Number one story on the Bing news line the other day was that "Ted Cruz can't handle the grilling." A British reporter asked him only one question. "Why do mass shootings only happen in America?" And Ted ran. Couldn't handle it. Loser. Of course, that's not what happened; that's just what the media is reporting. The reporter asked one (primary) question, but he continued to ask it repeatedly, hounding him long after the interview was over. If Cruz couldn't handle the grilling, I suspect it was simply his temper that he was managing.
What are the facts? You know, the facts that the media doesn't want to tell you. For instance, mass murders don't only happen in America. One study found that the U.S. ranked 11th in death rate per million people from mass shootings. Another ranked the U.S. 64th in the world in terms of mass shooting rates per capita. And this is without considering those countries with militants that go through and wipe out entire villages. Russia just had a school shooting in April of this year and another in September of last year. It's simply not true that these things only happen in America.
For instance, Switzerland has one of the highest rates of gun ownership in the world, yet they haven't had a mass shooting since 2001. Odd, since "more guns = more deaths" has been the mantra for so long. For instance, gun ownership in America has been a given practically forever. According to Statista.com, gun ownership rates in America between 1972 and 2021 has varied between a high of 47% in 1990 and 37% as late as 2019. No more than 10% difference for 50 years. Yet, "the toll of mass shootings has risen steadily." Again, Statista.com shows a rise from 0 in 2002 to 12 in 2018 and we're clearly on track to blow that record away this year.
"Gun control!" they cry, and I'm not opposed to controls. In fact, we have quite a few. There are restrictions on suppressors and explosives, automatic weapons and concealed weapons, background checks and interstate trade restrictions, on and on. Still, gun control laws, they assure us, are the answer. I'm actually fascinated by this position given that people who commit these kinds of crimes are knowingly breaking the law, yet making the obtaining of guns illegal is expected to diminish the law breaking. How about the fact that, on the very day that a crazed killer was killing 29 victims at Sandy Hook Elementary School, a crazed man stabbed 28 school children in China? Nope, don't report that fact. Then we'll be calling for "knife control."
"Oh, ignore this guy," some are going to say. "He's just a gun lover." No, not at all. "He doesn't care that all this is going on." Couldn't be farther from the truth. My problem is that I agree that there is a big problem. In fact, I might think it's a bigger problem than you do. Most people these days think it's a problem of guns. I'd say that's factually stupid. Guns have been around in America and elsewhere a long time. A very long time. And before that we had all sorts of "assault weapons" -- weapons available to use to assault other humans. From rocks to baseball bats to knives to guns and beyond. Killing has existed since Cain killed Abel. Gun control didn't stop that murder. No, the problem is much bigger than guns. Restricting guns, then, might decrease the gun violence (duh), but it won't restrict the killings. According to one study, of all the mass murders from 2006 to 2017, nearly a quarter were done without guns. In 1973 in New Orleans 32 people were killed at a gay bar when a disgruntled customer bought a can of lighter fluid and burned the place down. Lots of those kinds of stories. Remember Japan's sarin gas attack that killed 13 in 1995? No guns.
"Oh, no, of course guns aren't the only way to kill people, but it sure makes it easier to kill a lot!" Missing the point. Look, schools are almost entirely "gun free zones" and yet guns are used to kill children in schools. Guns are banned everywhere from murdering innocent people and, yet, they are used to murder innocent people. Countries that have no qualms banning guns entirely still have mass murders. The problem is not the laws. The problem is people. The problem is individuals and the problem is society. Individuals who have no moral compass, no compassion, no empathy, certainly no relationship with God. And a society that has fed and nurtured and encouraged those individuals ... and produced a marvelous system -- let's call it "social media" -- where people can vent rage and feed hate all without accountability ... and engendered an entire "news" media that isn't nearly as concerned about news as propaganda and an entertainment industry that makes its most lucrative products celebrations of evil. We've made this problem. The original problem is sin. Some societies work at curbing sin. They develop "community" and cultures with common courtesy and common values with strong moral bounds. Not us. "Be true to yourself" and "Don't let anyone tell you you can't" are our highest values today without regard to the very real possibility that "be true to yourself" just might mean killing people. And, of course, bottom line, asking corrupt sinners to harness corrupt sinners is just asking the fox to guard the hen house. What is really needed is Christ. The real problem is the god of this world and the real solution is Jesus, but the current culture is not interested in the actual solution. And Christians in America today lean more toward moral autonomy and rely less on "thus saith the Lord." We can't address it because we've set aside God's Word. So we'll bind Christ and call Him "hate" when the Word disagrees with our personal view and make sure that religion, especially the Christian religion, has no voice in our public market. No, we'll do just fine limiting guns. That'll fix it. And, like the finger pointing to the moon, we get fixated on the finger and miss the point. By focusing on "gun laws" we miss the point that the heart of man is desperately sick and new rules won't fix that.
Tuesday, May 31, 2022
Monday, May 30, 2022
Memorial Day, 2022
We all enjoy a good holiday, but too many of us don't quite know what it's about. Memorial Day is one of those. Many are not quite clear on the difference between Veterans Day and Memorial Day. Veterans Day celebrates all who served, and we thank them. None of those we honor on Memorial Day are around to be thanked. This day we set aside to appreciate those who gave their lives for our freedom. On this day, I like to pull out Congressional Medal of Honor stories. Some are remarkable. Here are two of them.
William Hawkins was a Marine at the Battle of Tarawa in 1943. His platoon was pinned down on Betio Island. Wounded by shrapnel, Hawkins advanced to single-handedly take out six machine gun nests. When he ran out of ammunition, he threw grenades and satchel charges. On the seventh nest he was wounded in the chest but managed to destroy it. A medic patched him up and told him to leave, but he refused. He was shot and killed hurling a grenade into the eighth machine gun nest. His last words were, "Boys, I sure hate to leave you like this."
Jason Dunham was a Marine corporal serving in Iraq in 2004. His patrol was ordered to intercept some cars exiting a fire fight. As he approached a vehicle to search it, an insurgent jumped out and wrestled with him. He took him to the ground, then saw that the insurgent had pulled the pin on a grenade and dropped it. Without hesitation, Cpl Dunham put his helmet over it and covered it with his body. He saved the lives of the two Marines with him, but died from his wounds eight days later.
People have done extraordinary things in defense of the country they love and the people with whom they serve. These things serve as rare glimpses into people who can put themselves behind others in importance and seek their best instead, sometimes at the cost of their own lives. These are the people we honor on Memorial Day. Not all Medal of Honor recipients died in action. These did. All of them went above and beyond, but not all went so far as to die for their cause. These did. We appreciate that level of sacrifice. Or, at least, we ought to.
William Hawkins was a Marine at the Battle of Tarawa in 1943. His platoon was pinned down on Betio Island. Wounded by shrapnel, Hawkins advanced to single-handedly take out six machine gun nests. When he ran out of ammunition, he threw grenades and satchel charges. On the seventh nest he was wounded in the chest but managed to destroy it. A medic patched him up and told him to leave, but he refused. He was shot and killed hurling a grenade into the eighth machine gun nest. His last words were, "Boys, I sure hate to leave you like this."
Jason Dunham was a Marine corporal serving in Iraq in 2004. His patrol was ordered to intercept some cars exiting a fire fight. As he approached a vehicle to search it, an insurgent jumped out and wrestled with him. He took him to the ground, then saw that the insurgent had pulled the pin on a grenade and dropped it. Without hesitation, Cpl Dunham put his helmet over it and covered it with his body. He saved the lives of the two Marines with him, but died from his wounds eight days later.
People have done extraordinary things in defense of the country they love and the people with whom they serve. These things serve as rare glimpses into people who can put themselves behind others in importance and seek their best instead, sometimes at the cost of their own lives. These are the people we honor on Memorial Day. Not all Medal of Honor recipients died in action. These did. All of them went above and beyond, but not all went so far as to die for their cause. These did. We appreciate that level of sacrifice. Or, at least, we ought to.
Sunday, May 29, 2022
Win-Win
In Manitoba, Canada, a grandmother went to church one last time ... to die. They called it her "crossing-over ceremony." She had ALS and Canada has legalized euthanasia, so she wanted to die, and she wanted to die in church. They accomodated her. Simply stunning. They sang "How Great Thou Art" and surrounded her with family and friends and executed her in the sanctuary. All very "Christian" ... even though it wasn't at all.
In this country we're debating the value of life. Canada doesn't anymore. They allow people to die by choice for just about anything. At any age. Because life has no value, just "my choice." So while we ask, "What is the value of an unborn human life?" they exhibit the rational conclusions we will eventually have to come to. Either we are intrinsically valuable -- made in the image of God -- or we are not, and, if not, terminating life at any age should be no big deal.
For me, however, this comes closer to home. You see, I'm one who agrees with Paul that to live is Christ and to die is gain. For me, going home is the preferred choice. So, wouldn't I favor this "let me die" approach? Funny thing. In a world like Canada's "what I want" version of human worth, I should be seeking to die because what I want is to be with Christ. But I believe that we are made in the image of God and, as such, have great value in His eyes. I do not belong to me. I don't believe in "my body, my choice" because I deny the first claim. So I don't seek to die. I don't wish to end it all. I look forward to the day that He calls me home, but I don't aim to hasten it. Because, for me, to live is Christ, and as long as He has use for me here, this is where I want to be. I know where I'll end up when the work is done, so I can wait. I concur with Paul.
In this country we're debating the value of life. Canada doesn't anymore. They allow people to die by choice for just about anything. At any age. Because life has no value, just "my choice." So while we ask, "What is the value of an unborn human life?" they exhibit the rational conclusions we will eventually have to come to. Either we are intrinsically valuable -- made in the image of God -- or we are not, and, if not, terminating life at any age should be no big deal.
For me, however, this comes closer to home. You see, I'm one who agrees with Paul that to live is Christ and to die is gain. For me, going home is the preferred choice. So, wouldn't I favor this "let me die" approach? Funny thing. In a world like Canada's "what I want" version of human worth, I should be seeking to die because what I want is to be with Christ. But I believe that we are made in the image of God and, as such, have great value in His eyes. I do not belong to me. I don't believe in "my body, my choice" because I deny the first claim. So I don't seek to die. I don't wish to end it all. I look forward to the day that He calls me home, but I don't aim to hasten it. Because, for me, to live is Christ, and as long as He has use for me here, this is where I want to be. I know where I'll end up when the work is done, so I can wait. I concur with Paul.
So we are always of good courage. We know that while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord, for we walk by faith, not by sight. Yes, we are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord. So whether we are at home or away, we make it our aim to please Him. (2 Cor 5:6-9)In the presence of Christ or pleasing Him in this life -- at home with the Lord or not -- we win.
Saturday, May 28, 2022
News Weakly - 5/28/22
Note to my readers
Yes, the biggest news of the week was the children and teachers killed in Texas. My aim in this weekly entry is to point out the odd, the strange, the crazy news items that are, at the same time, misguided. I try to point out some inconsistencies or errors, hopefully with some humor. So, while there is no doubt that it was the critical story of the week, I don't have any satire or ridicule to throw at it. While there are lots of points to discuss -- shootings, murder, why is it okay to murder the unborn but not 3rd graders, gun control and the futility thereof, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera -- I can't and won't do it here on my News Weakly installment. Note, also, that I couldn't bring myself to put up humorous Bee stuff this week. My apologies.
Surprise, Surprise, Surprise!
I really was surprised when I read that the archbishop of San Francisco banned Nancy Pelosi from receiving Communion because of her stand on abortion. I was surprised again when I saw that Catholic bishops across the country concurred. Mind you, I think it is the only consistent thing to conclude, and I will be further surprised if they actually carry through on the ban, but we'll see.
Appropriately Named
They are introducing a new Power Ranger to kids. This one is "nonbinary," using "they/them pronouns", and the character is called the Death Ranger. I wonder just how appropriate that might be, given that we are fighting about "women's rights" in a world where "women" can't really be defined anymore. I'm sure introducing confusion to kids is a great teaching tool ... if only to kill any intellectual honesty.
Double Standard
Oklahoma state representative Mickey Dollens (D) is proposing a bill that would require all young men to have vasectomies when they hit puberty. From the party that brought you, "My body, my choice."
Feeding Pharma
Pfizer says that children under 5 need to receive three COVID-19 vaccinations for it to be 80% effective. Now, of the 83 million COVID cases, less than 2 million were under the age of 5. So, statistically, they can take a shot that for the last three years has not been deemed safe enough for them -- and they must get three of them -- and be 80% safe or they can simply be 0 to 5-year-olds and be better than 98% safe. Who's benefiting here? I'd say, playing off parents' unfounded fears, it's Big Pharma, not kids.
Wait For It
Here's the story. "The Church of Scotland has voted to allow clergy to conduct same-sex marriages for the first time." Nothing new there. Churches in America and elsewhere show no concern about ejecting biblical views in favor of contemporary sexual views. The story goes on to say, "Members of the General Assembly in Edinburgh voted to change church law following years of campaigning." Ah, there it is! What changed their minds? Eminent reason? Clear Scripture? No, "campaigning," as if God's truth is a matter of "campaigning" and if you mount a good enough campaign, God has to change His mind. Even more arrogant than "the Supreme Court doesn't care about the will of the people."
Hypocrisy on Display
"The White House is considering waiving U.S. gasoline environmental rules aimed at reducing summertime smog, hoping the waiver will combat rising pump prices." The hypocrisy continues. Biden included "fix climate change at all cost" in his campaign and we're paying for it at the pump, but now he wants to increase summertime smog to ease the price hikes ... that his "eliminate fossil fuels" policies caused. (No, it's not the war in Ukraine.) They have nowhere to stand.
That Word Doesn't Mean What You Think It Means
The court has ruled. Candidates who take part in an insurrection may be barred from holding public office under the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. Okay. Fine. Why do you ask? Madison Cawthorn lost his election. No issue. Marjorie Taylor Greene was cleared to run. No issue. There was no insurrection. No issue there. Why is this an issue? Oh, yeah, because the Democrats and the media keep using that word. That word does not mean what they think it means. The fact that it has traction simply illustrates that too many Americans have drunk the liberals' Kool-Aid.
The Next Big Thing
Big Pharma, the CDC, the government, and the media are all sounding the alarm over the new pandemic on the horizon -- monkeypox. More than 250 cases across 16 countries, a whole 9 in the U.S. Note that the "k" in "monkeypox" is silent.
Out of Touch
Nancy Pelosi claimed on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" that the president is doing a lot of good and we need to know that. "But," the host noted, "75% of the American's believe the country is headed in the wrong direction." Oh, no. The president is lowering inflation. Gas prices are up, but that's primarily because of the Russian war. His $2 trillion spending bill is "reducing the national debt." It's all Putin's fault. Just as the news breaks that the economy shrank another 1.5% in the first quarter of 2022. Too bad the Disinformation Board quit. Pelosi is full of it.
