes for a reason) it had become. But, of course, we know that's not the real reason. It's actually "about white power." And it's not just one guy's opinion.

Lies We Tell Ourselves
Pfizer has requested emergency authorization to give COVID booster shots to 5 to 11-year-olds and Moderna wants to vaccinate kids 5 and under. Because a total of 980 kids under the age of 18 have died in of COVID -- less than 0.099% of the total. Because children of that age constitute less than 6% of the total COVID cases in the U.S. Because the risk of myocarditis from the vaccine is far greater in children than in adults. Oh, no, of course not. Because Pfizer and Moderna can still make a ton of money off a dying pandemic by playing on parents' fears. (Even Dr. Fauci says the pandemic is over.)

Bleach
CNBC reported that the mass Twitter deactivations after Musk bought Twitter were "organic." I call it cleaning house. Kidding aside, the real fear is that Musk will actually allow free speech on the platform and America is very clearly over that "freedom of speech" stuff. Now, private companies are not prevented from regulating speech in their venues, but the apparent message here is "We -- not the government and not Twitter -- decide what is 'hate' or 'misinformation' and who gets to speak or not." Because "Hunter Biden's emails" is "misinformation" and "violent insurrection" is not. Musk may end Twitter, but that's only because America is no longer the land of the free. (Is it significant that it was largely the Left that departed from Twitter?)

Taylor'd Rights
Margorie Taylor Greene is a lightning rod of controversy. Now she has claimed that the Catholic Church is controlled by Satan. So, in an ironic twist, the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights called on Congress to sanction her for it. It's ironic because free speech and the practice of religion are both "civil rights" about which they are complaining. I don't have to agree with or even like Greene to see that the two -- "civil rights" and "sanction" -- are contradictory.

The Bee and Not the Bee
We have the underreported story that Musk's Twitter purchase failed after 138,000 board votes were found overnight. And it's too close to true that those who think men can get pregnant are afraid that Elon Musk will allow misinformation on Twitter. Then -- not the Bee -- I saw a post where someone asked for suggestions for naming their new male dog. Someone else asked, "Boy or girl?" Only in today's world would that be a legitimate question. Only in today's world can God be criticized for assigning gender at conception. And is it true that Democrats are continuing the tradition of wearing white masks to show their political affiliation? I did like the story of the Christian missionary who wears a mask to try to reach the unsaved Democrats.

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

Husbands, Love your Wives

In Ephesians Paul gets a lot of flak over his untimely command for wives to submit to their husbands as to the Lord (Eph 5:22-24). "No way!" "That's right out!" "Woman hater!" Of course, the language isn't ambiguous and the reasoning isn't unclear and the statement is pretty straightforward. Objections, then, are not because it doesn't mean what it says, but that people don't like what it says.

It's a little odd, then, that no one seems to be up in arms to Paul's command for husbands.

Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her, that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that He might present the church to Himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. (Eph 5:25-27)

I wonder if we're paying attention, because to me that appears to be a much more difficult command. "Husbands, love your wives." "Oh, that's easy." Maybe ... until you look at the standard that love has to meet. It's not to the level of loving pizza or to the level of loving your dog or to the level of loving your mother. It's "as Christ loved the church." Okay, how much is that? He "gave Himself up for her." Gave self up. Gave self up to sanctify and cleanse her. This kind of love is nothing about me and all about her. In the Philippian description,

Though He was in the form of God, [Christ] did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, He humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. (Php 2:6-8)

That is "gave Himself up." Even to death on the cross. For her.

Now, husbands (this is aimed solely at you husbands), what do you think? Do you measure up to the standard set by Christ in loving your wives? Or, let me put it this way. I'm thinking of man caves and sports, guy weekends and "me time," four-wheelin' and other testosterone fun -- all that stereotypical "man" stuff. If Christ loved you in the way that you love your wife, how safe, secure, and loved would you feel? How would your wife answer that?

Cheerful Givers

We're all most likely familiar with the phrase, "The Lord loves a cheerful giver." Unlike some of those kinds of sayings ("The Lord helps those who help themselves," "Cleanliness is next to godliness," etc.), this one is right out of Scripture (2 Cor 9:7). And some Christians see that as permission not to give. "Well, I'm not cheerful about giving, so God wouldn't be happy if I gave." What it actually says, however, is that God has a special kind of love for those who give cheerfully. That special love is not conferred on those who do not give nor on those who don't give cheerfully.

Now, if you're a believer, you might see this as a negative. "Wait," you say, "I want that special love. How do I get it?" Good question. Paul specifies that it is from the heart, without reluctance, and without compulsion (2 Cor 9:7). So giving as a duty might be a good thing, but it doesn't get you to that special love from God. What does? How can we become cheerful about giving ... even beyond your means (2 Cor 8:3)? We're not left to guess. The first thing we learn is that our giving is a product of God's grace (2 Cor 8:6-7). God's unmerited favor enables us to give cheerfully. So what prevents us from giving cheerfully? We don't see giving as a blessing; instead, we are greedy (2 Cor 9:5). Which is why God goes so far to enable us to give bountifully.

And God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that having all sufficiency in all things at all times, you may abound in every good work. (2Co 9:8)

Normally we're not supposed to ask, "What's in it for me?" In this case, Paul doesn't seem to mind pointing it out ... with superlatives. "I want to be a cheerful giver, but something is holding me back," you might say, and Paul says, "Oh, really? Do you see all that God gives so you may abound in good works?" God gives generously to make generous givers. Having told us, "Whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows bountifully will also reap bountifully" (2 Cor 9:6), he goes on to tell us "He who supplies seed to the sower and bread for food will supply and multiply your seed for sowing and increase the harvest of your righteousness" (2 Cor 9:10). Which will you be? A sparing sower or a bountiful sower? God gives generously so we can give generously. In fact, he says, "You will be enriched in every way to be generous in every way" (2 Cor 9:11). Notice the difference between this and the Prosperity teachings. The purpose of God's generosity is to make us generous, not greedy.

Greed is idolatry (Col 3:5). That should not be the mark of believers. But we might have other reasons to be less than cheerful givers. All of them, however, fall under the category of a lack of faith when we see 1) that God loves a cheerful giver, and 2) that God richly gives to us so that we can richly give to others. If you do not want God's love or you do not trust God to supply, then the problem is not merely being a cheerless giver. There is a deeper heart problem there that should be addressed.

Postscript. The text is about cheerful giving and, in context, clearly is about giving financially to the needs of the saints. Do you suppose it is limited to that? Do you think it might be that "cheerful givers" might include people who give their time, their energy, their talents, and more to meet the needs of others? Is it possible that these "cheerful givers" are giving to more than financial needs and giving more than money? If God is providing so we can be generous givers, wouldn't that easily overflow into other kinds of giving from God's supplying grace -- at home, at work, at church, in your neighborhood, just about anywhere?

First Cause

God told Israel that the day would come when, for His own sake, He would make a change.

I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put My Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in My statutes and be careful to obey My rules. (Eze 36:25-27)

The language isn't strange to us believers. The concept of being sprinkled clean from sin and the language of getting a new heart all make sense to us. And it's a good thing. All humans are born with a "heart of stone" and without a "heart of flesh" we are without hope.

The thing that struck me about this text was the unilateral nature of it. "I will" is the repeated phrase. "I will sprinkle clean water" and "I will cleanse you" and "I will remove your heart of stone" and I will put My Spirit in you." It says nothing about our participation. Does it strike anyone as odd? Look at that last sentence. It says He will "cause you to walk in My statutes." Now, wait a minute. Isn't that our job? Isn't that our free will? It turns out that we are required to "work out your salvation," (Php 2:12), but the way that works is "it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure" (Php 2:13). Did you see that? He makes us willing and able to pursue His good pleasure. It is God who makes us both willing and able to obey. Paul says that as we look into His face, we "are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory" (2 Cor 3:18). It is happening. He doesn't require your permission.

We all love that verse: "And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose" (Rom 8:28). Yes! Good news! But we stop too soon. What is that good that all things are working together for? We are being "conformed to the image of His Son" (Rom 8:29). And, of course, for believers -- Christ-followers -- that's a good thing. And it only makes sense that an outside force would have to accomplish that since we sinful humans have a hard time figuring out just what that looks like. So it is good "to those who love God" because that really is a wonderful thing. But it's not about us. It's not dependent on our efforts. Paul asked the Galatian Christians, "This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?" (Gal 3:2-3). I think that most of us, if we were honest, would have to answer to the affirmative. Yes, we expect to be perfected by cooperating with God. God says, "I will cause you to walk in My statutes." And then He rewards us for it. Such a deal!

