I, For One, Am Glad

Paul described our original problem this way.

They exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. (Rom 1:25)

We are the creature. And we tend to make ourselves the standard by which all things, including God, are judged. So when things don't go our way, we question God's integrity. When things don't happen in the way we think they should, we question God's power. We bad things happen, we question God's love. And when God says things in His Word that we find doubtful, it is His Word we question, not our own perceptions. We, in essence, serve the creature rather than the Creator. Even we who seek to love and obey Him.

We think that God should be just like us. He should see things our way, feel our way, do things our way. God, however, was not unclear. "You thought that I was one like yourself," He said (Psa 50:21). That was a mistake for Israel. It is our own mistake. He is not like us. We have similarities, points of contact, things in common, but He is not like us. He defines love (1 John 4:8) while we can barely do it, let alone define it. Only God is good (Luke 18:19) and we are not (Rom 3:12). "The heart of man plans his way, but the LORD establishes his steps" (Prov 16:9). And, still, we think He's just like us and, in fact, ought to conform to our ideas, expectations, and values.

I, for one, am glad He does not. I'm glad He is omnipotent where I am weak, wise where I am foolish, omniscient where I am ignorant. I'm delighted that He is Sovereign when I have so little control. I am delighted that He knows me inside and out (Psa 139:14-17) despite the fact that I know Him so poorly. I count on His strength, expect nothing but the best from His wisdom, and rest completely on His Sovereignty. I am very satisfied that He is God and not like me. I just need to do the lifelong work of correcting my own misguided understanding on the matter.

News Weakly - 7/30/22

Banning Parents
In an ongoing effort to be sure that parents are deeply involved in their children's lives and education, a Maryland school district has prohibited the staff from telling parents about their students' transgender identity. And elsewhere. In other news, the same district has banned all that "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" nonsense as well. (Hey, haven't I heard teachers complaining that parents aren't involved enough?)

Unclear on the Concept
GOP lawmaker Glenn Thompson of Pennsylvania is getting flak because he voted against the "Disrespect Marriage" Act and three days later attended his son's "gay mirage." Hypocrite! Loser! Are people really that dense? It is one thing to oppose the redefinition of marriage. It is another thing to love your children. Most parents, if their child were to marry someone of whom they didn't approve, would attend the wedding and wish them well. That's hypocrisy? I oppose the principle of transgender, but that doesn't mean I have to be unkind or hateful toward people I encounter who consider themselves such. Are people really that unclear on the concept? Or do they not like the clear evidence that someone may have principles without being hateful?

Double Standards
If you're someone that, say, believes that the 2020 election was rigged, the Democrats would prefer you had no voice. Certainly no public voice. Remember? They tried to set up a "misinformation" control point just for that purpose. Then Hulu announced that, in keeping with its policy of not allowing ads on controversial topics, they wouldn't be allowing ads on abortion or guns. And the Dems went wild. Because of the Democrats' outrage, Hulu has changed to allow the ads that the Dems consider essential to their "core campaign talking points." Hulu must run the ads the Dems consider important but must NOT run those that are deemed offensive ... to their goals.

Conveniently Absent
An enlightening article from The Guardian finally explains why anyone could possibly be anti-abortion. It's because they're too stupid to know that their reasons are a lie and the real reason is that they're opposed to sexual promiscuity. I thought it was really odd because this physicist who wrote the article never once mentioned the biggest reason -- that it is wrong to kill an innocent human being. So does that mean that we're too stupid or he is?

Canceled
Justice Clarence Thomas isn't a popular judge these days because, well, he's against killing innocent human beings, and that will never do. For the past 11 years Thomas has given seminars at George Washington University Law School. That ends this fall. Students said he was "actively making life unsafe for thousands of students on our campus" and petitioned to have him silenced. They win. America loses.

You're Entitled to the Rights We Allow You
Students at Seattle Pacific University have decided to sue over LGBTQ exclusion. The private, Free Methodist Church university has attempted to maintain their alliance with, you know, the church, but the students demand that they stop it. So, students who choose to go to a self-proclaimed religious university with a prior understanding of the rules get to dictate to the school what their policies will be? How about "Just don't go there"? Not a chance. This is America; you will not be allowed your religious freedoms here if we have any say.