Yes, Your Majesty
Guess who makes the rules? Last week Nature magazine, a prime scientific journal, planned to require future study authors to regulate what they report based on how it might "perpetuate gender stereotypes." They, without study or evidence, assume that sex is biological and gender is "socially constructed." They pre-define "misinformation" as "what we tell you to believe about gender" and then limit misinformation ... and consider that good science. Today the LGBTQetc. rules, dictating law even as far as how science must work.
Yes, the biggest news of the week was the children and teachers killed in Texas. My aim in this weekly entry is to point out the odd, the strange, the crazy news items that are, at the same time, misguided. I try to point out some inconsistencies or errors, hopefully with some humor. So, while there is no doubt that it was the critical story of the week, I don't have any satire or ridicule to throw at it. While there are lots of points to discuss -- shootings, murder, why is it okay to murder the unborn but not 3rd graders, gun control and the futility thereof, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera -- I can't and won't do it here on my News Weakly installment. Note, also, that I couldn't bring myself to put up humorous Bee stuff this week. My apologies.
Surprise, Surprise, Surprise!
I really was surprised when I read that the archbishop of San Francisco banned Nancy Pelosi from receiving Communion because of her stand on abortion. I was surprised again when I saw that Catholic bishops across the country concurred. Mind you, I think it is the only consistent thing to conclude, and I will be further surprised if they actually carry through on the ban, but we'll see.
Appropriately Named
They are introducing a new Power Ranger to kids. This one is "nonbinary," using "they/them pronouns", and the character is called the Death Ranger. I wonder just how appropriate that might be, given that we are fighting about "women's rights" in a world where "women" can't really be defined anymore. I'm sure introducing confusion to kids is a great teaching tool ... if only to kill any intellectual honesty.
Double Standard
Oklahoma state representative Mickey Dollens (D) is proposing a bill that would require all young men to have vasectomies when they hit puberty. From the party that brought you, "My body, my choice."
Feeding Pharma
Pfizer says that children under 5 need to receive three COVID-19 vaccinations for it to be 80% effective. Now, of the 83 million COVID cases, less than 2 million were under the age of 5. So, statistically, they can take a shot that for the last three years has not been deemed safe enough for them -- and they must get three of them -- and be 80% safe or they can simply be 0 to 5-year-olds and be better than 98% safe. Who's benefiting here? I'd say, playing off parents' unfounded fears, it's Big Pharma, not kids.
Wait For It
Here's the story. "The Church of Scotland has voted to allow clergy to conduct same-sex marriages for the first time." Nothing new there. Churches in America and elsewhere show no concern about ejecting biblical views in favor of contemporary sexual views. The story goes on to say, "Members of the General Assembly in Edinburgh voted to change church law following years of campaigning." Ah, there it is! What changed their minds? Eminent reason? Clear Scripture? No, "campaigning," as if God's truth is a matter of "campaigning" and if you mount a good enough campaign, God has to change His mind. Even more arrogant than "the Supreme Court doesn't care about the will of the people."
Hypocrisy on Display
"The White House is considering waiving U.S. gasoline environmental rules aimed at reducing summertime smog, hoping the waiver will combat rising pump prices." The hypocrisy continues. Biden included "fix climate change at all cost" in his campaign and we're paying for it at the pump, but now he wants to increase summertime smog to ease the price hikes ... that his "eliminate fossil fuels" policies caused. (No, it's not the war in Ukraine.) They have nowhere to stand.
That Word Doesn't Mean What You Think It Means
The court has ruled. Candidates who take part in an insurrection may be barred from holding public office under the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. Okay. Fine. Why do you ask? Madison Cawthorn lost his election. No issue. Marjorie Taylor Greene was cleared to run. No issue. There was no insurrection. No issue there. Why is this an issue? Oh, yeah, because the Democrats and the media keep using that word. That word does not mean what they think it means. The fact that it has traction simply illustrates that too many Americans have drunk the liberals' Kool-Aid.
The Next Big Thing
Big Pharma, the CDC, the government, and the media are all sounding the alarm over the new pandemic on the horizon -- monkeypox. More than 250 cases across 16 countries, a whole 9 in the U.S. Note that the "k" in "monkeypox" is silent.
Out of Touch
Nancy Pelosi claimed on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" that the president is doing a lot of good and we need to know that. "But," the host noted, "75% of the American's believe the country is headed in the wrong direction." Oh, no. The president is lowering inflation. Gas prices are up, but that's primarily because of the Russian war. His $2 trillion spending bill is "reducing the national debt." It's all Putin's fault. Just as the news breaks that the economy shrank another 1.5% in the first quarter of 2022. Too bad the Disinformation Board quit. Pelosi is full of it.
Yes, Your Majesty
Guess who makes the rules? Last week Nature magazine, a prime scientific journal, planned to require future study authors to regulate what they report based on how it might "perpetuate gender stereotypes." They, without study or evidence, assume that sex is biological and gender is "socially constructed." They pre-define "misinformation" as "what we tell you to believe about gender" and then limit misinformation ... and consider that good science. Today the LGBTQetc. rules, dictating law even as far as how science must work.
Friday, May 27, 2022
Acceptable Sins
Any genuine Christian is concerned about sin. No, not just the sin of others (like the rest of the world seems to think), but our own especially. John wrote, "No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him; and he cannot keep on sinning, because he has been born of God" (1 John 3:9). Note the "cannot." It is outside of the nature of one born of God to be comfortable with sin. So we are concerned for others, sure, but we are concerned more about our own sin. It seems strange, then, that we seem to miss some of them. We tolerate gossip much better than homosexual behavior. We overlook greed while not giving an inch to sexual immorality. Murder is clearly a sin, but what about those times when we don't glorify God?
"Hang on a second," some will say, "are you saying that's an issue?" Well, Jesus defined His life and ministry solely in terms of what His Father told Him to say and do. He exemplified a life aimed at glorifying God. Paul wrote, "Whatever you do, do all to the glory of God" (1 Cor 10:31). The question is do you, in "whatever you do," seek to glorify God? If the answer is "No" at some point, it is a failure to follow a biblical command -- a sin. "That's okay," we tend to think. "It's not a bad one. It's not real evil." Except that it is. It is, in fact, a primary evil. It is ... an "acceptable sin" for those of us who would like to think that there is no such thing.
We're good with "specks" but miss "logs" (Matt 7:3-4). We often assign "speck" status to our own "logs." But, if we are truly Christ-followers, our number one priority ought to be the glory of God as it was to the One we are following. And now that I've brought it to your attention -- and you're a Christian -- that ought to bother you about yourself. You're welcome.
"Hang on a second," some will say, "are you saying that's an issue?" Well, Jesus defined His life and ministry solely in terms of what His Father told Him to say and do. He exemplified a life aimed at glorifying God. Paul wrote, "Whatever you do, do all to the glory of God" (1 Cor 10:31). The question is do you, in "whatever you do," seek to glorify God? If the answer is "No" at some point, it is a failure to follow a biblical command -- a sin. "That's okay," we tend to think. "It's not a bad one. It's not real evil." Except that it is. It is, in fact, a primary evil. It is ... an "acceptable sin" for those of us who would like to think that there is no such thing.
We're good with "specks" but miss "logs" (Matt 7:3-4). We often assign "speck" status to our own "logs." But, if we are truly Christ-followers, our number one priority ought to be the glory of God as it was to the One we are following. And now that I've brought it to your attention -- and you're a Christian -- that ought to bother you about yourself. You're welcome.
Thursday, May 26, 2022
The Gospel
In his letter to Rome Paul told them he was obligated to bring them the gospel and he tells why.
The first answer I came up with was that Paul was explaining the bad news before he offered the good news. The worse the bad news, the bigger the good news, and Paul certainly lays on bad news. From chapter 1 verse 18 all the way through chapter 3 verse 20 Paul goes on and on about the sin problem. In chapter one, it's about natural man, the rebel. "That's okay," some might answer, "we're pretty good." The first half of chapter 2 is about the "pretty good." You know, the nice people, the well-behaved, the socially acceptable, the basically moral. Yeah, they're all sinners, too. "Sure," another group might answer, "but we're religious, so we're okay." Sorry. The last half of chapter 2 is about how even religious folks are sinners. Strike three, as it were. We're all out.
In chapter 3 Paul responds to the anticipated objections. 1) "Isn't there advantage to being one of God's chosen people, the Jews?" Yes. You have God's Word. 2) Doesn't the fact that people sin nullify the faithlessnes of God? No. God is faithfully keeping His promises. Then the third objection.
We think of the gospel as "good news" in the sense that we're saved. Paul thinks of the gospel as God's righteousness on full display. For some that righteousness, that justice, that "do what is right" is demonstrated in the judgment of sin. For others that righteousness is manifested in grace and forgiveness apart from works. Both are part of God's righteousness. Both are revealed in the gospel. The gospel, in brief, says, "We've all sinned and are under God's judgment, but we can be saved by faith in Christ's shed blood on our behalf." Both parts are right there. Both parts show God as right ... every time.
For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, "The righteous shall live by faith." (Rom 1:16-17)Now you and I could discuss a variety of reasons that Paul might not be ashamed of the gospel, but I'd imagine that "In it the righteousness of God is revealed" probably wouldn't have been our first guess. The mystery only deepens when Paul explains how the gospel reveals the righteousness of God with "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth" (Rom 1:18). Note the word "for" at the beginning there. Paul explains how the gospel reveals God's righteousness by telling us that God's wrath is revealed against those who suppress the truth about God. Now, Paul, how in the world does that reveal God's righteousness?
The first answer I came up with was that Paul was explaining the bad news before he offered the good news. The worse the bad news, the bigger the good news, and Paul certainly lays on bad news. From chapter 1 verse 18 all the way through chapter 3 verse 20 Paul goes on and on about the sin problem. In chapter one, it's about natural man, the rebel. "That's okay," some might answer, "we're pretty good." The first half of chapter 2 is about the "pretty good." You know, the nice people, the well-behaved, the socially acceptable, the basically moral. Yeah, they're all sinners, too. "Sure," another group might answer, "but we're religious, so we're okay." Sorry. The last half of chapter 2 is about how even religious folks are sinners. Strike three, as it were. We're all out.
In chapter 3 Paul responds to the anticipated objections. 1) "Isn't there advantage to being one of God's chosen people, the Jews?" Yes. You have God's Word. 2) Doesn't the fact that people sin nullify the faithlessnes of God? No. God is faithfully keeping His promises. Then the third objection.
But if our unrighteousness serves to show the righteousness of God, what shall we say? That God is unrighteous to inflict wrath on us? (I speak in a human way.) By no means! For then how could God judge the world? (Rom 3:5-6)And there, dear reader, is Paul's first explanation of how the sin problem reveals God's righteousness. Yes, it's in the bad news. Yes, that bad news is about as bad as it gets. How is God's righteousness revealed in that? God judges sin. God judges the world. God does what is right. God does what is just. The wrath that is revealed is actually the righteousness of God, revealed in the bad news, with more good news to follow -- there is salvation through the propitiation of Christ's blood, making God both just and justifier (Rom 3:21-26). Now that is good news -- the gospel.
We think of the gospel as "good news" in the sense that we're saved. Paul thinks of the gospel as God's righteousness on full display. For some that righteousness, that justice, that "do what is right" is demonstrated in the judgment of sin. For others that righteousness is manifested in grace and forgiveness apart from works. Both are part of God's righteousness. Both are revealed in the gospel. The gospel, in brief, says, "We've all sinned and are under God's judgment, but we can be saved by faith in Christ's shed blood on our behalf." Both parts are right there. Both parts show God as right ... every time.
Wednesday, May 25, 2022
Syncretism
Syncretism is the amalgamation of different religions, cultures, or schools of thought. It is most commonly used in religious terms, the merging of different religions. When Spanish Catholics invaded pagan America, they produced a syncretism of religions. Santeria is probably the best known syncretism, where African mysticism merged with Roman Catholicism to produce a religion that incorporated both voodoo and Catholicism. So they recognize divine beings -- Yoruba orishas -- and Catholic saints. They pray to Jesus and call on demons. It's an irrational mishmash (or mismatch) that joins together to nullify both while affirming both. We're much more sophisticated today. We don't do that. Really? Mix the Spirit with spirits? Don't be silly! And then we go on to be equally silly albeit a bit more subtle.
I think the most common syncretism in the American church today is the joining of American patriotism and Christian beliefs, landing somewhere around the notion that America is "God's chosen people." This becomes problematic to Christians. When the early Christians became "bad Romans" because they opposed the deity of Caesar, they were "unpatriotic." When modern Christians oppose the evils perpetrated by the government, we are unpatriotic. That's because people fail to ask Whose kingdom we serve. The other most popular syncretism today is among the so-called Christians who hang on to the label while disposing of the content. They'll tell you, "I believe in Jesus," but they've discarded the sole source on who Jesus is and what He taught and what "Christian" is. They set aside God's Word and substitute ... syncretism. Maybe it's some science or some philosophy. Maybe it's "social justice" or just "what I like." (You may think I'm being glib. I've actually been told that by some. "That can't be right. It doesn't feel right.") Instead, then, of receiving "the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 1:3), they customize their own version. The "red letter" Christians who claim to follow just what Jesus said do so with care, dropping or modifying what they don't much like, forgetting that Jesus was "the Word" (John 1:1) and all that we have in our Bibles is from Him. So they cannot teach others "to observe all that I have commanded you" (Matt 28:20) since they've strictly trimmed, pared, skinned, and mitigated "all that I have commanded you" down to "all that you accept that I have commanded you."
Syncretism is a problem. Always has been, from the early days of judaizers and legalists importing laws for Israel into laws for God's people through the missionary work that brought us Santeria up to our day where "Christian" often barely resembles "Christian" as the Scriptures present it. "But we know better today," they tell me, a decidely dangerous position to take when it is in opposition to the Word. From "theistic Evolution" to "Jesus as a Social Justice Warrior and not a savior" to "America is God's favorite" and beyond, it is all around us. It may be a lot of things, but it is not following Christ.
I think the most common syncretism in the American church today is the joining of American patriotism and Christian beliefs, landing somewhere around the notion that America is "God's chosen people." This becomes problematic to Christians. When the early Christians became "bad Romans" because they opposed the deity of Caesar, they were "unpatriotic." When modern Christians oppose the evils perpetrated by the government, we are unpatriotic. That's because people fail to ask Whose kingdom we serve. The other most popular syncretism today is among the so-called Christians who hang on to the label while disposing of the content. They'll tell you, "I believe in Jesus," but they've discarded the sole source on who Jesus is and what He taught and what "Christian" is. They set aside God's Word and substitute ... syncretism. Maybe it's some science or some philosophy. Maybe it's "social justice" or just "what I like." (You may think I'm being glib. I've actually been told that by some. "That can't be right. It doesn't feel right.") Instead, then, of receiving "the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 1:3), they customize their own version. The "red letter" Christians who claim to follow just what Jesus said do so with care, dropping or modifying what they don't much like, forgetting that Jesus was "the Word" (John 1:1) and all that we have in our Bibles is from Him. So they cannot teach others "to observe all that I have commanded you" (Matt 28:20) since they've strictly trimmed, pared, skinned, and mitigated "all that I have commanded you" down to "all that you accept that I have commanded you."