Signed, Sealed, Delivered

In the Old Testament the people of Israel were God's chosen people. To be in that category -- "God's chosen people" -- you had to be born into it. If you were born a Jew, you were in that category. It didn't have anything to do with faith; it was blood, it was birth, it was lineage. The distinction, mind you, was not "saved," but "part of the covenant with God." Prior to the Abrahamic Covenant, people were certainly saved. But to be part of the covenant God had with the Jewish people, you had to become Jewish. That was by birth primarily. Abraham was the first. Paul makes a point of it when he points to Abraham as saved by faith (Rom 4:9-12). When was he saved by faith? "While uncircumcised" (Rom 4:10). He was then circumcised as "a seal of the righteousness of the faith" (Rom 4:11). Under that covenant, the sign of circumcision was the sign of being in the covenant, a condition you obtained by being born into it.

That was then; this is now. We now have a new covenant. Jesus said so at the Last Supper. "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me" (Luke 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25). We are not part of this new covenant by being physically born into it. This one is joined by faith. We are justified by faith (Rom 3:28). We are made righteous by faith (Rom 9:30). We are adopted by faith (Gal 4:5; Eph 1:5). We aren't physically born into it, but we are born into it -- born again (John 3:3; 1 Peter 1:3). And if circumcision was the seal of the first covenant, baptism is the seal of the new covenant (Col 2:11-12). Now, be careful here. When were the children of Israel marked by circumcision? After birth. So when are the children of the new covenant to be marked? After birth. Baptism is the sign that testifies that we have been born again and the seal of righteousness bestowed by faith.

The question of baptizing infants has lived on in the Church for millennia. "It's the same as circumcision," they've argued, "and circumcision was always based on lineage, not faith." This has led some to conclude that there is no connection between the two. I think that Scripture says otherwise. But I also see a fundamental difference between the two. The first covenant was with the people of Israel. The new covenant is with the people of faith. Thus, the sign of the covenant would be similar -- both mark those who are in the covenant -- but different, because entry into the two covenants is different. I take baptism as "an appeal to God for a good conscience" (1 Peter 3:21), something that an infant cannot do. But, just as God took the sign of circumcision seriously (e.g., Exo 4:24-25), I think baptism is serious ... as a sign of being born again, of being part of the new covenant. Circumcision didn't save anyone and neither, functionally, does baptism. Insofar as it accurately expresses faith, it demonstrates salvation for the recipient, and that is not a minor thing.

Holy Ambivalence

Ambivalence is an interesting word. The suffix, "valence," is rooted in the idea of "capacity." So "equivalence" suggests "equal capacity." The prefix is "ambi," meaning "both". So, while we generally view it as a synonym for "apathy," the actual impact of the word is quite the opposite. The word means most literally to be drawn in two directions. Ambivalence toward a particular idea, for instance, would mean that you were both drawn to and repelled from that idea in more or less equal measure, leaving you uncertain what to do. It is this concept that I find in Scripture.

I've been in First and Second Corinthians of late and repeatedly come across some rather harsh texts. In 1 Corinthians 5, for instance, a church member is living in sin with his father's wife (1 Cor 5:1). Paul tells them to "deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord" (1 Cor 5:5). Do you see the two directions? "Destruction of the flesh" is held in tension with "his spirit may be saved." Ambivalence. In that same chapter, Paul tells the Corinthian believers "not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler -- not even to eat with such a one" (1 Cor 5:11). Now, hang on a second. Aren't we supposed to love such a person? Aren't we supposed to "restore him in a spirit of gentleness" (Gal 6:1). Yes ... to both "not to associate" and to seek restoration. Ambivalence. We are supposed to be concerned about feeding the hungry and recognize that "If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat" (2 Thess 3:10). Ambivalence. Paul told the Corinthian believers that they were not to disassociate from the world (1 Cor 5:10) and, in the next breath, "go out from their midst, and be separate from them" (2 Cor 6:17). Ambivalence.

We are called to holy ambivalence. We are called to work out our salvation with fear and trembling and trust that it is God who is at work in us to will and to do His good work (Php 2:12-13). We are to be "wise as serpents and innocent as doves" (Matt 10:16). We are to long to die and be with Christ and long to live to serve Christ (Php 1:21-24). We are to be drawn toward sinners in need of Christ and drawn toward becoming more holy. Holy ambivalence.

My Gospel

More than once Paul referred to the gospel as "my gospel" (Rom 2:16; Rom 16:25; 2 Tim 2:8). Of course he did. It was the gospel he "carried around" to give to whatever unbelievers he encountered. Because, as we all know, the gospel is for unbelievers. Of course, that's absolutely true, but what we often fail to grasp is that it is also for believers.

In Romans 7 Paul writes about himself.

For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin. For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate. But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that the Law is good. So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. (Rom 7:14-17)

That's a little sobering to read Paul, the author of 2/3rds of the New Testament and the Apostle to the Gentiles, complaining about his sin problem. Paul, at the time of this writing, was obviously a believer. Why was he so upset about his sin? Wan't he forgiven? Yes, he was. But Paul, just like you and me, still sinned. Paul was declared justified (Rom 3:28) and given the righteousness of Christ (2 Cor 5:21). He was, positionally, perfect. Just not practically. And that's our story, too. Believers "joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man" (Rom 7:22) but find ourselves practicing the things we hate. In short, the gospel is for unbelievers, indeed, but it is also for believers. It is for sinners, believing or unbelieving. We cry, "Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death?" (Rom 7:24) and hear the gospel answer back, "Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus" (Rom 8:1). Good news indeed!

The gospel is for sinners. We are sinners. Some people think that Christians view themselves as "holier than thou." Some Christians may, but they do so to their own detriment. The gospel reveals the righteousness of God (Rom 1:17) and we always need that. The gospel tells us of God's grace and mercy, God's love and forgiveness, and we always need that. The gospel tells us there is a sin problem and a sin remedy and it allows us to face our sin confident that He forgives repentant sinners. That's my gospel, too.

News Weakly - 4/23/22

Smugglers
Florida opted to reject 54 mathematics textbooks from next year's school curriculum because they failed to comply with standards. One standard was that they included critical race theory. Now, I don't much care what you think of CRT, but I'm trying to figure out what CRT has to do with math and why that topic was smuggled into math books, especially for elementary school students. Please note. Educators have an obligation to provide information that is relevant and appropriate to the age group they're teaching. That is not "censorship" or "book banning." Stop saying it is. If you do, include the Left's attempts to "ban books" like To Kill a Mockingbird, Jane Eyre, and the works of Shakespeare.

Unclear on the Concept
New York City Mayor Adams is demanding that social media companies do more to remove violent rhetoric after the man arrested for the Brooklyn subway shooting was discovered to have posted a serious of racist rants online. I'm confused. Haven't we determined that only white people can be racist? Wouldn't a black mayor know that? Doesn't he know that the black man that posted the "racist videos" is black? Shouldn't we be considering those rants as "seeking justice" rather than "racist"? I just can't keep up anymore.

Christian Dysphoria
The biblical teaching on sexual orientation (heterosexual is "nature" and everything else is ... sin) and gender identity (you're born either male or female) isn't vague, unclear, or hard to find. With that in mind, it was painful to come across this. Wheaton College, a traditionally Christian college, has a "Sexual and Gender Identity Institute." What for? A current research project called the "Christian Gender Identity Project," for instance. Come on, guys. It's not that hard. You were born male? You think you're a female? Repent. It is a variety of things, but one thing it is not is "Christian." Understand, too, that this is a surface problem coming from a deeper heart problem at Wheaton. And other "Christian" colleges. "The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you" (Rom 2:24).

Child Abuse
White House press secretary Jen Psaki broke down in tears on a podcast while discussing the "cruelty" of Florida in blocking educators from grooming kindergarten through third grade students with LGBTQ+ education. It makes her sad that parents would have rights and it makes her sad that she can't mold the most malleable minds to the current craziness.

Unclear on the Concept II
Two female New Jersey women's prison inmates became pregnant after having consensual sex with a fellow inmate ... who was "transgender" ... in a women's prison ... because New Jersey has failed to realize that women cannot impregnate women, but men can. In nature, in science, in all of history in all the world, a man that believes himself to be a woman is still physically different than a woman. New Jersey, an example of where biology and culture collide.