Puzzling Problem
San Francisco has declared a health emergency over the rising numbers of monkeypox cases. I don't know what makes it a special problem in San Francisco.

Pay No Attention to That Man Behind the Microphone
Investopedia says the "rule of thumb is that two consecutive quarters of decline in a country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) constitute a recession." We have had just that. President Biden assures us we are not in a recession. Who are you going to believe? The economy or the president?

Everyone Knows That
Democrats have introduced a bill to put term limits on the Supreme Court. Why? Because of a "legitimacy crisis." Obviously, because 6 judges voted to remove Roe v Wade. Now the court is "illegitimate." To fix the "crisis," it is necessary to remove those judges with whom they disagree, because the only way for the Supreme Court to be legitimate is to have it be compliant to their positions.

Taking a Bee-ting
Joe Biden signed into law his "Economic Integrity Protection Act" better known as the "Don't Say Recesson" bill. They have to do something so people won't notice inflation, economic decline, reduced trade, drop in GDP, and climbing prices. The Bee has a handy infographic to help us understand if we are in a recession. And another for several other word refinements.

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

Got To Believe

There are some really important, albeit really unpopular, things we must believe.

All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. (Rom 3:23)

No one does good, not even one. (Rom 3:12)

The intention of man's heart is evil from his youth. (Gen 8:21)

For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. (Rom 8:7)

Just a smattering of a continuous message broadcast in Scripture. Sin is a problem. A big problem. If you don't believe that -- if you don't recognize the very real condition you are in -- you will not accept a remedy and cannot survive.

God shows His love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Rom 5:8)

If, while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by His life. (Rom 5:10)

If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. (Rom 10:9)

God loved the world in this way; He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. (John 3:16)

If you believe there is a serious sin problem, then you will be delighted to learn there is a serious sin remedy. God sent His Son to save us. God provided it in His Son's death on our behalf. All you have to do is believe. Believe it.

What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? (Rom 8:31)

For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Rom 8:38-39)

I will never, never leave you nor forsake you. (Heb 13:5).

The outcome is certain. Believe it. If you grant that we are sinners and you believe that God provided the answer in Christ's death and resurrection, taking on our sin and giving us new life, you can believe that nothing can separate us from the love of God. Believe it. Even if sometimes you don't feel it.

In His Presence

Psalm 16 is a Miktam of David. ("Oh, thanks, Stan, that clears things right up.") "Miktam" is a word of unclear meaning, but the opening line is not. "Preserve me, O God, for in You I take refuge" (Psa 16:1). I don't know if you grasp the magnitude of that statement. David doesn't say, "In Your taking good care of me I take refuge." He doesn't say that his refuge is in comfort or good circumstances. He says it is simply in God. He says, "I have set the LORD always before me; because He is at my right hand, I shall not be shaken" (Psa 16:8). God's presence, God's existence is enough.

David offers a rare point of view here. We are often quick to praise God for the pleasant things He supplies. We're happy to be grateful when we find comfort or protection. We'll thank Him for a meal, but will we do the same for lack of food? David finds his comfort in the mere presence of God. But he also tells why, an important secret, I think. "You make known to me the path of life; in Your presence there is fullness of joy; at Your right hand are pleasures forevermore" (Psa 16:11). Ah, now, see? "Pleasures forevermore." That's the kind of language we recognize. But where are those pleasures? "At Your right hand." Where is the fullness of joy? "In Your presence." You and I both know self-professed Christians who seem to think their task in life is to locate those people who are having fun and put an end to it. God, on the other hand, offers "fullness of joy" and "pleasures forevermore." Where? In His presence. Right where we need to be.

The Problem of Ideas

There is noise in the public arena either praising or, much, much more often, crucifying the concept of "Christian nationalism." Christian nationalism is the belief that one's nation should pass laws that reflect Christian values. Christian nationlism in America is the pursuit of keeping America a "Christian nation." Of course, the loudest part of the nation is violently opposed to God in the public square and just won't have it. They deem it radical, dangerous, and worse.