Syncretism is a problem. Always has been, from the early days of judaizers and legalists importing laws for Israel into laws for God's people through the missionary work that brought us Santeria up to our day where "Christian" often barely resembles "Christian" as the Scriptures present it. "But we know better today," they tell me, a decidely dangerous position to take when it is in opposition to the Word. From "theistic Evolution" to "Jesus as a Social Justice Warrior and not a savior" to "America is God's favorite" and beyond, it is all around us. It may be a lot of things, but it is not following Christ.
Tuesday, May 24, 2022
Just Apologize
Most of us are fairly confident that we have a common understanding of the word "apologize." We mean, "Say you're sorry." Okay, maybe that's a little vague. The dictionary says it is to "make excuse for or regretful acknowledgment of a fault or offense." Okay, now, hang on. Is "make excuse" part of our definition? I mean, isn't that wrong? How about "express regret." Yes, we like that. But, of course, we all know that making said expression -- apologizing -- doesn't necessarily mean that the person is actually sorry. Or exactly for what they are sorry. Are they sorry for the fault "(I'm sorry I did that.") or offense ("I'm sorry you took that wrong."), or are they sorry they got caught? Or is it just words and they're not sorry at all?
It is interesting. The Bible has nothing to say about apologizing. The Greek word from which we get our word "apology" is apologia (go figure) and means, "a speech in defense." Closer to the "make an excuse" than "express regret." So the biblical "apology" was to "make a defense" (1 Peter 3:15). What, then, is the biblical equivalent of "apologize"? What do we do when we offend? The Bible offers two obvious terms -- confession and repentance. To confess in the vernacular is to "say with" (James 5:16; 1 John 1:9). David confessed to God with the phrase, "I know my transgressions, and my sin is ever before me" (Psa 51:3). You see the idea. "Yes, God, you're right; I'm wrong." But agreeing that you are wrong is just half of the needed response. Jesus preached repentance (e.g., Matt 4:17; Luke 13:3). The Apostles followed suit (e.g., Acts 2:38; Acts 3:19; 2 Cor 7:10). Jesus said, "If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him, and if he sins against you seven times in the day, and turns to you seven times, saying, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive him" (Luke 17:3-4). That's repentance for an offense given. Biblically, repent means to turn around mentally, to change directions, to think differently. So what would that look like? Well, John warned the Pharisees to repent and told them to "Bear fruit in keeping with repentance" (Matt 3:8). So repentance has "fruit." Jesus said, "If you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift" (Matt 5:23-24). "Be reconciled" is a good expression of repentance.
We live in a dry-brush world where the slightest spark can create a real conflagration. Our social media, our anonymous and interconnected-without-consequence world, our pile of political and social flashpoints without any shared grace, leaves us with the near certainty that we will offend. The proper response if we offend is confession -- "Yes, I did the wrong thing" -- and repentance. Not apology. We are to "be reconciled," not merely sorry. Our repentance should look like repentance, a change of direction. Love may mean you never have to say you're sorry (I would argue it doesn't), but that's only because we need to do a lot more than that if we offend.
It is interesting. The Bible has nothing to say about apologizing. The Greek word from which we get our word "apology" is apologia (go figure) and means, "a speech in defense." Closer to the "make an excuse" than "express regret." So the biblical "apology" was to "make a defense" (1 Peter 3:15). What, then, is the biblical equivalent of "apologize"? What do we do when we offend? The Bible offers two obvious terms -- confession and repentance. To confess in the vernacular is to "say with" (James 5:16; 1 John 1:9). David confessed to God with the phrase, "I know my transgressions, and my sin is ever before me" (Psa 51:3). You see the idea. "Yes, God, you're right; I'm wrong." But agreeing that you are wrong is just half of the needed response. Jesus preached repentance (e.g., Matt 4:17; Luke 13:3). The Apostles followed suit (e.g., Acts 2:38; Acts 3:19; 2 Cor 7:10). Jesus said, "If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him, and if he sins against you seven times in the day, and turns to you seven times, saying, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive him" (Luke 17:3-4). That's repentance for an offense given. Biblically, repent means to turn around mentally, to change directions, to think differently. So what would that look like? Well, John warned the Pharisees to repent and told them to "Bear fruit in keeping with repentance" (Matt 3:8). So repentance has "fruit." Jesus said, "If you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift" (Matt 5:23-24). "Be reconciled" is a good expression of repentance.
We live in a dry-brush world where the slightest spark can create a real conflagration. Our social media, our anonymous and interconnected-without-consequence world, our pile of political and social flashpoints without any shared grace, leaves us with the near certainty that we will offend. The proper response if we offend is confession -- "Yes, I did the wrong thing" -- and repentance. Not apology. We are to "be reconciled," not merely sorry. Our repentance should look like repentance, a change of direction. Love may mean you never have to say you're sorry (I would argue it doesn't), but that's only because we need to do a lot more than that if we offend.
Monday, May 23, 2022
Codifying Roe
With the fear that the Supreme Court might possibly overturn Roe v Wade, the Democrats are pushing hard for the passage of the Women's Health Protection Act, which, as it turns out, is a really odd duck.
The opening "finding" begins, "Abortion services are essential to health care and access to those services is central to people’s ability to participate equally in the economic and social life of the United States." So the first concern is economic, apparently. But it gets much worse. The 10th Amendment leaves all things not covered in the original Constitution to the States, but the federal government has managed to find a loophole by placing things in the category of "interstate commerce," so a key argument to make abortion a matter of federal law is that "Abortion restrictions substantially affect interstate commerce." Thus, the federal government must intervene over the States. More disturbing is the clear intention of removing all restrictions on abortion. Under "Section 4. Permitted Services," they aim to eliminate full disclosure to women and any viability restrictions on when abortion can occur and more. Their "Limits and Requirements" are a removal of all limits or requirements. Even more disturbing is the position that argues that "Reproductive justice seeks to address restrictions on reproductive health, including abortion, that perpetuate systems of oppression, lack of bodily autonomy, white supremacy, and anti-Black racism." If you oppose abortion, you're a racist. This from a group of people who struggle to define "women" (as in "women's rights") and have to slip into "all people with the capacity for pregnancy."
There is no question. There is much more at stake here than whether or not (actual) women can terminate the lives of their babies as a birth control technique. The up-front concern is "reproductive justice," but the real thinking behind this is primarily economic and ideological as a means to castigate pro-life people, labeling them as sexist, racist, white supremacists. The Democrats would like to allow you to kill your babies after birth and to make your notion that human life is valuable a hate crime if possible. It is not compassion they're offering. It is control and hate. And they hope to make you pay for it ... financially and/or otherwise. Don't be fooled by their calls to "codify Roe." It is something else they intend to codify.
__________
You may have noticed that I didn't put the "Abortion/Pro-life" label on this post. I didn't by choice. This isn't really about abortion. It's about control and ideology, about government overreach and plots from the Left -- from the world. Abortion just happens to be the entry point.
The opening "finding" begins, "Abortion services are essential to health care and access to those services is central to people’s ability to participate equally in the economic and social life of the United States." So the first concern is economic, apparently. But it gets much worse. The 10th Amendment leaves all things not covered in the original Constitution to the States, but the federal government has managed to find a loophole by placing things in the category of "interstate commerce," so a key argument to make abortion a matter of federal law is that "Abortion restrictions substantially affect interstate commerce." Thus, the federal government must intervene over the States. More disturbing is the clear intention of removing all restrictions on abortion. Under "Section 4. Permitted Services," they aim to eliminate full disclosure to women and any viability restrictions on when abortion can occur and more. Their "Limits and Requirements" are a removal of all limits or requirements. Even more disturbing is the position that argues that "Reproductive justice seeks to address restrictions on reproductive health, including abortion, that perpetuate systems of oppression, lack of bodily autonomy, white supremacy, and anti-Black racism." If you oppose abortion, you're a racist. This from a group of people who struggle to define "women" (as in "women's rights") and have to slip into "all people with the capacity for pregnancy."
There is no question. There is much more at stake here than whether or not (actual) women can terminate the lives of their babies as a birth control technique. The up-front concern is "reproductive justice," but the real thinking behind this is primarily economic and ideological as a means to castigate pro-life people, labeling them as sexist, racist, white supremacists. The Democrats would like to allow you to kill your babies after birth and to make your notion that human life is valuable a hate crime if possible. It is not compassion they're offering. It is control and hate. And they hope to make you pay for it ... financially and/or otherwise. Don't be fooled by their calls to "codify Roe." It is something else they intend to codify.
__________
You may have noticed that I didn't put the "Abortion/Pro-life" label on this post. I didn't by choice. This isn't really about abortion. It's about control and ideology, about government overreach and plots from the Left -- from the world. Abortion just happens to be the entry point.
Sunday, May 22, 2022
Avoidance
In his second letter to Timothy, Paul urges him to "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God" by "accurately handling the word of truth" (2 Tim 2:15). Then he says,
Look at that for a moment. He starts with "but," contrasting with the previous instruction. "Handle the word of truth accurately" is in contrast to "worldly and empty chatter." Avoid those. The NASB translates "bebēlos" as "worldly." The KJV goes with "profane." I think the ESV's "babble" sounds the closest, but the word really refers to crossing a threshold, and, given the instruction to rightly handle the word of truth, this is probably what he's referring to -- that which violates the truth. "Empty chatter" is a single compound word -- kenophōnia -- where "kenos" means "empty, vain" and "phōnē" is "sound" or "voice." So, in contrast to being a good workman and rightly handling the word of truth, give empty conversation that opposes the truth a wide berth; it's just a lot of hot air. Literally "walk around it." Why? It will lead to further ungodliness.
Note, first, there, the word "further," because, apparently, worldly and empty chatter is the first step into ungodliness and standing in it will take you further into ungodliness. But what is this "ungodliness" thing? The word is literally impiety, one of the two things God's wrath is toward (Rom 1:18). Unrighteousness refers to the bad things we do, but ungodliness is about a lack of reverence, specifically against God. It is a lack of devotion to God. In that Romans 1 reference all mankind suffers from it. You and I suffer from it to varying degrees. No one does not suffer from it. And mere worldly and empty chatter promotes it.
Mind you, Paul is specific here. In the next verse he says, "Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus" (2 Tim 2:17). Odd that he refers to "worldly and empty chatter" as "them." Clearly Paul is referring to false teachers. Avoid them. "Their talk will spread like gangrene" (2 Tim 2:17). Avoid them. They "have gone astray from the truth" (2 Tim 2:18). Avoid them. You don't need the gangrene. You certainly do not need further ungodliness. I can find it on my own, thank you very much.
Proverbs says, "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself" (Prov 26:4) and this sounds a lot like that. However, the very next verse says, "Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes" (Prov 26:5). Apparently, then, it is good to avoid worldly and empty chatter -- the teaching of false teachers -- and it is most often wise not to answer a fool or you might become one yourself. You might find yourself stepping further into ungodliness. I've seen it. I'm sure you have, too. Good Christians bravely taking on false teachers and succumbing to bad manners and "righteous indignation" instead of "gentleness and respect" (1 Peter 3:15). Sometimes we are called to address it, to "make a defense," to answer a fool according to his folly. Just be aware that it is dangerous ground. You need to be aware of the fundamental problem -- ungodliness -- and guard yourself against it. Ungodliness on their part and the ungodliness that it can spawn in you. As we become perturbed about their war on truth, we may lose sight of the Truth we are to defend -- godliness. A right relationship with God. Too often I think we lose sight of these kinds of warnings.
But avoid worldly and empty chatter, for it will lead to further ungodliness. (2 Tim 2:16)Ain't that the truth?
Look at that for a moment. He starts with "but," contrasting with the previous instruction. "Handle the word of truth accurately" is in contrast to "worldly and empty chatter." Avoid those. The NASB translates "bebēlos" as "worldly." The KJV goes with "profane." I think the ESV's "babble" sounds the closest, but the word really refers to crossing a threshold, and, given the instruction to rightly handle the word of truth, this is probably what he's referring to -- that which violates the truth. "Empty chatter" is a single compound word -- kenophōnia -- where "kenos" means "empty, vain" and "phōnē" is "sound" or "voice." So, in contrast to being a good workman and rightly handling the word of truth, give empty conversation that opposes the truth a wide berth; it's just a lot of hot air. Literally "walk around it." Why? It will lead to further ungodliness.
Note, first, there, the word "further," because, apparently, worldly and empty chatter is the first step into ungodliness and standing in it will take you further into ungodliness. But what is this "ungodliness" thing? The word is literally impiety, one of the two things God's wrath is toward (Rom 1:18). Unrighteousness refers to the bad things we do, but ungodliness is about a lack of reverence, specifically against God. It is a lack of devotion to God. In that Romans 1 reference all mankind suffers from it. You and I suffer from it to varying degrees. No one does not suffer from it. And mere worldly and empty chatter promotes it.
Mind you, Paul is specific here. In the next verse he says, "Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus" (2 Tim 2:17). Odd that he refers to "worldly and empty chatter" as "them." Clearly Paul is referring to false teachers. Avoid them. "Their talk will spread like gangrene" (2 Tim 2:17). Avoid them. They "have gone astray from the truth" (2 Tim 2:18). Avoid them. You don't need the gangrene. You certainly do not need further ungodliness. I can find it on my own, thank you very much.
Proverbs says, "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself" (Prov 26:4) and this sounds a lot like that. However, the very next verse says, "Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes" (Prov 26:5). Apparently, then, it is good to avoid worldly and empty chatter -- the teaching of false teachers -- and it is most often wise not to answer a fool or you might become one yourself. You might find yourself stepping further into ungodliness. I've seen it. I'm sure you have, too. Good Christians bravely taking on false teachers and succumbing to bad manners and "righteous indignation" instead of "gentleness and respect" (1 Peter 3:15). Sometimes we are called to address it, to "make a defense," to answer a fool according to his folly. Just be aware that it is dangerous ground. You need to be aware of the fundamental problem -- ungodliness -- and guard yourself against it. Ungodliness on their part and the ungodliness that it can spawn in you. As we become perturbed about their war on truth, we may lose sight of the Truth we are to defend -- godliness. A right relationship with God. Too often I think we lose sight of these kinds of warnings.
Saturday, May 21, 2022
News Weakly - 5/21/2022
A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World
Three 8th graders in Wisconsin are facing sexual harassment charges for "calling a classmate by the wrong pronouns." Lawyers are involved. They claim that using "biologically correct pronouns" does not constitute sexual harassment. The school says they prohibit "all forms of bullying and harassment" except, of course, for the bullying and harassment of charging an 8th grader with sexual harassment for using biologically correct pronouns. That harassment is good, you see. At least, that's the kind of arguments one has to make in a world gone completely mad.
Deplorable
That's what people are saying about a Christian Academy in Louisville, KY, because they regard homosexual behavior as sin and were teaching their students to "lovingly and compassionately speak truth to the person" in a way that "does not approve of any sin." Now, I'm stunned that anyone is stunned that a Christian academy would hold a Christian view on a topic like that. And the double standard is fascinating. "I think it's a sin for you to think that it's a sin for someone to engage in homosexual behavior. Of course, I won't be changing my view on your sin, but you will need to change your view."