Whose Truth?
The story is that Barack Obama visited Stanford for a panel by the Cyber Policy Center where he blasted big tech for promulgating disinformation. Now, I'm not thinking here about Obama; I'm considering the concept. He's complaining about things that many from all sides complain about. He wants big tech to limit free speech to insure that we only get the truth, not opinion or fiction. Whose truth? We've seen too many "conspiracy theories" over the last few years dismissed as ridiculous and then proven true. Who gets to decide who gets to be heard? Who gets to decide what "fact" is? I'm dubious.

Thanks, Joe
In an effort to make housing affordable for all Americans, we've arrived at the highest mortgage rates in 12 years. Thanks, President Biden.

Unclear on the Concept III
A judge blocked Kentucky's new abortion law that would almost completely prevent the murder of all unborn babies while protesters held signs calling for them to "protect safe, legal abortion." By "safe" I assume they mean that only one sure death occurs instead of the, likely, none in the case of no abortion?

Satire
Mask mandates for public transportation were terminated by a federal judge in Florida. Conservatives are assuring liberals that we're only going to stop wearing masks for 2 weeks to slow the spread of tyranny. Airline passengers are pleased. Now they no longer have to pretend to eat for 5 straight hours. A conscientious Christian couple are waiting until marriage to remove each other's masks. And this week we remembered April 19, 1993, when a mostly peaceful siege by law enforcement resulted in the deaths of 76 residents of the Waco Branch Davidians.

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

Reality, What a Concept

The dictionary has trouble with the word. "Reality," they tell me, is "the quality or state of being real." What is "reality"? Well, there is a problem with humans. We get confused. We tell lies. We believe lies. We are mistaken. We are wrong. We are misled. All of this is indicated in the term, "reality." That is, there are our perceptions, and then there is reality -- what is real, actual, true. Reality, then, is that which corresponds to what is actual as opposed to our own perceptions, imaginations, or ideas.

This can be a puzzling concept. Surely what we see, hear, feel, and think are real. Surely we know what's true. The Bible disagrees. God's Word says, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?" (Jer 17:9). God's Word says, "The god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God" (2 Cor 4:4). God's Word says, "Whoever hates his brother is in the darkness and walks in the darkness, and does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes" (1 John 2:11). And so on. Scripture says that sin rots the brain (Rom 1:28), so it makes sense that we would be mistaken on occasion about what is real.

That's why it is absolutely vital that we measure reality by a standard rather than by our perceptions. We like to use things like opinions, science, experience, and the like as if these cannot be in error and then apply it as the standard by which we determine reality. I would argue that we should apply a standard of which we are not the source as the means of determining reality. That's why I try, whenever I can, to apply Scripture as my measure. Sometimes it shows that I understood what was real. Sometimes it tells me my perceptions were faulty. Sometimes those perceptions have been completely off. So when God's Word tells me, clearly and repeatedly, that something is true and real, I am willing to let go of ideas and values I have that contradict it in favor of embracing reality. Rather than letting my perceptions of what's real determine what is true, I'll prefer to let God do it.

The Doctor is In

Genesis, they tell me, is a myth. A metaphor. It's an allegory. It is something, but what it is not is literally true. God did not create the world in 6 days. There was no literal Adam or Eve. There was no Fall. There was certainly no Flood. Just word pictures ... at best. Why? Well, because none of that stuff makes any sense. There is no current data that supports it. (Mind you, that's not necessarily so. But we won't go there right now.) You folks who buy into that "six-day creation" and "Noah's flood" kind of stuff do so because of faith, not facts.

The Bible, they tell me, has nothing to say about binary gender (Gen 1:27) or same-sex marriage (Gen 2:24; Matt 19:5) or any such thing. No, no, they're quite certain that a guy can believe he's a girl and it's perfectly valid. They can't be bothered with science. They pay no heed to Scripture. They ignore the complete lack of supporting data. They have worked long and hard to find the "gay gene" and studied diligently to show the genetic cause of transgenderism and they are not bothered in the least that ... it's not there. Because they have faith, not facts on their side.

If a person believes they are Napoleon, we're pretty sure we're looking at a DSM-5 (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) case. If a person tells you their arm is not their arm, but is alien, and they want it removed, we're mostly confident that we have a DSM-5 situation (BIID). If a person tells you they identify as the gender opposite of their biology, genes, and chromosomes, we hail them as brave and assure them we will fight for their "gender affirming" surgeries and treatments. The sick people in this situation are those who stand on God's Word. Which is no surprise.

And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. (Rom 1:28)

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it? (Jer 17:9)

There is treatment available (2 Cor 5:17).

God Loves

We know that God is love (1 John 4:8). We know that God loves, not conditioning that love on the merit of the loved ones. All remarkable stuff. We get it and we embrace it. So it can be somewhat jarring to read, "God loves a cheerful giver" (2 Cor 9:7). "Hey, wait a minute. That sounds conditional. That sounds like it is predicated on what we do." Apparently God loves unconditionally, but has a special love for cheerful givers. Interesting. How do I get that?

The text makes "cheerful" clear. It is when the giving is from the heart, without reluctance, and without compulsion (2 Cor 9:7). It is also generous -- "bountifully" (2 Cor 9:6). God appears to have a special love for those of His followers who, from a full heart give gladly and without reservation to God's work.

So how is that possible? I mean, we all have to live, don't we? How can we give gladly and without reservation? The verse that follows the two above is full of superlatives.

God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that having all sufficiency in all things at all times, you may abound in every good work. (2 Cor 9:8)

How can we give gladly and without reservation? God. God is able. God's grace is sufficient and abundant. God provides "sufficiency." Isn't that a marvelous concept? God provides what is literally "contentment" -- enough. In all cases and at all times. Why? Why does He do that? So you may abound in every good work. God enriches us so that we can be generous (2 Cor 9:11).

Giving is a sore spot for many American Christians. We have plans. We have desires. We have bills. And you want us to give? Perhaps the Bible does not command New Testament believers to tithe, but this text says that God has a special love set aside for His people who, out of a cheerful heart, give generously. It seems to me that if God plans to "make all grace abound to you" for the purpose of enabling you in "every good work" -- if God gives generously to make generous givers -- then it would show either a serious lack of faith or a serious problem of idolatry that is preventing us from giving cheerfully. And that's not trivial.

With a View to Death

We've just celebrated the Resurrection, with so many ramifications on life. What about death? How would that change our perspective on death?

We rightly live our lives clinging to hope. The truth is that unpleasant things happen all the time. The truth is that the death rate of human beings is currently nearly 100%. (Only two exceptions in the history of the world.) The truth is that life can be hard. So we cling to hope. Some find it in meaning; some in meaninglessness. Some find it in pleasure -- physical, mental, emotional, social, all sorts -- and others in salvation. But we all desperately want hope.

That being the case, death is something we almost universally avoid. No, I don't mean we avoid dying; I mean the subject. I mean the contemplation of death. I mean the viewing of death. It takes a sick mind for an otherwise normal human being to take pleasure in death. Or so we would think.

Paul saw three options in life. Of the three, his first choice, if he was given it, would be not to die, but to be alive when Christ returned. That last trump, that twinkling of an eye (1 Cor 15:52), that meeting in the air (1 Thess 4:17) ... that was Paul's first choice. Of course, that may not happen. His other two options were to live or to die. Oddly, to many of us, first choice of the two was ... to die. Paul believed that "while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord" (2 Cor 5:6), so his preference was "to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord" (2 Cor 5:8). He believed that dying was gain (Php 1:21). Thus, his last preference was to live. And he wasn't opposed to it. "To me," he said, "to live is Christ" (Php 1:21). He believed that he would continue to live as long as it was "more necessary for your sake" (Php 1:24). So, as long as he lived, his ambition was "to be pleasing to Him" (2 Cor 5:9).

My wife and I have attended too many funerals in the past few years. All have been believers; all have been celebrations. But they are somber events because we've lost loved ones. Death is one of the worst fears of human beings. Believers, on the other hand, can have great hope in death. I would argue that, while the process of dying may be rightly terrifying, death itself should not be to those who know Christ. In fact, I would recommend going to funerals of those you have had contact with as often as possible. I think the view of life as short is beneficial to humans with mixed feelings about life and death. It makes us appreciate the people and time we have more if we know it's short. It encourages us to bne more diligent with our obedience and our love. It prevents us from getting too tied down in this world's perspectives and temporal perceptions. It reminds us of death and that the life that follows might improve our hope and our viewpoint on life. I think that gaining a longer view than just the few short years we live on this Earth would be to our benefit. That's my suspicion.

Of First Importance

We just celebrated Easter. No, not Easter; the Resurrection. "Easter" is has its origins in "Astarte," a Chaldean goddess (originally associated with the Amorites) of, among other things, sexuality. So, no, not Easter; the Resurrection of Jesus. So what? We have bunnies and eggs and candy and Spring and all that. So what about the Resurrection? Well, as it turns out, all of Christianity hinges on this point. Paul said, "If Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins" (1 Cor 15:17). So it's not trivial.

In Athens Paul spoke to the philosophers of the day and offered a helpful hint regarding an altar to "the unknown God." He told them,

"Having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead." (Acts 17:30-31)

Do you understand what Paul was telling them? "God will judge the world." Well, now, that's bad news. "God will judge the world in righteousness." Oh, that's even worse because we don't measure up to righteousness. "God will judge the world through a Man whom He has appointed." Paul is talking about Christ, of course. And what does Paul offer as proof of God's coming, certain, righteous judgment? His resurrection from the dead. Christ's resurrection is proof of God's judgment to come.

We're looking, then, at certain judgment from God that we cannot afford to face. This is why, in 1 Corinthians 15, Paul writes,

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. (1 Cor 15:3-5)

"Of first importance." This message "of first importance" has three basic components. 1) Christ died for our sins. 2) Christ was buried. 3) Christ rose again. Paul includes some proofs. He died "according to the Scriptures." He was raised "according to the Scriptures." And, he offered additional proof for the astounding claim of a resurrection. In 1 Corinthians 15:5-8, Paul lists witnesses. Eyewitnesses. Over 500 of them. "Most of them remain until now," he said, implying, "Go ahead and ask them." This wasn't symbolic. It wasn't mythical. It wasn't allegory. Eyewitnessed and attested to.

Some people will tell you Jesus did not die for our sins. He died to be victorious over death so we could be, too. He died as a moral example, obedient to God, so we would be obedient, too. He died to show His love. He died because of the Pharisees and the government and it was simple murder, nothing more. While some of those are valid reasons, perhaps, if they exclude the fact that He died for our sins, they miss the point. Of first importance is that He died for our sins. Miss that, and you miss the message. Of first importance is the burial because to miss that He died -- actually, physically died -- is to miss the point. And of first importance He rose again. Rising again demonstrated that there was life after death. Rising again proved that God accepted His death on our behalf. Rising again demonstrated that we could live again. Jesus took on Himself the punishment we had earned and rose again to demonstrate the success of the mission. Scripture repeatedly uses this Resurrection as a reference for the power God makes available in our lives (e.g, Acts 13:34; Rom 4:24; Rom 6:9; Rom 8:11; 1 Cor 15:20; Col 2:12; 1 Thess 1:10; 1 Peter 1:21). It is of first importance.

Paul calls this "of first importance." Christ died for our sins. Without that, nothing follows but judgment. Christ was buried. If He didn't actually, physically die, the whole thing was meaningless. Christ rose from the dead. His resurrection affirms His promises, His propitiation, and His presence. The power that raised Him from the dead is at work in those who trust Him. If He did not rise from the dead, our faith is meaningless. Of first importance. You will certainly encounter people -- even people who call themselves Christians -- who will assure you all this is false. You can be assured they're wrong. You can be confident that He did die for your sins, was actually buried, and physically rose again from the dead in victory that we get to share. Don't miss the importance of it all.

The Importance of the Resurrection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

News Weakly - 4/16/22

No Choice
Vernon Jones is a black Republican candidate for Congress, and he's just crossed the line. He said that being gay is not the same as being black. He said, "They can actually change." What nonsense! I mean, well, sure, they actually do change from time to time. And, sure, science hasn't yet demonstrated that they're born that way. And, of course, we will certainly set aside the fact that they -- as does everyone -- choose what behavior they engage regardless of prediliction. But, come on, Mr. Jones. Don't go saying things like that. Facts have no bearing in this arena. Being a black Republican is disturbing enough to the status quo, man.

The Anti-Life Party
Last week Colorado made it state law that women will always be allowed to kill their babies if they wanted to, even if Roe v Wade is overturned some day. This week Maryland lawmakers overrode a veto of their measure to expand abortion access, because in Maryland it is important to make baby-killing easily accessible and affordable -- insurance plans will be required to cover baby-killing. It should be noted that the "evil" Republican governor tried to limit access to abortion but the "brave" Democrat-controlled Assembly would have none of that. If "pro-life" is a primary plank of the GOP, "let mom kill 'em" is the Democrat version. And apparently Yelp wants to facilitate it.

Can I Get a Number?
Kentucky's governor etoed a pro-life law from the legislature that would have blocked abortions after 15 weeks. The legislature voted to override the governor. In Florida Governor DeSantis signed a similar bill into law. All news outlets I could find call these "abortion bans." I can barely call them "pro-life laws" since in these cases life apparently begins at 15 weeks. So, from the "pro-life" side that says "Life begins at 15 weeks" and from the pro-abortion side that says, "Preventing abortions after 15 weeks is a violation of rights!", I want a number. Life does not begin at conception (even though science and logic dictate otherwise). So when? To the former, is it 15 weeks? 6 weeks? To the latter, is it 24 weeks? 36 weeks? To both, what is the event at which this transitions from "sack of goo" to "human being"? Because with very rare exception they disagree in detail but agree in principle that "human being" starts at some arbitrary point and I don't know what that point is.

Postscript
Just an afterthought. Much of this weeks news (here) is about baby-killing. I think it's ironic given the fact that this Sunday we celebrate the Resurrection. Easter is a celebration of life and we're largely a culture of death.

Bee Affirming
First, not from the Bee, schools across the country are creating "transition closets." "The goal of the transition closet is for our students to wear the clothes that their parents approve of, come to school and then swap out into the clothes that fit who they truly are." The concept is available at Good Shepherd Lutheran Church in Arkansas, too. (No joke.) Then, from the Bee, a sixth grader, denied a tattoo, opts instead for gender reassignment surgery. In a related story, the father of a 5-year-old pterodactyl is finding it difficult to get species-affirming care in America. On the plus side, doctors are no prescribing Krispy Kremes for kids for fat-affirming care.

Finally, I had to give you this one from Genesius Times. According to science, normal CIS gender men are actually transmen trapped in transwomen bodies. Makes perfect sense ... by today's standards. (I told you sin rots the brain.)

He who testifies to these things says, "Surely I am coming soon." Amen. Come, Lord Jesus! (Rev 22:20)

Honor the Sabbath? Who, me?

In Exodus 20, God gave Israel the "10 words" (Deut 10:4), what we call the 10 Commandments. One of those ten is the remembrance of the Sabbath. "Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God" (Exo 20:9-10). The Jews maintain that still, as do a few Christian sects, but most of Christendom observes Sunday as the Lord's Day -- the "Christian Sabbath." But ... does that work? Does that make sense?

Modern Christians look at 1 Timothy 2:12 and set it aside. Paul writes, "I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet" (1 Tim 2:12). We who accept the Bible as God's Word and try to figure out how we should think and live based on what it says tend to agree with Paul. Those who take their first perspectives from the perceptions of the world around us don't. "It's wrong." Some say it's wrong because it never should have been in there. Some say it was okay for Paul's day but things have changed. But Paul tells why he said it. "For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression" (1 Tim 2:13-14). It is not based on culture or education or error; it is based on Creation. So we (I already told you what "we" I'm referring to) take it as it appears to be written. Similarly, the Sabbath command receives a similar response from some. "It is in error." Not necessarily because it shouldn't be there or it was a myth. No, it was for the Jews only and we don't have to do that. Times have changed, for whatever reason. But, like Paul, God gives the reason for His Sabbath command. "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy" (Exo 20:11). Like Paul's command for women, this one is also sourced in Creation. God blessed the Sabbath because it reflected His creative work and He rested.

There are two fundamental principles in the honoring of the Sabbath. First, the word itself means "intermission" or "rest." A primary concern to God was that we need rest. God knew that we could easily go the wrong way on work ... in either direction. So we should work (2 Thess 3:10) on one hand, but we need rest. Thus, the two should be part of our weekly schedule. Second, the "rest" in view here has double duty. On one hand it provides simple rest from work. On the other hand it provides the rest that God provides. Hebrews 3-4 talks about those who "would not enter His rest" (Psa 95:11; Heb 3:11, 18; Heb 4:3, 5). This rest is the rest of faith, the rest of obedience, the rest of a healthy relationship with God. It starts by honoring God weekly in physical and spiritual rest.