Another Pandemic
VP Harris on the Buffalo shooting: "We are seeing an epidemic of hate." The White House recommends conical white head coverings and social distancing. Yes, there is far too much hate around our nation ... and our world today. "We must call it out and condemn it." That oughta do it. It's a shame that this is the best a once "Christian nation" can now offer.
Complicity
That's a Relief
Disney+ says they won't take ads for alcohol or politics because they want to keep it "family friendly." That's a relief. Meanwhile, Disney is pushing a solid LGBTQ+ agenda aimed specifically at children while they protest Florida's law that forbids sexual grooming of children. Mixed messages, Disney. Just like so many others whose messages and behaviors don't match. (Think, think, think ... what do we call that ... oh, yeah ... hypocrisy.)
Squirrel!
The House Intelligence subcommittee (Is that an oxymoron?) is having public hearings on UFOs ... because it would be good to have anything to distract the public from the insanity that is currently the American government, media, and culture.
Joke Gone Bad
It was a joke. "The beatings will continue until morale improves." The Fed missed it. In order to control inflation ... they're driving up the cost of borrowing money. That way we'll all buy less and demand will drop and price hikes will slow ... because everything got more expensive. "We'll keep increasing the cost of borrowing money until inflation slows." The current guess is they'll triple the current rate. Slow the economy to improve the economy. What could go wrong?
The Bee Roll
It looks like the government's Disinformation Board narrowly outlasted CNN+.
In the wake of the announcement that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is engaged, Ben Shapiro said he'd never love again.
With the outbreak of monkeypox, Fauci is recommending everyone cover their eyes, ears, and mouth.
And I really like this one, personally. The story is about a toddler who failed to see how his dad could be all-powerful and all-loving when he just took away the knife he was playing with.
Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
Three 8th graders in Wisconsin are facing sexual harassment charges for "calling a classmate by the wrong pronouns." Lawyers are involved. They claim that using "biologically correct pronouns" does not constitute sexual harassment. The school says they prohibit "all forms of bullying and harassment" except, of course, for the bullying and harassment of charging an 8th grader with sexual harassment for using biologically correct pronouns. That harassment is good, you see. At least, that's the kind of arguments one has to make in a world gone completely mad.
Deplorable
That's what people are saying about a Christian Academy in Louisville, KY, because they regard homosexual behavior as sin and were teaching their students to "lovingly and compassionately speak truth to the person" in a way that "does not approve of any sin." Now, I'm stunned that anyone is stunned that a Christian academy would hold a Christian view on a topic like that. And the double standard is fascinating. "I think it's a sin for you to think that it's a sin for someone to engage in homosexual behavior. Of course, I won't be changing my view on your sin, but you will need to change your view."
Another Pandemic
VP Harris on the Buffalo shooting: "We are seeing an epidemic of hate." The White House recommends conical white head coverings and social distancing. Yes, there is far too much hate around our nation ... and our world today. "We must call it out and condemn it." That oughta do it. It's a shame that this is the best a once "Christian nation" can now offer.
Complicity
18 U.S. Code § 1507 - Picketing or paradingA pro-abortion group was banned from Twitter after supplying the addresses of Supreme Court Justices for the purpose of protest. The White House encourages "peaceful protests" in direct violation of federal law. Doesn't that constitute complicity (especially considering what "mostly peaceful protests" have come to look like these days)?
"Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both."
That's a Relief
Disney+ says they won't take ads for alcohol or politics because they want to keep it "family friendly." That's a relief. Meanwhile, Disney is pushing a solid LGBTQ+ agenda aimed specifically at children while they protest Florida's law that forbids sexual grooming of children. Mixed messages, Disney. Just like so many others whose messages and behaviors don't match. (Think, think, think ... what do we call that ... oh, yeah ... hypocrisy.)
Squirrel!
The House Intelligence subcommittee (Is that an oxymoron?) is having public hearings on UFOs ... because it would be good to have anything to distract the public from the insanity that is currently the American government, media, and culture.
Joke Gone Bad
It was a joke. "The beatings will continue until morale improves." The Fed missed it. In order to control inflation ... they're driving up the cost of borrowing money. That way we'll all buy less and demand will drop and price hikes will slow ... because everything got more expensive. "We'll keep increasing the cost of borrowing money until inflation slows." The current guess is they'll triple the current rate. Slow the economy to improve the economy. What could go wrong?
The Bee Roll
It looks like the government's Disinformation Board narrowly outlasted CNN+.
In the wake of the announcement that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is engaged, Ben Shapiro said he'd never love again.
With the outbreak of monkeypox, Fauci is recommending everyone cover their eyes, ears, and mouth.
Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
Friday, May 20, 2022
The Bible on Life Before Birth
Note to readers: I know I've hit this topic pretty hard recently. Of course, that's because it has been in the news so much. I hope, however, that you'll be able to use some of this information. If the Supreme Court actually reverses Roe v Wade, you can count on it to get messy. You can expect to be "targeted" in some sense as believers, as people with biblical principles that violate the world's sense of right and wrong. You'll be blamed for this, and it will be because you're a hater or a supremacist of some kind or as many other reasons the god of this world -- the father of lies -- can come up with. So I'm hoping that I've provided you some answers, some armament, in preparation. You know, "ready to make a defense" (1 Peter 3:15). Because, ultimately, it isn't about you. It isn't even about women or choice. It's about the image of God, something the prince of the power of the air cannot tolerate."You religious nutcases seem to miss the point that the Bible teaches that life begins at first breath." Have you ever heard that? I expect you have. Where is that? Well, quite clearly, in (the mythical) Genesis 2:7 we read, "Then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature." Well, thank you very much for playing. You silly Bible people can go home now. But ... can we?
The text explains what happened when God made Adam. He formed him from dust and breathed life into him and he became a living creature. The Bible says that about no one ever again. In a parallel story God put Adam to sleep, took a rib from him, and made Eve (Gen 2:21-22). Shall we conclude, then, that women are always and henceforth made by making a man go to sleep and making her from a rib? Of course not. Genesis 2 describes events that we don't see anymore. It does not provide a definition of "life." It's a description of the first man.
So what does the Bible say about life before birth? Well, in Jeremiah God told Jeremiah, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations" (Jer 1:5). God, then, formed a non-human, consecrated the fetus, and appointed it to be a prophet, right? That, of course, makes little sense. Clearly God considered Jeremiah to be a person in the womb. David makes the same sort of claim.
For You formed my inward parts; You knitted me together in my mother's womb. I praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are Your works; my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from You, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in Your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them. (Psa 139:13-16)All of that text is "preborn." God knitted and formed and wove together and wrote up the life of this "preborn" human. And we all know the story of Mary, newly pregnant with Jesus, visiting her cousin, Elizabeth. When Elizabeth saw Mary, "the baby leaped in her womb" (Luke 1:41). Elizabeth claimed, "When the sound of your greeting came to my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy" (Luke 1:44). A tissue blob does not experience "joy," does it? And, of course, there is the passage in Exodus, often used to excuse abortion, that actually argues that killing a baby before it is born is the same as murder (Exo 21:22-25).
There are lots of voices out there that don't much care what the Bible says, so this stuff won't matter to them. To their immediate peril they discard the biblical claim that we are made in the image of God (Gen 9:6) and carefully hold to a baseless claim that humans are of greater worth than other beings. They value "my choice" over all other concerns right up until it infringes on "my choice" and enable a line of reasoning that cannot help but end in the termination of life outside of the womb. (It's not a slippery slope fallacy when it is actually already happening.) I don't expect this to sway the minds of unbelievers. But you -- those who believe God and His Word -- should be able to see that Scripture opposes the killing of humans and that humans are human from conception. You, who believe that we are to love our neighbors as ourselves, should certainly be concerned for the welfare of the most innocent and defenseless human beings on the planet. So maybe this will bolster your confidence. The Bible agrees.
Thursday, May 19, 2022
Biblical Submission
"Me? Submit to him? He doesn't know enough to come in out of the rain!" Someone I know said that, but I'm sure that the mere mention of the word "submission" will elicit a similar response from a lot of people. Even Christians. I say that because it should not be. I say that because a principle Christian virtue is submission. Jesus said, "If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also" (Matt 5:39). Paul listed things we ought to be doing including, "submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ" (Eph 5:21). Think of that. Submission to others out of reverence (literally "fear") of Christ.
Peter gives an interesting rundown on submission. In 1 Peter 2 he begins with "Be subject for the Lord's sake" (there it is again -- "for the Lord's sake") "to every human institution ..." (1 Peter 2:13-14) referring to governments. So our submission to others is first in submission to God and out of reverence (fear) of God. That's one. He goes on to say in that, "Live as people who are free" while also requiring "living as servants of God" (1 Peter 2:16). Peter's next submission command is to servants (literally "household servants" as opposed to Paul's "bondservant") whom he commands to "Be subject to your masters with all respect" (and, yes, that was that "fear" word again). This isn't the master-slave relationship, but simply a boss and subordinate. And it is explicitly not merely nice bosses -- "not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust" (1 Peter 2:18). Peter spends time on this one using Christ as his prime example who endured injustice without a peep (1 Peter 2:19-25). So in 1 Peter 3 he begins, "Likewise ..." (1 Peter 3:1). He also uses the same term in 1 Peter 3:7 -- "Likewise." That is, "In the same way that Christ endured false accusations and abuse without complaining and subjected Himself to the human masters He faced even though they were unjust ...", "Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives" (1 Peter 3:1). Wow! Wives, be subject. Wives, be subject to your husbands. Wives, be subject to your husbands even if they aren't good Christians. Just like Christ. That "subject" has some descriptions. It includes "respectful and pure conduct" (1 Peter 3:2). (Note that that "respectful" is, again, that "fear" word.) It includes the inner, imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit (1 Peter 3:3). Be that kind of "subject." And then, "likewise" -- just as Christ submitted and endured -- "husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered" (1 Peter 3:7). It kind of seems short for the husbands; don't let it fool you. Husbands, submit to your wives in this way. Be a student of your wife. Know her inside and out. And live according to that knowledge. Now, think about that for a moment. How much can a husband know about his wife? How understanding can he be? That's a tough command, but it is essential and it is submission and it doesn't matter if she's godly or not, gentle or unjust, nice or mean. Submit like Christ, doing what God has commanded without complaint. Recognize that she's not as physically strong as you and treat her with the honor that fine china or a fellow heir deserves -- as your equal deserves.
It is an interesting concept -- submission. It is fundamental to the faith. We submit first and foremost to God. Our submission is a respect that includes and element of fear -- the fear of failing to please, of running off the rail, of missing the mark. And that submission out of respect leads us to submit elsewhere -- to government (Rom 13:1-2), to masters (Eph 6:5-8), wives to husbands (Eph 5:22-24, 33) and husbands to wives (Eph 5:25-33). Submission doesn't always look the same in every application, but it is ever present. It is, in the end, an elevation of others over self, an application of worth and respect to others not because they've earned it, but because we've been commanded and because our submission to God demands it. Definitely unAmerican. Definitely Christian.
Peter gives an interesting rundown on submission. In 1 Peter 2 he begins with "Be subject for the Lord's sake" (there it is again -- "for the Lord's sake") "to every human institution ..." (1 Peter 2:13-14) referring to governments. So our submission to others is first in submission to God and out of reverence (fear) of God. That's one. He goes on to say in that, "Live as people who are free" while also requiring "living as servants of God" (1 Peter 2:16). Peter's next submission command is to servants (literally "household servants" as opposed to Paul's "bondservant") whom he commands to "Be subject to your masters with all respect" (and, yes, that was that "fear" word again). This isn't the master-slave relationship, but simply a boss and subordinate. And it is explicitly not merely nice bosses -- "not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust" (1 Peter 2:18). Peter spends time on this one using Christ as his prime example who endured injustice without a peep (1 Peter 2:19-25). So in 1 Peter 3 he begins, "Likewise ..." (1 Peter 3:1). He also uses the same term in 1 Peter 3:7 -- "Likewise." That is, "In the same way that Christ endured false accusations and abuse without complaining and subjected Himself to the human masters He faced even though they were unjust ...", "Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives" (1 Peter 3:1). Wow! Wives, be subject. Wives, be subject to your husbands. Wives, be subject to your husbands even if they aren't good Christians. Just like Christ. That "subject" has some descriptions. It includes "respectful and pure conduct" (1 Peter 3:2). (Note that that "respectful" is, again, that "fear" word.) It includes the inner, imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit (1 Peter 3:3). Be that kind of "subject." And then, "likewise" -- just as Christ submitted and endured -- "husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered" (1 Peter 3:7). It kind of seems short for the husbands; don't let it fool you. Husbands, submit to your wives in this way. Be a student of your wife. Know her inside and out. And live according to that knowledge. Now, think about that for a moment. How much can a husband know about his wife? How understanding can he be? That's a tough command, but it is essential and it is submission and it doesn't matter if she's godly or not, gentle or unjust, nice or mean. Submit like Christ, doing what God has commanded without complaint. Recognize that she's not as physically strong as you and treat her with the honor that fine china or a fellow heir deserves -- as your equal deserves.
It is an interesting concept -- submission. It is fundamental to the faith. We submit first and foremost to God. Our submission is a respect that includes and element of fear -- the fear of failing to please, of running off the rail, of missing the mark. And that submission out of respect leads us to submit elsewhere -- to government (Rom 13:1-2), to masters (Eph 6:5-8), wives to husbands (Eph 5:22-24, 33) and husbands to wives (Eph 5:25-33). Submission doesn't always look the same in every application, but it is ever present. It is, in the end, an elevation of others over self, an application of worth and respect to others not because they've earned it, but because we've been commanded and because our submission to God demands it. Definitely unAmerican. Definitely Christian.
Wednesday, May 18, 2022
Another "Another"
We looked last week at the idea of "another Jesus." We saw a variety of possibilities that are termed "Jesus" without being the Jesus of the Bible. So, what about God, the Father? Do we find the same thing with Him? Of course we do. It is the first thing we think of when we think of "idolatry" -- another god. The Bible tells us quite a bit about God ... more than I can list here. But, in spite of all that revelation from God Himself, it seems we're pretty good at manufacturing substitutes and fakes.
The Bible, for instance, tells us that He is "holy, holy, holy" (Isa 6:3; Rev 4:8). Is your God that holy? When we think of "holy" we think first of separation from sin. Is your God separate from sin? Or is He complicit, condoning? "Oh, it's okay; everyone makes mistakes." But holy is more. It is "other." Is your God just like you (Psa 50:21)? We are told that "God is not a man" (Num 23:19), but that tends to be our first evaluation of God ... just like us. That's not God; that's another god. We are told that "the wrath of God is revealed from heaven" (Rom 1:18). How about yours? Is He a God who is angry about unrighteousness and ungodliness, or just a friendly kind of god? Scripture says He intends "to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known" (Rom 9:22). Is your God angry at sin, or is He "okay" with it? "Ah, don't worry, I'll let it go." If the latter, that's not God; that's another god. A constantly repeated claim in Scripture is that God is Sovereign ... really Sovereign. The "only Sovereign" (1 Tim 6:15). He makes light and creates -- actually creates -- calamity (Isa 45:7). He causes people to walk in His statutes (Ezek 36:27). We plan our own plans, but He directs our steps (Prov 16:9). The heart of the king is in the hand of the Lord (Prov 21:1). We're talking really, actually Sovereign. If your god is dependent upon Man, stymied by our choices, stopped by our lack of faith, that's another god.