There are those today who argue that there is no requirement for Sabbath rest for Christians because that was given to the Jews. Interestingly, they do so by pulling the command out of 9 other commands that they do still see as valid for Christians. Like those who argue that "Genesis 1 through 11 is myth but after that it's historical narrative," it seems to me that this is a non sequitur. If the other 9 are "moral commands," what makes this one, single command in a list of moral commands different? If God roots the command in His Creation and His character, how is that not applicable to all who wish to know and serve Him? Thus, most of Christendom has surrendered the sixth day as Sabbath and exchanged it for the first day in honor of our Lord's resurrection, but they haven't surrendered the Sabbath entirely. In fact, this idea that the Sabbath has no bearing on Christians is actually quite new, as demonstrated by the "Blue Laws" that governed societal behavior in my own lifetime in America. Feminists have influenced Christians away from Scripture because they don't like Paul's command about women. Secularists have influenced Christians away from Scripture because they don't like God's command to honor Him by resting and honoring Him one day a week. I don't believe that most of those who have bought this thinking have done so for nefarious reasons, but I do believe they've been lied to and they ought to reconsider. I know I have.

No Good

In Psalm 16 David writes, "Preserve me, O God, for in You I take refuge. I say to the LORD, "You are my Lord; I have no good apart from You" (Psa 16:1-2). So, follow what he's saying. He is counting on God to preserve him. Not his very good friends (Psa 16:3). Not his good circumstances (Psa 16:6). God. In Him he takes refuge. Why? Why does he count solely on God to preserve him? Why is God his refuge? "You are my Lord," he says as the first explanation. Now "Lord" is different than "LORD" in this text. "LORD" refers to YHWH while "Lord" in the Hebrew is adonai, as in "master." Because God is over David, he takes refuge in God. But the second reason he gives is more telling. "I have no good apart from You." The only good in David's existence was God. He goes on to talk about the excellent "saints in the land" (Psa 16:3) and "lines have fallen for me in pleasant places" (Psa 16:6) and "my flesh dwells secure" (Psa 16:9). David is living well. But, he says, "I have no good apart from You." He says, "In Your presence there is fullness of joy; at Your right hand are pleasures forevermore" (Psa 16:11). Not elsewhere. Not in people or places or things. Not in circumstances or wealth or fame or power. "I have no good apart from You."

It only gets more telling when you think about Psalm 14 where David writes, "There is none who does good, not even one" (Psa 14:3). Really, David? Not one. No good at all? That's what David says. And if you look at that through the lens of Psalm 16, you see why. "I have no good apart from You." The only good that exists is God. In fact, that's what Jesus said, wasn't it? "Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone" (Luke 18:19). But we're pretty sure that David was wrong, and, in taking that position, we're pretty sure that Jesus was, too. And if that doesn't give us pause, we are simply proving that natural man has no good.

How about you? Where do you find your good? You see, this is the secret. This is the solution. We who follow Christ don't want to sin and, yet, we find ourselves doing it. Why? Because we don't actually believe "I have no good apart from You." If we did, pursuing all those sinful pleasures would lose its allure since they have no good. But we still delude ourselves into thinking we have some good apart from Him. Oh, God, may our hearts be turned always and only to You, to see You as the only possible good and the best possible good. In this, like David, we, too, will find refuge.

Bloody God

In the Old Testament, the priests were making sacrifices daily, with extra sacrifices on the Sabbath and other holy days. Individual Jews brought sacrifices for sin and as a part of taxation. There was so much blood in the Temple that moderns are asking, "What happened to all that blood?" In the Old Testament, blood played a very big part of atonement for sin. In the New Testament, the amount of blood changed, but not the importance. At the last supper, Jesus told His disciples, "This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins" (Matt 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20). In Acts, Paul told the Ephesian elders that the church of God was "purchased with His own blood" (Acts 20:28). In Romans we learn that God displayed His Son publicly "as a propitiation in His blood through faith" (Rom 3:24-25). On the basis of being "justified by His blood" we are saved from the wrath of God (Rom 5:9). In Christ, He told the church at Ephesus, "we have redemption through His blood" (Eph 1:7), that we are "brought near by the blood of Christ" (Eph 2:13). God in Christ is reconciling all things to Himself, "having made peace through the blood of His cross" (Col 1:20). The author of Hebrews says, "According to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness" (Heb 9:22) even though "it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins" (Heb 10:4). Our entry into heaven is predicated on "the blood of Jesus" (Heb 10:19). We are not redeemed with perishable things, Peter says, "but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ" (1 Peter 1:18-19). In Revelation Jesus is described the one "who loves us and released us from our sins by His blood" (Rev 1:5). I detect a long-running theme.

There are those who complain that God is a bloody God. There are those who complain that it's too gruesome, too "dark ages," too arcane. There are some that complain, "I don't get it" and dismiss it out of hand. But given the repetition and the sources (like Jesus Himself) and the gravity given blood for the remission of sins, I would argue that God in His Word is quite serious about us being saved by the blood of Christ. I would argue that mythologizing or "adjusting" what the Word says about the topic so it's not so bloody will fail to approach the topic from God's perspective. I would argue that if we want to take God seriously, we will want to take seriously what He takes seriously, and this topic of the shed blood of Christ is not merely serious; it's critical. You cannot have a high view of Scripture and a low view of Christ's shed blood in any rational view.

Genesis as Myth, the Sequel

After having written that "Genesis as Myth" piece earlier this week, I came across a new concept that impacts the topic. In that piece I said that the primary reason we're being asked to view Genesis as myth is to conform to modern science. I still think that's true, but it occurs to me there are a few more, fairly recent reasons that might be gaining ground.

If you recall, the first-and-foremost objection to Genesis is the Creation story -- Genesis 1-2. Genesis begins with "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" (Gen 1:1). Objection #1. This requires that God be regarded as Creator and, therefore, Owner and Operator. That's right out. As a rebellious race of beings, we accept "I will make myself like the Most High" (Isa 14:14) much more easily than to bow the knee to God. But I think Objection #2 comes out in verse 27.

So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. (Gen 1:27)

Maybe the import of such a statement eludes you, so consider. The text first agrees with that offensive "God created" line. Then it goes further. It declares that humans are made in the image of God. At first glance, that's okay, right? Right. Until you realize that this gives humans a special status and killing them, even in their earliest stages, would be wrong. This text opposes the so-called "woman's right to choose." But it's not done.

Objection #3: In the process of explaining part of the nature of "in His own image" it says "Male and female He created them." It is in the context of "in His image." And it is -- oh, the horrors -- gender binary. To suggest that there is something besides "male" and "female" is to violate God's image. And that will never do.

Then it takes it one step beyond -- Objection #4. In the next verse God issues His first command: "Be fruitful and multiply" (Gen 1:28). That is, male and female are uniquely designed and equipped to carry out this specific command from God to procreate. Males cannot procreate with males and females cannot procreate with females. "Be fruitful and multiply" can only happen in an actual gender binary world. But beyond that, this would make sex between same-sex couples not "natural" like it says in Romans (Rom 1:26-27). Not acceptable in the least.

As if that's not enough, the second chapter of Genesis ends with just one more offensive statement -- Objection #5, if you will. It is at the end of chapter 2, then repeated by Jesus, and later repeated by Paul.

Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. (Gen 2:24)

You see what this means, don't you? This verse defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman. It makes the term "same-sex marriage" an oxymoron, a logical impossibility. You can call that "same-sex" stuff a variety of things, but "marriage" isn't applicable ... given Genesis 2.

We can be fairly naive. We might just say, "Well, God said it so I believe it." And we might miss these objections. Genesis 1-2 must be myth. Why? Because it makes God out to be Lord and Master, the owner and creator of all. Because it suggests humans are in the image of God, removing abortion as a viable, moral contraceptive. Because it defies modern thinking that "my gender is whatever I believe it to be." Because it defines sex between same-sex people as unnatural. Because it denies "same-sex marriage" as an actual thing. Five major objections in the first 2 chapters. Clearly it must by myth. Otherwise, we have a lot of changing to do.

Syncretism

I was born in the late '50's and grew up in the '60's in a Christian home. I had some sheltering from the storm around that was "the '60's," but I did see the shifting landscape. While my Christian school teachers warned against the evils of "sex and drugs and rock and roll" and my church youth group leaders warned against going to see films like "The Exorcist," we watched the sexual landscape shift from '50's wholesome to '60's "free love." But here was the most disturbing observation. Barely had the '70's begun when the church began to embrace the culture. Oh, not officially. Not on the face of it. They still warned against sexual sin and looked down their noses at "shacking up" where people lived together with the benefits of marriage and none of the commitments, but in among the church people it wasn't necessarily so. In the mid'70's in my last semester of high school my Christian girlfriend told me on one date, "I wouldn't mind going all the way with you." Now, in the early '60's this never would have happened. Christians sinned, of course, but it wasn't considered a good thing and it wasn't considered right and we didn't talk about it. But she was right there, having learned at the feet of the '60's that sex didn't require marriage, and she was offering it to me. Because the church was embracing the culture. Welcome to the "new normal."

We live in transitioning times (double meaning). As recently as 2008 California voted to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. As recently as 2013 transgenderism was considered a disorder. Gay relationships were tolerated (back when "tolerance" meant "tolerance"), but not embraced and celebrated. Today society at large does not merely tolerate these. They "tolerate" them with the new tolerance that says, "You will allow it and you will approve it and you will like it ... and you'll let us push it on your kids." Like the "free love" culture of the Sexual Revolution of the '60's, a small group of people have pushed a radically new view of sex onto a society at large and prevailed, and now to even consider disagreeing is called "hate."

From a Christian perspective, in a world dominated by the god of this world (2 Cor 4:4), the prince of the power of the air (Eph 2:1-3), this isn't a surprise. In a world where the mind is set on the flesh as a matter of course, hostility toward God is a given (Rom 8:7). It's to be expected. The disturbing part is that, once again, the church is moving to embrace what God condemns. Divorce is on the rise among Christians. Marriage is harder to define for Christians. Pornography has become more acceptable among Christians. Sexual sin of all stripes is becoming normalized among Christians. As in so many other cases time after time, people in the church draw their values and perceptions from a culture intent on opposing God rather than the instructions God gave us, even coming to consider those instructions as wrong and evil (Isa 5:20-21). We lose our anchor that God's Word provides and begin to think that the unnatural is natural (Rom 1:26-27) and that calling it out is not love (Heb 12:6-8) and wrong is right. Suddenly John's warning about those who "went out from us" (1 John 2:19) takes on new impact. Suddenly it becomes abundantly clear why the Jews in Isaiah 52:11 and Christians in 2 Corinthians 6:17 are called to "go out from their midst, and be separate from them." And some in the church will object ... to a command from God.
_________
In case you were wondering, syncretism is the union of different or opposing principles or practices, particularly in religion. Like merging Voodoo with Catholicism to produce Santeria. Like replacing "Thou shalt nots" in Scripture with "Thou shalt" as desired, such as replacing "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God?" (1 Cor 6:9-10) with "It's hate to suggest such a thing."

Genesis as Myth

Genesis, they tell me, is a myth. Oh, now, let's be careful. First, "they" -- "they" who? Well, of course, unbelievers have no problem telling me that Genesis is myth because they believe the whole Bible to be myth. Perhaps some moral allegory to teach some notions of right and wrong, but certainly not truth. That's one "they." The next would be those whom the Bible refers to as "so-called brothers" -- self-identified Christians who assure me they have a high view of Scripture ... just not Genesis. No, that's not true, either. They say it is the high view of Genesis to understand it as myth "as it was intended." And, to be accurate, generally this particular "they" limits that claim to Genesis 1-11. Certainly Genesis 1-2. Surely all that stuff about "speaking it into existence" is nonsense and, look, who in this day and age still believes that Creation could have occurred in 6 days? But that global flood thing has to go, too. And all the stuff in between, like Methuselah, the 960-year-old man. Look around you! Never happened.

But, I have to ask. Why is Genesis myth? Specifically, why are the Creation story and the Flood mythical? It's very simple; it violates modern science. If Darwin was right, Genesis was wrong. If Genesis was right, Darwin was wrong. In both cases, the Creation and the Flood paint a different pictures of our origins than modern science accepts. And if we want to be reasonable and rational and acceptable, we'll have to mythologize that silly Genesis stuff. Of course, it can't end there. All of the miraculous events of the Bible run contrary to science. Some, with their extreme dedication to science, therefore, will simply eliminate the miraculous portions of Scripture by assigning it to myth or fantasy or fable. Others appear to have no problem defending science for their Creation story but allowing Scripture to have things like the Resurrection. The cognitive dissonance is loud in this case. Personally, I have no problem questioning science. When anything -- person, science, whatever -- sets out to deny God -- the fundamental aim of the theory of Evolution -- I question their agenda. I question their conclusions. I even question their "facts." Anyone who tells me "I know better than God" is suspect to me. Mind you, not everyone who mythologizes Genesis is saying this; some have just been lied to. But the aim and the ongoing struggle has been to arrive at "We don't need God to explain our universe." And, claiming to be wise, they become fools. As a matter of fact, science suggests that this Evolution story might be suspect. But, hey, as in so many other areas, I can't voice that out loud. So I go on believing the version in the Bible over against the version from the canon of Science. It actually aligns better with what we see in nature than Evolution does.

So let's ask the opposite question. What would necessitate that I view Genesis as historical narrative rather than myth? Well, first, Jesus promised that He would send the Holy Spirit to lead His followers into all truth. For 1700 years after that, not one of Jesus's followers figured out that Genesis was myth. That seems like a colossal failure on the part of the Holy Spirit. But, okay, what else? Opponents of historical narrative stop at chapter 11. Why? What is fundamentally different between, say, chapter 11 and chapter 12? Nothing. There are no textual clues that suggest a change. Later, Moses, quoting God, premised the basis for the Sabbath on the story of Creation. What nonsense if no such event occurred! Jesus took the texts to be historical rather than mythical. Paul understood Adam to be a real person and not a myth. No biblical character references Genesis as myth. All references are made to historical characters. As for the Flood, doesn't it strike anyone as odd that every ancient culture seems to have a Flood story in its dim dark lore? And more.

The text and the context and the rest of Scripture all attest to the historical nature of Genesis, beginning to end. Attempts at mythologize some portion are artificial ... and new. Prior to modern science, everyone understood the text to be historical narrative. It is only modern markets that have bowed the knee to Modern Science and required that God's Word does the same. In the process, they call into question the reliability of the rest of Scripture and every critical component (with a particular eye toward the Resurrection). I, personally, have no problem with God's Word as it is written. I look at nature and see no problem with nature as originated in Scripture. The Bible begins with its own most offensive statement: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" (Gen 1:1). Man has been kicking against it ever since. Repentance is a good thing. I say let God be God.

News Weakly - 4/9/2022

Book Bans
A report from the American Library Association (ALA) says that attempts to ban books reached a 20 year high this last year. The 729 challenges were requests largely from parents (39%) and patrons (24%). When I read the report, I was disheartened. We are a nation premised on such things as freedom of the press. But then I realized that "book bans" refers to attempts on the part of parents to keep material out of the hands of children as well, and, as we all know, no one should be keeping any type of reading material out of the hands of small children, right? Not all "book bans" are created equal, and if some are seeking to keep porn in the hands of 8-year-olds (for instance), I'm disheartened for a different reason.

Against Women and Children
Colorado's governor signed the bill into law that assures women they'll always be able to kill their pre-born babies in Colorado. The story says they "joined a handful of other states" in doing so. Interesting. When we read about states trying to limit abortions, the stories always include "Republican" or "GOP" leadership. When the Oklahoma House passes a pro-life bill only allowing killing a baby in the womb if the mother's life is at risk, the story is anxious to point out that it's a Republican governor with Republicans in favor of saving lives joining "Republican states" in these "restrictive abortion laws" (which the Republicans call "pro-life legislation," a term not to be used in public). Apparently, killing babies is in the Democrats' purview, but apparently they're not proud of it since the Colorado story includes nothing about that.

Social Media to the Rescue
Pinterest is an image sharing and social media service. They've got rules, you know. Porn is okay, but they block exploitation of minors. You can't post hate-based conspiracy theories and now you can't question human-caused climate change. Does science question the particulars of human-caused climate change? Sure. Just not on Pinterest. Pinterest is just doing their part to save the world.