As I said, God's Word lists quite a bit about God. I've just brushed the surface. And we need to be in the Word to see what He says about Himself and to believe what He says about Himself. But since He is God and we are not, since He is holy and we are not, since He is above all and we are not, since He is infinite and we are finite, it is necessarily true that we won't understand Him fully. It is understandable that we would have misguided notions about Him. The problem is that too many of our misguided notions are not misguided, but blind -- missing or ignoring what He has revealed about Himself. That other version of God we have that ignores what He has told us is not God. That's another god. In biblical terms, that's idolatry. "Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry" (1 Cor 10:14).
The Bible, for instance, tells us that He is "holy, holy, holy" (Isa 6:3; Rev 4:8). Is your God that holy? When we think of "holy" we think first of separation from sin. Is your God separate from sin? Or is He complicit, condoning? "Oh, it's okay; everyone makes mistakes." But holy is more. It is "other." Is your God just like you (Psa 50:21)? We are told that "God is not a man" (Num 23:19), but that tends to be our first evaluation of God ... just like us. That's not God; that's another god. We are told that "the wrath of God is revealed from heaven" (Rom 1:18). How about yours? Is He a God who is angry about unrighteousness and ungodliness, or just a friendly kind of god? Scripture says He intends "to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known" (Rom 9:22). Is your God angry at sin, or is He "okay" with it? "Ah, don't worry, I'll let it go." If the latter, that's not God; that's another god. A constantly repeated claim in Scripture is that God is Sovereign ... really Sovereign. The "only Sovereign" (1 Tim 6:15). He makes light and creates -- actually creates -- calamity (Isa 45:7). He causes people to walk in His statutes (Ezek 36:27). We plan our own plans, but He directs our steps (Prov 16:9). The heart of the king is in the hand of the Lord (Prov 21:1). We're talking really, actually Sovereign. If your god is dependent upon Man, stymied by our choices, stopped by our lack of faith, that's another god.
As I said, God's Word lists quite a bit about God. I've just brushed the surface. And we need to be in the Word to see what He says about Himself and to believe what He says about Himself. But since He is God and we are not, since He is holy and we are not, since He is above all and we are not, since He is infinite and we are finite, it is necessarily true that we won't understand Him fully. It is understandable that we would have misguided notions about Him. The problem is that too many of our misguided notions are not misguided, but blind -- missing or ignoring what He has revealed about Himself. That other version of God we have that ignores what He has told us is not God. That's another god. In biblical terms, that's idolatry. "Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry" (1 Cor 10:14).
Tuesday, May 17, 2022
What Would Jesus Pray For?
In the Matthew version, Jesus just blurted it out, so to speak, but in Luke's version the disciples asked Him an excellent question, a request Jesus was only too happy to fulfill. "Lord," they said, "teach us to pray." So He said, "Pray like this," and He told them how to pray (Matt 6:9-13; Luke 11:1-4). He told them to address their Father, a revolutionary concept at the time. He told them to pray that His kingdom would come, and we do, don't we? "Come quickly, Lord Jesus." He told them to pray that God's will would be done on earth. He taught them to pray for daily needs and forgiveness of sins and to help us to avoid temptation and to deliver us from evil. Yes, yes, we know all this.
Jesus taught His disciples to "pray like this." He taught them what was important to ask the Father for. Do you know what was at the very top of Jesus's prayer list? Do you see His very first request? A lot of people miss it. The first request, right after the address -- "Our Father in heaven" -- is often misunderstood as a further address ... to a holy God. "Hallowed be Your name." "Yes," you might say, "we are recognizing His holiness." But that's not how we'd say that. We'd say, "Holy is your name." Jesus didn't. "Holy" is a description; "hallowed" is an action. Jesus's #1 request was that the Father's name would be "hallowed" -- regarded as holy. Yes, He is holy. In fact, He is holy, holy, holy (Isa 6:3; Rev 4:8). He is "holy, holier, holiest." He is absolutely set apart. But the prayer is not that He would be holy, but that we would honor Him as such. We would recognize His holiness. Jesus wanted us to pray to the Father that we would, first and foremost, see Him as holy.
Holy is something that we don't quite get. That's okay. It means "other," "set apart," so you might see how we might not quite get that which is "other." That, in fact, is why we need divine revelation. It's why God has to reveal Himself to us. He is not us; He is "other." So He needs to fill us in on the things we can grasp. And we have His Word for that. But He is holy beyond our comprehension. So we need to pray that we regard Him as holy. And since that is the first thing Jesus taught us to pray, it must be important. It must be that we need to honor Him as holy in all that we ask, in all that we do, in all that we think. I suspect we don't do that very well ... which, of course, is why we need to pray for that, right?
Jesus taught His disciples to "pray like this." He taught them what was important to ask the Father for. Do you know what was at the very top of Jesus's prayer list? Do you see His very first request? A lot of people miss it. The first request, right after the address -- "Our Father in heaven" -- is often misunderstood as a further address ... to a holy God. "Hallowed be Your name." "Yes," you might say, "we are recognizing His holiness." But that's not how we'd say that. We'd say, "Holy is your name." Jesus didn't. "Holy" is a description; "hallowed" is an action. Jesus's #1 request was that the Father's name would be "hallowed" -- regarded as holy. Yes, He is holy. In fact, He is holy, holy, holy (Isa 6:3; Rev 4:8). He is "holy, holier, holiest." He is absolutely set apart. But the prayer is not that He would be holy, but that we would honor Him as such. We would recognize His holiness. Jesus wanted us to pray to the Father that we would, first and foremost, see Him as holy.
Holy is something that we don't quite get. That's okay. It means "other," "set apart," so you might see how we might not quite get that which is "other." That, in fact, is why we need divine revelation. It's why God has to reveal Himself to us. He is not us; He is "other." So He needs to fill us in on the things we can grasp. And we have His Word for that. But He is holy beyond our comprehension. So we need to pray that we regard Him as holy. And since that is the first thing Jesus taught us to pray, it must be important. It must be that we need to honor Him as holy in all that we ask, in all that we do, in all that we think. I suspect we don't do that very well ... which, of course, is why we need to pray for that, right?
Monday, May 16, 2022
Love Your Neighbor
We all know the command. I think even unbelievers can often quote it. "Love your neighbor as you love yourself." Yada, yada, yada. So some will try and some won't but what few ever do is ask, "What does that mean?" To be fair, it's because we think we know, but do we? The standard (in this command) for loving your neighbor is "as you love yourself." How do you love yourself? I mean, just what does that mean? Let's see if we can figure it out.
From the face of it, the whole thing seems a bit much. What if my neighbor is unlovable? What if my neighbor is a jerk? What if my neighbor does bad things? This isn't hard to imagine primarily because it's so common. So how am I supposed to have these warm feelings toward that jerk? The easy answer, of course, is that you're not. You're supposed to love your neighbor in the same sort of manner that you love yourself. How do you love yourself? Are you always lovable? Are you never a jerk? Do you ever do bad things? Of course you do. If you're honest, all the time. And you would know best because one of your traits (I only know this because it is common to us all) is that you can cover it up much of the time ... but not to you. So you know quite well your faults and foibles, sins and misdemeanors, your failures and deviations. And, still, you continue to seek your best. You continue to hope for good things for you. You continue to try to take care of, to tend to your needs. If you're honest, sometimes you don't like you very much, but that doesn't stop you from feeding and clothing and housing yourself. And that is what is meant by "as you love yourself."
We are commanded to love our neighbors -- and Jesus is quite clear that this includes anybody with whom you come in contact -- as you love yourself. That doesn't mean we are required to feel warmly toward everyone we encounter. It doesn't mean we like everyone we see. It doesn't mean we think well of them all at all times. To believe that is to buy a version of "love" not intended in Scripture. No, the idea is that we are to love them in the same way that we seek our own best. The idea is that "each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others" (Php 2:4). Love your neighbor that way. Then, of course, you can start loving your fellow believers as Christ has loved you. The ultimate love.
From the face of it, the whole thing seems a bit much. What if my neighbor is unlovable? What if my neighbor is a jerk? What if my neighbor does bad things? This isn't hard to imagine primarily because it's so common. So how am I supposed to have these warm feelings toward that jerk? The easy answer, of course, is that you're not. You're supposed to love your neighbor in the same sort of manner that you love yourself. How do you love yourself? Are you always lovable? Are you never a jerk? Do you ever do bad things? Of course you do. If you're honest, all the time. And you would know best because one of your traits (I only know this because it is common to us all) is that you can cover it up much of the time ... but not to you. So you know quite well your faults and foibles, sins and misdemeanors, your failures and deviations. And, still, you continue to seek your best. You continue to hope for good things for you. You continue to try to take care of, to tend to your needs. If you're honest, sometimes you don't like you very much, but that doesn't stop you from feeding and clothing and housing yourself. And that is what is meant by "as you love yourself."
We are commanded to love our neighbors -- and Jesus is quite clear that this includes anybody with whom you come in contact -- as you love yourself. That doesn't mean we are required to feel warmly toward everyone we encounter. It doesn't mean we like everyone we see. It doesn't mean we think well of them all at all times. To believe that is to buy a version of "love" not intended in Scripture. No, the idea is that we are to love them in the same way that we seek our own best. The idea is that "each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others" (Php 2:4). Love your neighbor that way. Then, of course, you can start loving your fellow believers as Christ has loved you. The ultimate love.
Sunday, May 15, 2022
The Place Where I Live
We have a lot of disagreements in our world, but it seems like there is one thing on which we are all agreed. These are tough times. The end. I say "the end" because exactly what makes it tough varies. It's the war in Ukraine or it's prices or it's government or it's the Supreme Court. It's politics or religion or social ills or physical woes. It's relationships or it's radicals. It's hate or harassment, sex or sexual orientation, racism or inequity, poor pay or poverty, ignorance or apathy. It's actually a long menu of complaints from which, I'm sure, we could all pick more than one. What do we do with our woes? How do we handle our tough times? These days there is a large group who have decided to fight about it. Some are actually fighting in the Ukraine. Others are fighting in the political arena or the socical justice arena. Even more are fighting online, because there your voices can be made heard without much consequence. We've elevated hate to a national pastime, discarded compassion for all but our own pet projects, and sit on hair-triggered outrage ready to explode if just one more person offends us.
What do I do? I live in a different place. Oh, I reside here at the moment, but I'm just a visitor, a sojourner; I'm just passing through. Your president may be Biden, but my Master is not. I'm an ambassador in a skin suit waiting to complete my job and go home. In the meantime, I serve a risen Savior. I worship a Sovereign God. Oh, and I mean Sovereign with a capital "S". Solomon wrote, "Many are the plans in the mind of a man, but it is the purpose of the LORD that will stand" (Prov 19:21) and "The heart of man plans his way, but the LORD establishes his steps" (Prov 16:9). The psalmist assured us, "Our God is in the heavens; He does all that He pleases" (Psa 115:3; Psa 135:6). Paul wrote that God "works all things according to the counsel of His will" (Eph 1:11). Isaiah wrote things like "As I have planned, so shall it be, and as I have purposed, so shall it stand" (Isa 14:24) and "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). Job said, "I know that You can do all things, and that no purpose of Yours can be thwarted" (Job 42:2). Jeremiah asked, "Who has spoken and it came to pass, unless the Lord has commanded it?" (Lam 3:37). Over and over again, God's Word declares that God is absolutely and only Sovereign.
With a Sovereign God, I can rest in stormy seas. But that's just part of it. A God who is Sovereign decides, but is it a good decision? It's a reasonable question, but the place where I live is in the presence of a God who loves. God defines love (1 John 4:8). He generously demonstrated His love by sending His Son (Rom 5:7-8) and making a way for salvation (John 3:16), for peace with Him (Rom 5:1). Paul's prayer was that we would "know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge" (Eph 3:19). Yes, a Sovereign God, but a loving God, too. So He's Sovereign and He's loving and these are both critical, but is He right? He can control outcomes and do it with the best of intentions, but if He's mistaken, it still isn't good. So I live in the place where God is "the only wise God" (Rom 16:27). He is "the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God" (1 Tim 1:17). Paul loses his mind over God's wisdom when he writes, "Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and how inscrutable His ways! For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been His counselor?" (Rom 11:33-34). No one knows better what is good than God.
The place where I live is in the presence of a Sovereign God who is too loving to be unkind and too wise to be wrong. Living here, in the midst of all the disagreements and wars, both literal and figurative, I can experience a peace that passes understanding because I know a God who passes understanding. David wrote, "The LORD is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? The LORD is the stronghold of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?" (Psa 27:1). That's where I get to live. What about you?
What do I do? I live in a different place. Oh, I reside here at the moment, but I'm just a visitor, a sojourner; I'm just passing through. Your president may be Biden, but my Master is not. I'm an ambassador in a skin suit waiting to complete my job and go home. In the meantime, I serve a risen Savior. I worship a Sovereign God. Oh, and I mean Sovereign with a capital "S". Solomon wrote, "Many are the plans in the mind of a man, but it is the purpose of the LORD that will stand" (Prov 19:21) and "The heart of man plans his way, but the LORD establishes his steps" (Prov 16:9). The psalmist assured us, "Our God is in the heavens; He does all that He pleases" (Psa 115:3; Psa 135:6). Paul wrote that God "works all things according to the counsel of His will" (Eph 1:11). Isaiah wrote things like "As I have planned, so shall it be, and as I have purposed, so shall it stand" (Isa 14:24) and "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). Job said, "I know that You can do all things, and that no purpose of Yours can be thwarted" (Job 42:2). Jeremiah asked, "Who has spoken and it came to pass, unless the Lord has commanded it?" (Lam 3:37). Over and over again, God's Word declares that God is absolutely and only Sovereign.
With a Sovereign God, I can rest in stormy seas. But that's just part of it. A God who is Sovereign decides, but is it a good decision? It's a reasonable question, but the place where I live is in the presence of a God who loves. God defines love (1 John 4:8). He generously demonstrated His love by sending His Son (Rom 5:7-8) and making a way for salvation (John 3:16), for peace with Him (Rom 5:1). Paul's prayer was that we would "know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge" (Eph 3:19). Yes, a Sovereign God, but a loving God, too. So He's Sovereign and He's loving and these are both critical, but is He right? He can control outcomes and do it with the best of intentions, but if He's mistaken, it still isn't good. So I live in the place where God is "the only wise God" (Rom 16:27). He is "the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God" (1 Tim 1:17). Paul loses his mind over God's wisdom when he writes, "Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and how inscrutable His ways! For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been His counselor?" (Rom 11:33-34). No one knows better what is good than God.
The place where I live is in the presence of a Sovereign God who is too loving to be unkind and too wise to be wrong. Living here, in the midst of all the disagreements and wars, both literal and figurative, I can experience a peace that passes understanding because I know a God who passes understanding. David wrote, "The LORD is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? The LORD is the stronghold of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?" (Psa 27:1). That's where I get to live. What about you?
Saturday, May 14, 2022
News Weakly - 5/14/22
Message Received
I thought it was ironic in the vice president's speech to the graduating class of Tennessee State when she rebuked her political opponents.
Anti-American Protests
Protests have been organized at the homes of Supreme Court justices. They are hoping to encourage, scare, intimidate, change the minds of the justices to satisfy their demands. Kind of like the protestors from Jan. 6. It stands in stark opposition to the American premise of the separation of powers. The Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch ought to listen to the people, but the Judicial Branch must not make their determination based on preferences, but solely on law. These protesters are opposed to saving the lives of unborn children and, apparently, to the American philosophy of government.
Keeping Promises and Bankrupting People
In 2019, running for president, Joe Biden vowed to "end fossil fuel." He started out strong, cancelling the Keystone XL pipeline his first day in office and reversing more than 100 Trump actions on the environment. Today, that translates to record high gas prices. Which, of course, does not bode well for any of us.
Insensitive
Of all the nerve! Apparently the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) isn't following the law. SB132 took effect last year allowing transgenders to transfer to the "suitable" prison. Of 321 requests to do so, only 46 have been granted. Attorneys, legal centers, and the ACLU are demanding that they ignore all those women who are scared to have a woman with "male body parts" in their cells. I mean, what could go wrong, right? This on the tail end of the story of the transgender inmate convicted of raping a female prisoner in Rikers last month. Nah, it can't happen.
This is what I'm talking about
We're told to "Trust the science" to the point that Science begins to sound like its own god. I'm not convinced. Like the story where they discovered 50 years later that plastics may cause cancer. Or this latest one where they say that short-term ibuprofen use could increase the possibility could increase chronic pain. I'm not looking at a conspiracy. I'm not thinking that someone hid the data. I'm thinking that "Science" didn't actually know how it all works and now, 70 years later, they're figuring out it may be harmful. "Trust the science" is problematic when science can't be trusted.
Seems Reasonable to Someone
Remember that last $1.9 trillion COVID relief package the government sent out to help us all get through COVID? I know, I know, not much help, but, hey, now the president has a bright idea. Seeing as how so many government entities are defunding the police, Biden is suggesting they use money from the relief package for public safety -- policing. Spending your tax dollars, stolen fair and square, on something not part of what it was stolen for and something that not a few governmental entities are opposed to spending it on. Makes sense. Okay, not to me, but ...
Tone Deaf
Governor Newsom: "Yes, California, we've imposed the highest tax rates in the country. Yes, we're actually losing people. But, good news! Your caring government is sitting on a record-smashing surplus of $97.5 billion, so vote for me in November!" (Aside: "They're sheeple; they'll do it.")
Gotta See it to Beelieve it
The House passed a $40 billion aid package for Ukraine. (The Senate blocked it, but the humor that follows is still humor.) Russia is looking forward to $40 billion in new equipment when the U.S. abandons Ukraine. On the other hand, starving American babies are disguising themselves as Ukrainian soldiers hoping to get some of that federal aid. It's okay. Biden has come up with a plan to ease the baby formula shortage. He's asking each illegal immagrant to please bring a can of baby formula. That ought to help. And Psaki tells parents who can't get baby formula to just feed their babies a margarita. Until the formula problem is resolved, Pete Buttigieg will need to resort to chestfeeding.
Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
I thought it was ironic in the vice president's speech to the graduating class of Tennessee State when she rebuked her political opponents.
Here in the United States, we are once again forced to defend fundamental principles that we hoped were long settled; principles like the freedom to vote, the rights of women to make decisions about their own body, what constitutes the truth.No, Madam Vice President, we have obviously not settled what constitutes the truth, given that you still refer to what all of science declares an "unborn child" as "the woman's own body."(Since a baby in the womb has its own body, its own organs, its own DNA, etc., and she refers to it as "the woman's own body," doesn't that make the woman the owner of that child? Don't we refer to people who own other individuals as "slave owners"?)
Anti-American Protests
Protests have been organized at the homes of Supreme Court justices. They are hoping to encourage, scare, intimidate, change the minds of the justices to satisfy their demands. Kind of like the protestors from Jan. 6. It stands in stark opposition to the American premise of the separation of powers. The Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch ought to listen to the people, but the Judicial Branch must not make their determination based on preferences, but solely on law. These protesters are opposed to saving the lives of unborn children and, apparently, to the American philosophy of government.
Keeping Promises and Bankrupting People
In 2019, running for president, Joe Biden vowed to "end fossil fuel." He started out strong, cancelling the Keystone XL pipeline his first day in office and reversing more than 100 Trump actions on the environment. Today, that translates to record high gas prices. Which, of course, does not bode well for any of us.
Insensitive
Of all the nerve! Apparently the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) isn't following the law. SB132 took effect last year allowing transgenders to transfer to the "suitable" prison. Of 321 requests to do so, only 46 have been granted. Attorneys, legal centers, and the ACLU are demanding that they ignore all those women who are scared to have a woman with "male body parts" in their cells. I mean, what could go wrong, right? This on the tail end of the story of the transgender inmate convicted of raping a female prisoner in Rikers last month. Nah, it can't happen.
This is what I'm talking about
We're told to "Trust the science" to the point that Science begins to sound like its own god. I'm not convinced. Like the story where they discovered 50 years later that plastics may cause cancer. Or this latest one where they say that short-term ibuprofen use could increase the possibility could increase chronic pain. I'm not looking at a conspiracy. I'm not thinking that someone hid the data. I'm thinking that "Science" didn't actually know how it all works and now, 70 years later, they're figuring out it may be harmful. "Trust the science" is problematic when science can't be trusted.
Seems Reasonable to Someone
Remember that last $1.9 trillion COVID relief package the government sent out to help us all get through COVID? I know, I know, not much help, but, hey, now the president has a bright idea. Seeing as how so many government entities are defunding the police, Biden is suggesting they use money from the relief package for public safety -- policing. Spending your tax dollars, stolen fair and square, on something not part of what it was stolen for and something that not a few governmental entities are opposed to spending it on. Makes sense. Okay, not to me, but ...
Tone Deaf
Governor Newsom: "Yes, California, we've imposed the highest tax rates in the country. Yes, we're actually losing people. But, good news! Your caring government is sitting on a record-smashing surplus of $97.5 billion, so vote for me in November!" (Aside: "They're sheeple; they'll do it.")
Gotta See it to Beelieve it
The House passed a $40 billion aid package for Ukraine. (The Senate blocked it, but the humor that follows is still humor.) Russia is looking forward to $40 billion in new equipment when the U.S. abandons Ukraine. On the other hand, starving American babies are disguising themselves as Ukrainian soldiers hoping to get some of that federal aid. It's okay. Biden has come up with a plan to ease the baby formula shortage. He's asking each illegal immagrant to please bring a can of baby formula. That ought to help. And Psaki tells parents who can't get baby formula to just feed their babies a margarita. Until the formula problem is resolved, Pete Buttigieg will need to resort to chestfeeding.
Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
Friday, May 13, 2022
The Biblical Abortion Approval
There are those who will try to tell you that the Bible does not oppose killing a child before birth. They actually argue that a child is not a child until it breathes. All that joking about the "magical birth canal" is bunk; it's a first breath that makes a person. One of the favorites, however, is found in Exodus.
It actually takes some work to arrive at that conclusion. Admittedly, other translations might contribute to that conclusion. The ESV says the children "come out." The King James says "her fruit depart." Quite a few translations say something to the effect that she "gives birth prematurely." The NASB 1977 says "she has a miscarriage." Notice, then, that only one (the NASB 1995 switches to "gives birth prematurely") suggests miscarriage. That's because "miscarriage" isn't in there. The term is literally "to go."
The real question, then, is the question of "harm." That's the key criterion, isn't it? If there is "no harm", then there is a fine, but "if there is harm" it is "life for life." "The question," they tell us, "is about whether or not the mother is harmed." Maybe. Except it makes no sense. The question is clearly on the topic of the pregnant woman. If a woman, pregnant or not, is killed, the rule is "life for life." So what is the point of the text? Why mention pregnant women? Did someone think, "Well, it's a death penalty for killing a woman who isn't pregnant, but is it permissible if she is"? Of course not. So who is in view here in the question of "harm"? It seems patently obvious that the text is answering the question regarding the child, not the mother. If two guys are fighting and they hit a pregnant woman and the child "goes out" -- premature birth of any sort -- what is the rule? It is a ruling on the consequences of harming the child. If the fight causes a premature birth, but the child is not harmed, then there is a fine, but if the child is harmed or dies, there are harsh penalties. It's the only thing that makes sense of the text. (And it is telling that what comes out of the womb prematurely is "children".)
You can see, then, that the Old Testament considers the unborn as "life." If that baby comes early and is dead because of the event, the price is "life for life." The baby is regarded as "life." Killing it is regarded as murder. I don't think it's ambiguous or difficult to see. Otherwise you just have a text that repeats what we've already been told, that harming a person, whether it's a woman or a pregnant woman, has consequences. "And that whole 'pregnant' thing? Yeah, I just threw that in there to mix you up." That makes no sense.
When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. (Exo 21:22-25 ESV)Well now, what could be clearer than that? This law, they tell us, is only concerned about the woman's welfare (as we all should be) and not the unborn child's welfare. If the blow causes a miscarriage, but the woman isn't hurt, no harm, no foul. In today's terms, if the doctor pulls the baby out but the woman isn't hurt, it's all good. Right there in the pages of your Bible.
It actually takes some work to arrive at that conclusion. Admittedly, other translations might contribute to that conclusion. The ESV says the children "come out." The King James says "her fruit depart." Quite a few translations say something to the effect that she "gives birth prematurely." The NASB 1977 says "she has a miscarriage." Notice, then, that only one (the NASB 1995 switches to "gives birth prematurely") suggests miscarriage. That's because "miscarriage" isn't in there. The term is literally "to go."
The real question, then, is the question of "harm." That's the key criterion, isn't it? If there is "no harm", then there is a fine, but "if there is harm" it is "life for life." "The question," they tell us, "is about whether or not the mother is harmed." Maybe. Except it makes no sense. The question is clearly on the topic of the pregnant woman. If a woman, pregnant or not, is killed, the rule is "life for life." So what is the point of the text? Why mention pregnant women? Did someone think, "Well, it's a death penalty for killing a woman who isn't pregnant, but is it permissible if she is"? Of course not. So who is in view here in the question of "harm"? It seems patently obvious that the text is answering the question regarding the child, not the mother. If two guys are fighting and they hit a pregnant woman and the child "goes out" -- premature birth of any sort -- what is the rule? It is a ruling on the consequences of harming the child. If the fight causes a premature birth, but the child is not harmed, then there is a fine, but if the child is harmed or dies, there are harsh penalties. It's the only thing that makes sense of the text. (And it is telling that what comes out of the womb prematurely is "children".)
You can see, then, that the Old Testament considers the unborn as "life." If that baby comes early and is dead because of the event, the price is "life for life." The baby is regarded as "life." Killing it is regarded as murder. I don't think it's ambiguous or difficult to see. Otherwise you just have a text that repeats what we've already been told, that harming a person, whether it's a woman or a pregnant woman, has consequences. "And that whole 'pregnant' thing? Yeah, I just threw that in there to mix you up." That makes no sense.
Thursday, May 12, 2022
You Religious Fanatics
There is no question. I oppose killing babies. I know, I know, there are quite a few that disagree with me. Some estimates even put me in the minority. But for me it is always wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being. There. I said it. Now the pro-abortion folk can come and complain and tell me why it's perfectly good to kill innocent humans.
So, now, hold on. Did you notice something in that position I just took? I didn't take a religious position. I didn't offer biblical reasons. Mind you, there are biblical reasons, but I didn't offer one there. So why is it that they're constantly telling me "Your religion forbids abortion" when I'm not making a religious argument?
The argument is that a human fetus is human. The argument is that the human fetus is the first stage of human life. It isn't the Bible that tells me that the fetal DNA is distinct from the mother's DNA; it's science. Scripture doesn't tell me that there are distinct arms and legs, head and body, an entire array of internal organs and workings that occur in the early days of that gestation; it's science. I don't have to go to my Bible to learn that this is a human being. I just have to go do science ... and the dictionary ... and common sense. You know ... reality. Facts.
The funny thing I've seen is when pro-abortion women shoot their argument in the foot. A pregnant woman looking forward to her child's birth gets assaulted and loses her baby, and the pro-abortion ladies are out in force demanding murder charges for the culprit. Hang on a minute, ladies. Didn't you just tell me that this wasn't a human being? Didn't you assure me that was just a tissue blob? Aren't you talking out of both sides of your mouth when you say, "If it's wanted, it's human, but if it's not, it's not human"? I define "human being" in scientific terms -- DNA, biology, physiology, all that -- and you define it by "how the mother feels about it"? And I'm the irrational one?
In the end, it seems to me that the real religious fanatics are those who are angrily, violently opposed to limiting the choices of a mother. It isn't done with reason because science says that's a human baby and it isn't done with religion because religion says "Thou shalt not kill" and it isn't done with compassion because the well-being of what science and the government all recognize as "a human baby" has absolutely no protections if the mother so chooses. That's a huge step of faith, a giant religious fervor over "the woman's right to choose" over against all other considerations." Frankly, I don't have that much faith.
So, now, hold on. Did you notice something in that position I just took? I didn't take a religious position. I didn't offer biblical reasons. Mind you, there are biblical reasons, but I didn't offer one there. So why is it that they're constantly telling me "Your religion forbids abortion" when I'm not making a religious argument?
The argument is that a human fetus is human. The argument is that the human fetus is the first stage of human life. It isn't the Bible that tells me that the fetal DNA is distinct from the mother's DNA; it's science. Scripture doesn't tell me that there are distinct arms and legs, head and body, an entire array of internal organs and workings that occur in the early days of that gestation; it's science. I don't have to go to my Bible to learn that this is a human being. I just have to go do science ... and the dictionary ... and common sense. You know ... reality. Facts.
The funny thing I've seen is when pro-abortion women shoot their argument in the foot. A pregnant woman looking forward to her child's birth gets assaulted and loses her baby, and the pro-abortion ladies are out in force demanding murder charges for the culprit. Hang on a minute, ladies. Didn't you just tell me that this wasn't a human being? Didn't you assure me that was just a tissue blob? Aren't you talking out of both sides of your mouth when you say, "If it's wanted, it's human, but if it's not, it's not human"? I define "human being" in scientific terms -- DNA, biology, physiology, all that -- and you define it by "how the mother feels about it"? And I'm the irrational one?
In the end, it seems to me that the real religious fanatics are those who are angrily, violently opposed to limiting the choices of a mother. It isn't done with reason because science says that's a human baby and it isn't done with religion because religion says "Thou shalt not kill" and it isn't done with compassion because the well-being of what science and the government all recognize as "a human baby" has absolutely no protections if the mother so chooses. That's a huge step of faith, a giant religious fervor over "the woman's right to choose" over against all other considerations." Frankly, I don't have that much faith.