Women's Sports
Kentucky Governor Beshear vetoed a bill passed easily by state house and senate that would insure that only biological women would compete in women's sports. "We need to insure that women of all sexes be allowed to compete in women's sports ... but I'm not a biologist." Does anyone know why we have men's and women's sports? It's not because women dress differently than men. And if there is no difference, then stop offering men and women sports and have people sports. I dare you.

Gender Affirming
Alabama lawmakers have approved a bill that would criminalize doctors who prescribe "gender affirming" medical treatment for youth who identify as transgender. This is based on the silly notion that children lack the maturity and responsibility for making informed decisions and parents are supposed to take care of that. Personally, I'd be in favor of "gender affirming treatments" if those treatments were aimed at encouraging the child to align with the gender God assigned at birth, but, hey, that's just because I think God doesn't make mistakes. What do I know?

Around the Bee
You read that Elon Musk joined Twitter's board and Twitter employees are scared. What if Musk turns their free speech platform into a platform that allows free speech??!

A massive rat colony has fled Washington D.C. after finding the city is infested with politicians.

Just a fun headline. Canadians are outraged over a new "Don't Say Eh" bill.

After having been banned from Twitter for listing Rachel Levine as their "Man of the Year," the Bee has issued an apology. In part,

So we invite our readers to say it with us, loudly and proudly, and with all the strength and goodness of 1000 kindergarten teachers in Florida trying to teach 5-year-olds about sex:

Rachel Levine is a powerful, beautiful woman.

Whatever that is.

An Afterthought
Since "I identify" has become the standard by which we're all required to treat people, I wish to come out here and now. I identify as young, handsome, and brilliant. Now, I know you'll all do the right thing and see me and treat me in accordance with my chosen adjectives. Thank you for the kind affirmation that differs from my "assigned" adjectives.

The Changing Standards

This (surprise, surprise) is about words, so don't anticipate some sharp assault on moral standards. In the English language, it turns out, many words have shifted meaning, so much that their values have changed, so to speak.

Awe
The word, "awe," used to refer to something that inspires terror. Even today, if you looked in the dictionary, you'd find that it is defined as "an emotion variously combining dread, veneration, and wonder that is inspired by authority or by the sacred or sublime." We've retained the "veneration" and "wonder," but mostly let slip the "dread." So in former times "awesome" meant something that inspired terror. Our current usage is quite the opposite. Interestingly, "awful" went the other way. "Awful" was used to refer to things that inspired respect and admiration but now we mean something is going bad.

Terrific
With that one under your belt, I'm sure you can see this one coming. "Terrific" to us is something really great. Clearly it originated in something that caused terror.

Mean
It's not just about opposites. It's about shifting standards. So as an adjective, "mean" once meant (and still does in certain applications) "average" and, from that, "humble" or "dull." Of course, now it refers to petty, unkind people. Or it could mean "excellent" as in "He makes a mean salad." Like I said ... shifting standards.

Symposium
Today you might attend a symposium, a conference on a particular topic. Originally it meant a drinking party. Hmmm. Perhaps they're not as different as I thought, given the reputation of what goes on around conferences these days.

Nice
"Nice" means "kind" although, mostly, in a tepid way. "She's ... nice." Originally it meant "foolish" or "weak." It eventually evolved to mean "shy" or "reserved." In the mid-1700's it became positive. Shifting standards.

Egregious
You may have heard this term. It means something really bad. It didn't originally. It's origin is in the term for "the flock" (think "gregarious") and meant "rising above the flock." It referred to something exceptional or distinguished. Eventually through irony it shifted to the opposite. If you did egregious work originally you did outstanding work; now it is horrible.

Moot
This is one of my favorites. A "moot point" today is one that is of no importance. It's done. It's meaningless. It can be ignored. Originally it meant a concept that needed to be examined and talked about. Precisely the opposite.

Silly
Continuing with the changing standards idea, "silly" once meant someone that was innocent or deserving of sympathy. No more. Those people are now "silly" -- naive and ignorant and deserving of ridicule.

Evangelical
Now there's a word that has changed meanings. In its original form (based in Greek) it simply meant something or someone that brought good news. In the 18th century the term was used to refer to a particular movement in Christendom. In response to liberalism, this movement sought to 1) counter liberal theology while 2) distancing themselves from fundamentalism. So they had, essentially, 4 points on which they rested -- conversionism, biblicism, crucicentrism, and activism. They understood these as basic to Christianity. You have to be converted -- born again. The Bible is inerrant and the sole authority on matters of faith and practice. Christ's substitutionary atonement in His death and resurrection is the only remedy for sin. And we need to act. Today, of course, "evangelical" means something different. Some "Evangelicals" are attempting to "save evangelicalism" by stripping it of everything it once meant. "If we don't drop that silly, egregious biblical inerrancy thing, evangelicalism will be moot." That kind of thing. Others are claiming the term for themselves while they deny its meaning. And enemies of Evangelicalism use it as a term of disgust. "Oh, you're one of those awful nutjobs." (Which is odd since just what "one of those" refers to is no longer clear, is it?)

Which goes to illustrate the way of our own world, where things that were once considered bad are now good and vice versa ... and not always in a good way.

The Basis of Our Forgiveness

The title will make you think that I'm going to discuss how we get forgiven. Reasonable assumption, but that's not where I'm going. Jesus said, "If you forgive others for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions" (Matt 6:14-15). That kind of makes it important for us to forgive others, doesn't it? So, is our forgiving others like God forgiving us? While some make that assumption, it's easy to see it is not the same thing. God forgives on the basis of His Son's shed blood (Rom 3:24-25) and we do not forgive on that basis. We certainly do not send our son to die for them. So the basis on which we are forgiven by God is that Christ propitiates in His blood. He takes on Himself our sin and God's wrath so that God is appeased and we are justified. On what basis, then, do we forgive?

Most of the world would like us to believe that we forgive just because it's a nice thing to do and a large part of the world would also argue that God forgives just because it's a nice thing to do. It isn't so. God is just. "Nice" is all well and good, but a just God must balance the books. A just God must exact payment where payment is due. A just God must, ultimately, address what Scripture calls "the certificate of debt" (Col 2:14 NASB). Forgiveness is many things, but one thing it is not is justice. We do not forgive to satisfy the demands of justice. So what is the basis on which we forgive?

God gives us a hint when He says, "Vengeance is Mine; I will repay" (Deut 32:35; Rom 12:19; Heb 10:30). That is, God is dedicated to carrying out justice. You see, in order for a moral system to be functional there must be justice. In order for a moral system to apply to all there must be the certainty that justice will be applied to all. Brave atheists hold forth on what is moral and what is not, but without ultimate justice, it is pointless of them to apply it to anyone else because without justice, morality has no basis. So if God merely forgives, violating justice, He negates not only His character, but His own moral law. On the other hand, if God is the ultimate Judge, ensuring justice for all, then we have no need to demand local justice from anyone. In terms of society we can, perhaps, and in a society we ought to, it seems clear, but in the end, ultimate justice is insured by the ultimate Judge, so we are free to forgive. We don't need, on a personal level, to make sure they get their comeuppance. God will see to that.

Some people find the concept of forgiveness appalling, at least when you apply it to something they condemn. Others find it necessary, even at the expense of justice. (Interestingly, it is often "social justice warrior" types who demand the injustice of forgiveness.) We who trust in God are commanded to forgive, and we can certainly do that 1) given how much God has forgiven us by laying our sin on His Son and 2) knowing He will always do what is right. "I don't need to exact revenge. He's got this." If we understand that justice is God's operating principle, we have no need to refuse to forgive. In fact, unforgiveness would suggest that we have no trust in God ... which could be the reason that Jesus said He won't forgive us if we don't forgive.

Hooked on a Feeling

Somewhere sometime we appear to have turned a corner in our society. I suspect there has always been this element. It just wasn't so dominant or so pervasive. It is seen in the rise of the term "I feel like" that has replaced "I think that." Forbes did an article on this idea back in 2020. The Google data indicates that the use of "I feel" took a big leap starting in 2016 and continues to rise. The term is being used as a passive way to express "I think." It is a method to demonstrate humility and compassion, both good things except when they have no part in the conversation.

I noticed the trend at work. Mind you, I work in a research environment with scientists and specialists. So to hear a PhD scientist say, "I feel like this experiment should act this way" is a little unnerving. "You feel like it will? What do you think? Have you thought about it?" And so it goes. Christians "feel like" God intended to say ____ or this particular text means ____. Family members "feel like" this activity is perfectly suitable or a real abomination. We have a pandemic of "feel" over "think."