Wednesday, May 11, 2022
Another
In Paul's letter to the churches of Galatia he famously warns against "another gospel" which, he warns, is not a gospel (Gal 1:6-9). Let's just say he's against it. Paul also talks about a "different gospel" in his second letter to the church at Corinth (2 Cor 11:4). In that same verse, Paul warns against "another Jesus." Now that's an interesting concept, isn't it? I mean, how many "Jesuses" can there be? As it turns out, there can be quite a few. As it turns out "another Jesus" is actually prevalent in our world today.
We have Jesus -- the one in the Bible, the one Paul refers to as "the one we proclaimed" (2 Cor 11:4) -- and we have "another Jesus," a host of options that bear the name but contradict the biblical Jesus. In the Bible, for instance, Jesus is God's "only Son" (John 3:16). One prominent group today has a Jesus that is God's spirit son and the spirit brother of Satan. Sorry. You claim to be a follower of Jesu, but that's another Jesus. The Bible makes it clear that Jesus was God (John 1:1), that He made all things, and without Him was not anything made that was made (John 1:3). There is a group that argues that Jesus was made, a created being, which is fine for them, but is not the Jesus of the Bible. That's another Jesus. The Jesus of the Bible was concerned for the poor and the marginalized, but He said He came to save the lost (Luke 19:10). When the disciples were miffed because money that could be given to the poor was wasted, Jesus said, "You always have the poor with you, but you will not always have Me" (Matt 26:11), demonstrating that He cared about the poor, but that was not His primary focus. There are lots of folk who argue that Jesus was all about social justice and the moment they say "all about," they introduce another Jesus, not the one in the Bible. Some hold that He came to show us a better way; He said He came to "Lay down My life for the sheep" (John 10:15). He showed a better way, but Jesus came primarily to die for sin, and if their Jesus is not that Jesus, it is another Jesus.
The list could go on. There are lots and lots of Jesuses. And that can make it confusing. "Well," they will tell us, "the guy said he believed in Jesus," never realizing that the Jesus he said he believed in was another Jesus. We hang onto the name and fail to grasp who is behind it. Sometimes it's an angel of light. And we are too willing to embrace another Jesus and another gospel as if they are genuine, to our detriment.
We have Jesus -- the one in the Bible, the one Paul refers to as "the one we proclaimed" (2 Cor 11:4) -- and we have "another Jesus," a host of options that bear the name but contradict the biblical Jesus. In the Bible, for instance, Jesus is God's "only Son" (John 3:16). One prominent group today has a Jesus that is God's spirit son and the spirit brother of Satan. Sorry. You claim to be a follower of Jesu, but that's another Jesus. The Bible makes it clear that Jesus was God (John 1:1), that He made all things, and without Him was not anything made that was made (John 1:3). There is a group that argues that Jesus was made, a created being, which is fine for them, but is not the Jesus of the Bible. That's another Jesus. The Jesus of the Bible was concerned for the poor and the marginalized, but He said He came to save the lost (Luke 19:10). When the disciples were miffed because money that could be given to the poor was wasted, Jesus said, "You always have the poor with you, but you will not always have Me" (Matt 26:11), demonstrating that He cared about the poor, but that was not His primary focus. There are lots of folk who argue that Jesus was all about social justice and the moment they say "all about," they introduce another Jesus, not the one in the Bible. Some hold that He came to show us a better way; He said He came to "Lay down My life for the sheep" (John 10:15). He showed a better way, but Jesus came primarily to die for sin, and if their Jesus is not that Jesus, it is another Jesus.
The list could go on. There are lots and lots of Jesuses. And that can make it confusing. "Well," they will tell us, "the guy said he believed in Jesus," never realizing that the Jesus he said he believed in was another Jesus. We hang onto the name and fail to grasp who is behind it. Sometimes it's an angel of light. And we are too willing to embrace another Jesus and another gospel as if they are genuine, to our detriment.
Tuesday, May 10, 2022
From the Prophet
Shakespeare, apparently, was a prophet.
"It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." - Macbeth, speaking on pro-abortion arguments, pro-transgender arguments, or maybe even most of what comes out of Washington these days
Monday, May 09, 2022
Thoughts on Abortion
Amidst all this furor over the possibility of the end of Roe v Wade (not the end of abortion) -- especially some of the comments thrown my way for disagreeing with the notion that women should be allowed to kill their babies at will -- I've had some mental meanderings on the topic. I thought I'd share a few. The first is the absolute irony of this debate during the week before Mother's Day. Just plain ironic.
There is an interesting observation. In 1973 when the Supreme Court issued their stunning ruling that a tentative "right to privacy" (The phrase doesn't appear in the Constitution. It is inferred from the 14th Amendment, but not explicit anywhere.) insured that women could choose to terminate their pregnancies, all abortion laws in the 50 states of America were abolished. However, if the Supreme Court reverses Roe v Wade, the question goes back to the States who can legalize or outlaw abortion. Isn't that odd?
Why is it that pro-choice folks get to call themselves "pro-choice" but pro-life folks must be termed "anti-choice" or "anti-abortion"? The pro-life stand doesn't vary much. We oppose killing innocent humans without cause. The pro-"choice" side has varied quite a bit. First, the measure was "viability." If it can survive outside the womb, you can't kill it. That slipped away pretty quickly as medical science shortened the time it took to become viable. So it became "abortion on demand." The only right abortion policy is "up until birth." And, of course, more recently that has shifted so that some states are looking at "post-partum abortion" -- up to 28 days after birth. And they wonder why we call ourselves "pro-life" instead of "anti-abortion."
There is a constant suggestion out there that we who are pro-life are evil control freaks and the gentle and loving pro-choice folks are kind and generous to women and their "reproductive rights" (which feels a lot like standing amidst burning buildings during a "mostly peaceful demonstration"). (Since 1973 estimates are that more than 63 million babies were killed before birth in the U.S.) "Where do you get off telling women they're killing babies??!" they howl. "That's just your opinion ... probably just because you're male ... and white ... and patriarchal ... and any other overly stereotypical term we can conjure up." (The fact that a goodly part of those who oppose killing children in the womb are not male, white, or patriarchal, but, as we understand, real facts are rarely at issue in this conversation. According to a 2009 poll, only 7% of Americans believe abortion should be allowed at any time for any reason. And according to a 2010 Rasmussen poll, 53% of women believe abortions are too easy to get and 58% believe abortion is morally wrong in most cases.) No, Virginia, it's not about my gender, my race, or other side issues. It's about life.
Why do we say we are "pro-life"? More to the point, what makes us think it's life in view rather than some fetal tissue? According to the New World Encyclopedia, a human being is "any member of the mammalian species Homo sapiens." The earliest stage of the human being is the human embryo. Studies show that the human embryo is "a discrete entity," not a part of the host body in which it grows. The growing baby has its own body -- its own nervous system, its own blood type, its own pulmonary system, its own circulatory system ... everything. It has distinct DNA and, given the proper means to survive, will continue through all phases of "human" from embryo to death. One paper from the NIH defines life as "an organized matter that provides genetic information metabolism." There is no doubt that a human embryo is life and there is no doubt that a human embryo is human. And the truth is we know that. Indeed, we have codified it. In 2004 the Laci and Conner's Law, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, made it a crime to injure or to cause the death of a child in utero. Ironically, they specifically excluded abortion from the offense, but there is no question that the U.S. government as well as standard science classify an unborn fetus as life, a human being, a child.
Vice President Harris made a statement commonly thrown out there about how "Republican leaders ... are trying to weaponize the use of the law against women." (Only Republican leaders, eh? Interesting.) Now, maybe I'm just ignorant, but is this really intended to rule "against women"? Or is it intended to protect the most defenseless Americans? We are holding "freedom from consequences" in one hand and "life for a human being" in the other and asking, "Which is worth more?" The pro-abortion advocates say the woman's freedom from consequences is worth more than the life of the child. If "Republican leaders ... are trying to weaponize the use of the law against women," then the Democrats are tring to retain the weaponized law to freely kill the most defenseless Americans ... by the millions.
USA Today said that overturning Roe v Wade would make us a "global outlier." I think "outliar" would be true, as in "you're outright lying." Only 7 countries in the world allow abortion on demand. Only 10 allow abortion after 14 weeks. The vast majority of nations around the world prohibit or limit abortion. And, of course, repealing Roe v Wade won't make abortion illegal. It may make it inconvenient in some states. But, good news! There are folks that will be willing to make it more convenient for you if that's the case. USA Today's sentiment is not fact; it is ... sentiment.
The position we take is that humans are intrinsically valuable and should not be killed without cause. There is no cause to kill a child who has done nothing to deserve it. Oddly, the pro-abortion or pro-choice folk are likely opposed to the death penalty for people who earned it, but in favor of killing the unborn child who has not. We, however, are the oppressors. We would urge women not to engage in practices that get them pregnant if they don't want to get pregnant rather than killing babies who get no choice in the matter. It really isn't about controlling women; it's about saving lives. "It's not a life" doesn't hold water in view of science, logic, or the law. Of course, that won't change the minds. Science, logic, and the law rarely seems to change minds. To the pro-abortion crowd, "what the public wants" is what defines "right." (Hopefully they've forgotten that "what the public wants" at one point is currently viewed as heinous.)
__________
Postscript: If you ever wonder if a media outlet has a pro-abortion bias, simply look at how they report on the topic. If they label pro-life stories as anti-abortion stories, you'll know. (Note: They almost exclusively do.)
There is an interesting observation. In 1973 when the Supreme Court issued their stunning ruling that a tentative "right to privacy" (The phrase doesn't appear in the Constitution. It is inferred from the 14th Amendment, but not explicit anywhere.) insured that women could choose to terminate their pregnancies, all abortion laws in the 50 states of America were abolished. However, if the Supreme Court reverses Roe v Wade, the question goes back to the States who can legalize or outlaw abortion. Isn't that odd?
Why is it that pro-choice folks get to call themselves "pro-choice" but pro-life folks must be termed "anti-choice" or "anti-abortion"? The pro-life stand doesn't vary much. We oppose killing innocent humans without cause. The pro-"choice" side has varied quite a bit. First, the measure was "viability." If it can survive outside the womb, you can't kill it. That slipped away pretty quickly as medical science shortened the time it took to become viable. So it became "abortion on demand." The only right abortion policy is "up until birth." And, of course, more recently that has shifted so that some states are looking at "post-partum abortion" -- up to 28 days after birth. And they wonder why we call ourselves "pro-life" instead of "anti-abortion."
There is a constant suggestion out there that we who are pro-life are evil control freaks and the gentle and loving pro-choice folks are kind and generous to women and their "reproductive rights" (which feels a lot like standing amidst burning buildings during a "mostly peaceful demonstration"). (Since 1973 estimates are that more than 63 million babies were killed before birth in the U.S.) "Where do you get off telling women they're killing babies??!" they howl. "That's just your opinion ... probably just because you're male ... and white ... and patriarchal ... and any other overly stereotypical term we can conjure up." (The fact that a goodly part of those who oppose killing children in the womb are not male, white, or patriarchal, but, as we understand, real facts are rarely at issue in this conversation. According to a 2009 poll, only 7% of Americans believe abortion should be allowed at any time for any reason. And according to a 2010 Rasmussen poll, 53% of women believe abortions are too easy to get and 58% believe abortion is morally wrong in most cases.) No, Virginia, it's not about my gender, my race, or other side issues. It's about life.
Why do we say we are "pro-life"? More to the point, what makes us think it's life in view rather than some fetal tissue? According to the New World Encyclopedia, a human being is "any member of the mammalian species Homo sapiens." The earliest stage of the human being is the human embryo. Studies show that the human embryo is "a discrete entity," not a part of the host body in which it grows. The growing baby has its own body -- its own nervous system, its own blood type, its own pulmonary system, its own circulatory system ... everything. It has distinct DNA and, given the proper means to survive, will continue through all phases of "human" from embryo to death. One paper from the NIH defines life as "an organized matter that provides genetic information metabolism." There is no doubt that a human embryo is life and there is no doubt that a human embryo is human. And the truth is we know that. Indeed, we have codified it. In 2004 the Laci and Conner's Law, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, made it a crime to injure or to cause the death of a child in utero. Ironically, they specifically excluded abortion from the offense, but there is no question that the U.S. government as well as standard science classify an unborn fetus as life, a human being, a child.
Vice President Harris made a statement commonly thrown out there about how "Republican leaders ... are trying to weaponize the use of the law against women." (Only Republican leaders, eh? Interesting.) Now, maybe I'm just ignorant, but is this really intended to rule "against women"? Or is it intended to protect the most defenseless Americans? We are holding "freedom from consequences" in one hand and "life for a human being" in the other and asking, "Which is worth more?" The pro-abortion advocates say the woman's freedom from consequences is worth more than the life of the child. If "Republican leaders ... are trying to weaponize the use of the law against women," then the Democrats are tring to retain the weaponized law to freely kill the most defenseless Americans ... by the millions.
USA Today said that overturning Roe v Wade would make us a "global outlier." I think "outliar" would be true, as in "you're outright lying." Only 7 countries in the world allow abortion on demand. Only 10 allow abortion after 14 weeks. The vast majority of nations around the world prohibit or limit abortion. And, of course, repealing Roe v Wade won't make abortion illegal. It may make it inconvenient in some states. But, good news! There are folks that will be willing to make it more convenient for you if that's the case. USA Today's sentiment is not fact; it is ... sentiment.
The position we take is that humans are intrinsically valuable and should not be killed without cause. There is no cause to kill a child who has done nothing to deserve it. Oddly, the pro-abortion or pro-choice folk are likely opposed to the death penalty for people who earned it, but in favor of killing the unborn child who has not. We, however, are the oppressors. We would urge women not to engage in practices that get them pregnant if they don't want to get pregnant rather than killing babies who get no choice in the matter. It really isn't about controlling women; it's about saving lives. "It's not a life" doesn't hold water in view of science, logic, or the law. Of course, that won't change the minds. Science, logic, and the law rarely seems to change minds. To the pro-abortion crowd, "what the public wants" is what defines "right." (Hopefully they've forgotten that "what the public wants" at one point is currently viewed as heinous.)
__________
Postscript: If you ever wonder if a media outlet has a pro-abortion bias, simply look at how they report on the topic. If they label pro-life stories as anti-abortion stories, you'll know. (Note: They almost exclusively do.)
Sunday, May 08, 2022
Made With Love
It's Mother's Day, the day we've set aside to recognize the importance of mothers in the lives of children of all ages -- each and every one of us. (Ironic, I think, that we're celebrating Mother's Day in the midst of a heated debate about the right for mothers to kill their babies.) I am particularly grateful to God for the mother He gave me. I was literally fashioned by my mother in the sense that she bore me into this world. Her genes and my father's genes merged and produced ... me. But far beyond the merely physical, my parents made me. They shaped me. They were formative. And, as in most people of my generation, Mom had more influence than Dad simply in terms of the quantity of time spent. She was a homemaker and he was a breadwinner and I saw more of her than him growing up. Thus, in that sense, Mom, in particular, made me.
I cannot tell you how many people have interacted with me for a time, then met my mother, and come away saying, "Oh, now I know why you are like you are." My life is full of "Mom." She is often in my illustrations. "My mom always used to say ..." or "My mom taught me ..." or "My mom lived this in front of me." My mother grew up in a "less than optimum situation" (in quotes because where God puts people may appear "less than optimum" but never really is) with a younger sister, a single mother, and a string of "stepdads." She moved around a lot and, one day, got invited to church by a family in her latest neighborhood, where she met Christ quite by "accident." At that point my mother was "radically saved." She changed without being able to explain why. She hungered for the Word and sought fellowship and pursued Christ. To this day, that has been her arc.
I am what I am largely because of my mother. She taught me that love was a choice rather than a mere feeling. She demonstrated godly obedience with joy. She lived "more of Him and less of me." She taught primarily by practice and supplemented with words. I learned the importance of discipling others because my mother regularly discipled others. I saw how crucial Scripture is because my mother has always been daily in the Word. I grasped the critical trust in God amidst difficulties because my mother lived on trusting God amidst difficulties. And that's a short list.
My parents certainly made me, physically and spiritually. Of course, we all know that's not perfectly true. My parents have been the tool God has used to make me. My dad has been significant, but my mom has been more so. For both, I am grateful. For my mom, especially today, I am thankful. I did not make me. God did. He did it through my parents. He particularly shaped me through my mother. He shaped me with love using a loving mother. I have been made with love.
I cannot tell you how many people have interacted with me for a time, then met my mother, and come away saying, "Oh, now I know why you are like you are." My life is full of "Mom." She is often in my illustrations. "My mom always used to say ..." or "My mom taught me ..." or "My mom lived this in front of me." My mother grew up in a "less than optimum situation" (in quotes because where God puts people may appear "less than optimum" but never really is) with a younger sister, a single mother, and a string of "stepdads." She moved around a lot and, one day, got invited to church by a family in her latest neighborhood, where she met Christ quite by "accident." At that point my mother was "radically saved." She changed without being able to explain why. She hungered for the Word and sought fellowship and pursued Christ. To this day, that has been her arc.
I am what I am largely because of my mother. She taught me that love was a choice rather than a mere feeling. She demonstrated godly obedience with joy. She lived "more of Him and less of me." She taught primarily by practice and supplemented with words. I learned the importance of discipling others because my mother regularly discipled others. I saw how crucial Scripture is because my mother has always been daily in the Word. I grasped the critical trust in God amidst difficulties because my mother lived on trusting God amidst difficulties. And that's a short list.
My parents certainly made me, physically and spiritually. Of course, we all know that's not perfectly true. My parents have been the tool God has used to make me. My dad has been significant, but my mom has been more so. For both, I am grateful. For my mom, especially today, I am thankful. I did not make me. God did. He did it through my parents. He particularly shaped me through my mother. He shaped me with love using a loving mother. I have been made with love.
Saturday, May 07, 2022
News Weakly - 5/7/22
Educational Drift
Baylor University recently announced that it officially chartered an LGBTQ+ organization. Baylor is a "private Christian university," nationally ranked, in Waco, Texas, and they illustrate how tolerance of sin becomes leaven that leavens the whole lump. Joining with "Christian" universities like Azusa Pacific in California and Wheaton College in Illinois, so-called "Christian" colleges continue the drift from "sure faith" to no connection to faith as the likes of Yale and Harvard have done. I complain a lot about the redefinition of words. "Christian" is just such a one.
When Rights Collide
California's governor is proposing an amendment to the state's constitution that will "enshrine the right to choose." The children the amendment will kill will not be allowed the right to choose. Neither will anyone in the state when the next experimental pandemic vaccine rolls out. No, not "the right to choose." Just the right to terminate the life of the unborn.
Terminations
Someone leaked a document of an opinion circulating in the Supreme Court regarding the termination of Roe v Wade. Chief Justice John Roberts calls it a "betrayal of the confidences of the court" and is launching an investigation. Clearly attempts to sway the court by public opinion is a violation of the whole concept of the Judicial Branch of the government. A "betrayal of the confidence of the court"? I'd say it was judicial treason. And it's quite ironic. It's about the termination of Roe v Wade which is about the termination of the unborn, the leak of which could result in the termination of whoever leaked it. Worse, I hope. (Note that the president believes that the "stability of law" demands that we continue killing babies. If necessary, he'll work to make killing babies the law.)
Crimes and Misdemeanors
Canada, concerned about pronoun criminals, is addressing another serious problem -- crimes on the moon. Mind you, no Canadian has ever been to the moon, and no known crime has ever been committed there, but not to worry; Canada has that covered.
Insolvent Solutions?
In an effort to decrease our inflation and rising price woes, the fed decided to authorize the biggest interest rate hike in 20 years. The success of the move is first attested to by the 1000+ point drop in the Dow Jones. There you go. That ought to improve things. Does anyone else get the impression that our government overlords don't know what they're doing?
More Misinformation
All those false claims out there that the vaccine was potentially dangerous and all that. Lies and misinformation. Well ... mostly. A year later, Pfizer was told to release their data which included 158,893 adverse effects reports including 1223 deaths. And the FDA has strictly limited the Johnson & Johnson vaccine due to the ongoing risk of serious blood clots. "It's perfectly safe," they told us, "and anyone who tells you it's not is giving misinformation." Twitter has banned the CDC and the FDA for misinformation. (Okay, that last line was only in my head.)
Target-Rich Environment
All this was too much for the Bee. You know they had a lot to say on Supreme Court story. There was the picture of Elizabeth Warren wearing a buffalo hat leading an insurrection against the Supreme Court. There was Ketanji Brown Jackson reading biology textbooks trying to figure out just what the "women's" right to abortion means. There was the panic from the Left when they realized millions of babies might live. And one of my personal favorites, the story of the crowd of worshippers who chanted all night but couldn't get Molech to answer them*.
________
*In case you didn't get that last reference, there are those who refer to pro-abortion folks as Molech worshippers because Moloch was a god whose worship included sacrificing babies. And, of course, Elijah had a "battle royale" with the priests of Baal in which they chanted all day and Baal didn't answer. There you go. No better way to ruin a joke than to explain it, right?
Baylor University recently announced that it officially chartered an LGBTQ+ organization. Baylor is a "private Christian university," nationally ranked, in Waco, Texas, and they illustrate how tolerance of sin becomes leaven that leavens the whole lump. Joining with "Christian" universities like Azusa Pacific in California and Wheaton College in Illinois, so-called "Christian" colleges continue the drift from "sure faith" to no connection to faith as the likes of Yale and Harvard have done. I complain a lot about the redefinition of words. "Christian" is just such a one.
When Rights Collide
California's governor is proposing an amendment to the state's constitution that will "enshrine the right to choose." The children the amendment will kill will not be allowed the right to choose. Neither will anyone in the state when the next experimental pandemic vaccine rolls out. No, not "the right to choose." Just the right to terminate the life of the unborn.
Terminations
Someone leaked a document of an opinion circulating in the Supreme Court regarding the termination of Roe v Wade. Chief Justice John Roberts calls it a "betrayal of the confidences of the court" and is launching an investigation. Clearly attempts to sway the court by public opinion is a violation of the whole concept of the Judicial Branch of the government. A "betrayal of the confidence of the court"? I'd say it was judicial treason. And it's quite ironic. It's about the termination of Roe v Wade which is about the termination of the unborn, the leak of which could result in the termination of whoever leaked it. Worse, I hope. (Note that the president believes that the "stability of law" demands that we continue killing babies. If necessary, he'll work to make killing babies the law.)
Crimes and Misdemeanors
Canada, concerned about pronoun criminals, is addressing another serious problem -- crimes on the moon. Mind you, no Canadian has ever been to the moon, and no known crime has ever been committed there, but not to worry; Canada has that covered.
Insolvent Solutions?
In an effort to decrease our inflation and rising price woes, the fed decided to authorize the biggest interest rate hike in 20 years. The success of the move is first attested to by the 1000+ point drop in the Dow Jones. There you go. That ought to improve things. Does anyone else get the impression that our government overlords don't know what they're doing?
More Misinformation
All those false claims out there that the vaccine was potentially dangerous and all that. Lies and misinformation. Well ... mostly. A year later, Pfizer was told to release their data which included 158,893 adverse effects reports including 1223 deaths. And the FDA has strictly limited the Johnson & Johnson vaccine due to the ongoing risk of serious blood clots. "It's perfectly safe," they told us, "and anyone who tells you it's not is giving misinformation." Twitter has banned the CDC and the FDA for misinformation. (Okay, that last line was only in my head.)
Target-Rich Environment
All this was too much for the Bee. You know they had a lot to say on Supreme Court story. There was the picture of Elizabeth Warren wearing a buffalo hat leading an insurrection against the Supreme Court. There was Ketanji Brown Jackson reading biology textbooks trying to figure out just what the "women's" right to abortion means. There was the panic from the Left when they realized millions of babies might live. And one of my personal favorites, the story of the crowd of worshippers who chanted all night but couldn't get Molech to answer them*.
________
*In case you didn't get that last reference, there are those who refer to pro-abortion folks as Molech worshippers because Moloch was a god whose worship included sacrificing babies. And, of course, Elijah had a "battle royale" with the priests of Baal in which they chanted all day and Baal didn't answer. There you go. No better way to ruin a joke than to explain it, right?
Friday, May 06, 2022
Missing the Point
The wise and benificent public is weighing on the the debacle that is the leak from the Supreme Court about possibly overturning Roe v Wade. Fortunately we have Hollywood to set it all straight.
Stephen Colbert is a fine example. He said that the Supreme Court didn't really care what the public wants. ("Doesn't really care" was not his words. I cleaned that up ... in what one account described as a "profanity-laced speech.") He was absolutely right. The judicial branch is not concerned about what the public wants; it is concerned about what the law says. But, of course, the public doesn't really care (my words) what the law says; they're only concerned about what they want. He complained that "Decisions about what you can do with your body are now being made by four old dudes and a woman who thinks The Handmaid’s Tale is a rom-com." Interesting how women who disagree with killing babies are ridiculed and excluded from this discussion (Remember when the pro-life segment of women went to the anti-Trump women's march but were excluded by the other women because they weren't pro-abortion?), and the age and gender of the others disqualify them as well. He complained, "Why didn't they tell the senators they thought Roe v Wade was wrong in their confirmation hearings?" The question they were asked was whether or not Roe v Wade was legal precedent. They hadn't been asked to examine the ruling until this current case came up. Then the other scintillating "truth statement" (from the guy who coined the term "truthiness"). "American voters support abortion in all or most cases at 80%." Now, according to Pew Research, that number is actually less than 60%, but neither law nor facts stays these couriers from the swift execution of the most vulnerable humans. "But what do I know?" Colbert concluded. "I’m not a Supreme Court justice. I’m not a good enough liar." Oh, trust me, sir. You excel at deception. Meanwhile singer Phoebe Bridgers uses the supreme logic that "I had an abortion, so everyone deserves that kind of access." Or, "I did it, so that defines it as good and right." Just a couple of prime examples from the entertainment wise.
As a sidenote, is anyone wondering why the media is only giving the pro-abortion response to this story? Surely there is no pro-abortion bias in the media? And would you please stop referring to it as "reproductive rights"? If it was simply about reproduction, no one would care. No one is questioning a woman's right to choose if she reproduces. The question is whether she gets to kill the child that results from her choices. Bottom line, this story is troubling to the extreme. If the leak of this document was not criminal -- anti-constitutional -- and, therefore, treasonous, then it should have been. Coercing the court is just plain wrong. Handing this information to the media was just plain wrong. And, as it has been pointed out, it is a draft, a possible outcome. It is not the final ruling. It is not the final vote. But we're all up in arms over possibilities. Then there's the whole problem of Justice John Roberts. The conservatives thought "He's one of our boys." He's sure in the practice of proving them wrong. And, of course, there is the problem for the pro-life side thinking, "Woo hoo! The end is near!" Not even close. The end may be beginning, but it's not near. Not when 59% of the population including the entire Democratic party believes that the child has no value whatsoever. Changing permission to kill them doesn't change hearts or minds. A dedication to "I feel" as the ultimate source of right and wrong is not fixed by repealing Roe v Wade. That will be a lot longer process.
Stephen Colbert is a fine example. He said that the Supreme Court didn't really care what the public wants. ("Doesn't really care" was not his words. I cleaned that up ... in what one account described as a "profanity-laced speech.") He was absolutely right. The judicial branch is not concerned about what the public wants; it is concerned about what the law says. But, of course, the public doesn't really care (my words) what the law says; they're only concerned about what they want. He complained that "Decisions about what you can do with your body are now being made by four old dudes and a woman who thinks The Handmaid’s Tale is a rom-com." Interesting how women who disagree with killing babies are ridiculed and excluded from this discussion (Remember when the pro-life segment of women went to the anti-Trump women's march but were excluded by the other women because they weren't pro-abortion?), and the age and gender of the others disqualify them as well. He complained, "Why didn't they tell the senators they thought Roe v Wade was wrong in their confirmation hearings?" The question they were asked was whether or not Roe v Wade was legal precedent. They hadn't been asked to examine the ruling until this current case came up. Then the other scintillating "truth statement" (from the guy who coined the term "truthiness"). "American voters support abortion in all or most cases at 80%." Now, according to Pew Research, that number is actually less than 60%, but neither law nor facts stays these couriers from the swift execution of the most vulnerable humans. "But what do I know?" Colbert concluded. "I’m not a Supreme Court justice. I’m not a good enough liar." Oh, trust me, sir. You excel at deception. Meanwhile singer Phoebe Bridgers uses the supreme logic that "I had an abortion, so everyone deserves that kind of access." Or, "I did it, so that defines it as good and right." Just a couple of prime examples from the entertainment wise.
As a sidenote, is anyone wondering why the media is only giving the pro-abortion response to this story? Surely there is no pro-abortion bias in the media? And would you please stop referring to it as "reproductive rights"? If it was simply about reproduction, no one would care. No one is questioning a woman's right to choose if she reproduces. The question is whether she gets to kill the child that results from her choices. Bottom line, this story is troubling to the extreme. If the leak of this document was not criminal -- anti-constitutional -- and, therefore, treasonous, then it should have been. Coercing the court is just plain wrong. Handing this information to the media was just plain wrong. And, as it has been pointed out, it is a draft, a possible outcome. It is not the final ruling. It is not the final vote. But we're all up in arms over possibilities. Then there's the whole problem of Justice John Roberts. The conservatives thought "He's one of our boys." He's sure in the practice of proving them wrong. And, of course, there is the problem for the pro-life side thinking, "Woo hoo! The end is near!" Not even close. The end may be beginning, but it's not near. Not when 59% of the population including the entire Democratic party believes that the child has no value whatsoever. Changing permission to kill them doesn't change hearts or minds. A dedication to "I feel" as the ultimate source of right and wrong is not fixed by repealing Roe v Wade. That will be a lot longer process.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)