Maybe it's the explanation of our current societal think tank, by which I mean the tank into which we, as a nation, appear to have thrown our thinking capacity. This holding tank is how the mayor of a major U.S. city could declare, "We will not allow that company in our city becuase we are an inclusive city" without batting an eye. It's how we can not think twice about declaring a 4-year-old is a bad source for deciding whether he can smoke or drink or drive a car but the best source for deciding he should be a she. It explains perfectly how a bill can be labeled a "Don't say gay" bill without anything in the bill to require "Don't say gay." It tells us all we need to know about how a president can say a multi-trillion dollar program won't cost a penny and that there needs to be a regime change in Russia but he's opposed to a regime change in Russia.

We have gotten hooked on feeling and it's dragging us down the street. We no longer evaluate; we feel. We no longer consider; we feel. Reasoning, evidence, actual facts are no longer necessary; we just feel. If "she" says he sexually abused her, we feel she should be believed. Well, unless we feel she shouldn't. Or unless we can't really define "she" because we're not biologists. We're out of our minds and into our emotions, and it isn't helpful. It explains why logic, reason, and evidence are no longer offered or required in discussions. And it is not a surprise (Rom 1:18-32).

The Sinning Saint

The Roman Catholic Church regards "saints" as especially holy people. (I choose "holy" there because the word "saint" refers specifically to "the holy.") The New Testament refers to all believers as saints. In a way, the two agree; saints are holy people. In the former, however, you have to live it and in the latter you are given it, endowed with it, clothed in it. In the former you make yourself "holy" and in the latter you are made holy. The trick, then, is to live up to it. Wherein we encounter a problem, don't we? None of us are truly holy in practice. None of us are truly separate from sin in our everyday living. None of us have arrived. What are we to do? And what does that mean for our lives? Are we just doomed to be sinning saints, useless, broken, sidelined?

Meet Isaiah. Now, Isaiah is considered a "major prophet" in Judaism. His job as prophet was to speak to the people what God told him to say. His primary tool was his mouth. His boss was God. So, Isaiah, get to work. And for 5 chapters of the book of his name he did. In the 6th, however, we read about an interesting encounter.

In the year of King Uzziah's death I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, lofty and exalted, with the train of His robe filling the temple. (Isa 6:1)

Kind of like being called to the boss's office for a review, right? Well, Isaiah waited to see if he was doing okay or needed improvement. Instead, he simply encountered God. Angels were bellowing and smoke was billowing and He heard, "Holy, Holy, Holy, is the LORD of hosts, The whole earth is full of His glory" (Isa 6:3). Now, you have to understand. This wasn't just show. That thrice repetition of "holy" had meaning. To the Hebrew mind, those angels were saying He was holy, holier, holiest. They were speaking, in today's rendition, with underlines and bold print and all caps. They were saying that, of all ethat exists, God was absolute holiness. Notice Isaiah's response. "Woe is me, for I am ruined! Because I am a man of unclean lips, And I live among a people of unclean lips; For my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts" (Isa 6:5). They tell me that Isaiah was unraveling. He was undone. That "woe" and "ruined" language said he thought it was over. That "woe" isn't "oh, my!" but a sense of the curse. Why? Because in the presence of the absolute holiness of God ... he was a "man of unclean lips" and living among a "people of unclean lips." Isaiah, you see, had been comparing his job performance with those around him and, doggone it, he was doing pretty good ... right up until he saw what the real standard was -- God. Isaiah had delusions of adequacy and suddenly Isaiah, the major prophet, found his primary tool, his lips, unacceptable and dirty. He was finished. God's response was interesting. He didn't say, "You're right, you worm!" Nor did He say, "Ah, Isaiah, don't be so hard on yourself." Instead, He sent an angel to deal with the problem (Isas 6:6-7). "Yes, you're right. Let's take care of this now. You'll feel some pain for a moment ..."

Isaiah is an example of the sinning saint. He was doing God's work, albeit somewhat tainted by sin ("unclean lips"). God agreed. So He dealt with it. And so it is with us. God sent His Son to die on our behalf so that we could be the righteousness of Christ (2 Cor 5:21) -- holy. Notice the rest of the story. Recognizing the problem that Isaiah was God's sinful mouthpiece and dealing with it, God next says, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?" (Isa 6:8). And Isaiah, with burnt lips, answered, "Here am I; send me." You see, the sequence, then. Isaiah correctly identified his own sin problem by comparing himself to the Holy God rather than sinful people around him. God dealt with that sin. And that left Isaiah prepared to be used by God. What Isaiah thought of as "the end" became the launching point for him to be useful to God. And so it is with us. We come with faith given to us (Rom 12:3; Php 1:29) and exercise it in Christ. He deals with our sin, indwells this clay pot with His power (2 Cor 4:7; Php 2:13), and puts us to use, broken as we are. Our sin doesn't prevent our usefulness. God's provision for it enables our usefulness. Again and again, over and over. So we do our part -- confess and repent -- and He does His part -- remedy and empower -- and we become useful tools in God's toolbelt. It doesn't get much better than that. From sinning saint to useful to God.

We Aim to Please

Here's a question. How much of the Old Testament law do New Testament Christians need to obey? Now, before you leap to absolutes, one way or the other, let's examine a few known facts ... from Scripture. For a baseline, Jesus said, "For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished" (Matt 5:18). Scripture also says Jesus "declared all foods clean" (Mark 7:19). So on one hand we need to hold the Old Testament law in high regard while, on the other hand, understand that some of it is appended in the New Testament. Neither extreme -- "We need to follow it all" or "We don't have to follow any of it" -- is accurate. So where do we go from here?

As in all Scripture, it's important to remember content as well as context. When, for instance, God commanded Israel to go kill every man, woman, child, and goat of a particular group of Amalekites (1 Sam 15:2-3), it is a command to King Saul in response to what the Amalekites did to Israel in the desert and is not to be understood by any means a command for anyone else at any time to go kill anyone at all. Content and context. So, when Jesus fulfilled the sacrificial system by dying for our sins (Heb 10:1-18), New Testament believers no longer have an obligation to sacrifice animals for sin. In Jesus's words, that law was "accomplished." When God made commands to the nation of Israel as a theocracy, we would do well to understand the principle without enforcing the penalties because we don't live in a theocracy and are not a nation of Christians, so civil penalties, for instance, in the Old Testament wouldn't be applicable to a people who are not a theocracy.

Understanding, then, that the "New Testament" is actually a "new covenant" and that some of the old categories are applicable only to those under the old covenant, we can begin to see that there might be some different specifics. I say "specifics" because the principles don't change; just the out-working. So "Come out from among them and be separate," for instance, is the principle that applies in both categories (Isa 52:11; 2 Cor 6:17), but while Israel wasn't allowed to marry outside of their Jewish race, we are required to not be "unequally yoked" (2 Cor 6:14). The ceremonial law -- that portion that deals with sacrifice and remedy for sin -- is fulfilled in Christ, so we aren't under those laws (Heb 10:1-18). The laws that have to do with civil issues such as what to eat (Lev 11) have been modified by Christ (Mark 7:19; Acts 10:15) and are not laid on us (Gal 5:18). Whatever is written in the Old Testament and repeated in the New Testament should likely be considered still in effect for New Testament believers. An example would be the problem of blurring the sexes. In the Old Testament the command was not to wear the clothes of the other gender (Deut 22:5) and in the New Testament the reference to the "effeminate" (1 Cor 6:9) carries the same principle. There are long lists of moral sins that were in effect before and remain now for us to avoid (e.g., Rom 1:29-32; 1 Cor 6:9-10; Gal 5:19-21).

Ultimately, of course, we are under two primary laws -- laws that Paul refers to as "the law of Christ" (1 Cor 9:21); Gal 6:2) Those are to love the Lord your God and love your neighbor (Matt 22:37-40). Jesus said, "On these rest all the Law and Prophets" (Matt 22:40). (Note: That last was modified by Christ from "Love your neighbor as yourself" to "Love your neighbor as I have loved you" (John 13:34).) We do have moral laws from Scripture to follow. We are not obligated to follow all the Old Testament laws. The aim is to obey God's commands (1 John 5:3), not figure out where we can fudge them. The aim is not to figure out what we might get away with and what we, oh, drat, have to obey. And it must never be our aim to correct God. Instead, "we make it our aim to please Him" (2 Cor 5:9).