I'm not writing here about Christian nationalism -- for or against. What I'm looking at is the underlying problem. Americans today like to tell us that we can have our religion in private, but just don't force it down their throats. Of course, in all honesty, forcing Christianity down someone's throat is just plain stupid, but neither those who try it or those who complain seem to notice. So, no, it makes no ssense to force Christianity. It does make sense to encourage moral behavior and sometimes to pass laws that might concur with Christian values because the values are good for the people, but, in truth, morality and legality are not always in sync. We don't always need laws to enforce what's right. Further, the idea of a "Christian nation" is just plain silly. We are saved by faith, not by laws. And Christ died for people, not nations. And, ultimately, we will never have (this side of heaven) entire nations following Christ (the definition of "Christian") nor will anyone in the country be saved by obeying Christian laws. So, no, we don't want to force Christianity down people's throats. And as everyone sighs a sigh of relief, we run headlong into the problem. If not Christian values, whose?

Most of society concurs; Christians are not supposed to force their beliefs onto anyone else. Especially on government. It appears, however, that Christianity is the only one that is thusly limited. It's okay for pro-aborts to force their beliefs on the world or LGBTians to force their beliefs on the rest of us. We all need to bow to "woke" thinking and submit to atheist preferences. Even the "Left" religion is happy forcing their beliefs on the rest of us, by force of law if at all possible. Oh, mind you, I'm not complaining that they -- all of them -- do this. It's what you would expect from any firmly-held beliefs. What's odd, however, is this double standard of "You Christians are not allowed to influence the world around you with your beliefs" followed with "but we are and we will." At the bottom line, we all share a host of difficulties we must deal with. Crime, punishment, drugs, disease, poverty, racism, sexism, on and on ad infinitum. These aren't Christian problems; they're everyone problems. So we -- everyone -- have to deal with them. The question is, how? So we work out some sort of approach to a problem, but how do we do that? We do it from our underlying presuppositions. If, for instance, you believe that all people are basically good and criminals are just good people in bad circumstances, you will work to improve their circumstances to bring out their goodness. If you believe that people are basically evil, your approach will obviously be quite different. We all work from our basic assumptions. And, oh, yeah, aren't those the things that we just determined were not supposed to be forced on anyone? Oh, no, we didn't. We determined that Christian basic assumptions were not allowed, but anyone else can force theirs. So ... what if Christian beliefs are right?

There's the problem. We're not going to allow Christian beliefs in the public square. We are going to allow just about everything else. Just about. Whoever can bring the most weight to bear will be allowed to bludgeon the rest into basic assumptions. But surely you can see that forcing your beliefs on me is just as wrong as me forcing my beliefs on you. So why do you get the pass? What we should be looking at is which ones are right. And, of course, that won't be allowed (2 Cor 4:4).

Propitiation

... whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. (Rom 3:25-26)

An important text. You can see from the outset that it's the middle of a thought. You know, "all have sinned" and such, where we are "justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus" (Rom 3:23-24) ... which is the "whom" to whom that "whom" is referring at the beginning of the text above. It says that God displayed Jesus Christ publicly as "a propitiation." Now, just what is a "propitiation"? We have a related term -- propitious. It originally meant "favorably disposed toward someone." Propitiation is "atonement" with its root idea being to "appease." That is, the idea is to appease someone for an offense given. To take away wrath.

Well, now, that won't do, right? I mean God isn't a God of wrath, right? He's a God of love. He smiles down on us. We don't need some ancient version of an angry god. At least, that's what we tell ourselves. Scripture says something different. The text above is in the third chapter of Paul's letter to Rome. That letter set out in the first chapter to explain how "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). He spent most of three chapters laying out our big, big problem of sin -- a problem for which God is rightly angry. So, when we get to verse 21 of the third chapter, we're left standing with a load of God's wrath over our shoulders and no way out.

This is when we arrive at "propitiation." No one is justified by the law, Paul says (Rom 3:20), but God's righteousness is manifested apart from the law (Rom 3:21). God's righteousness is manifested by justifying those who believe "through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" (Rom 3:24). How does God justly declare the unjust just? Because Jesus paid the price ("redemption"). In that, God's just wrath was propitiated. In Christ's shed blood (Rom 3:24) God was appeased. One of the most amazing parts of that reality is that God initiated it (Rom 3:25).

A lot of people get a little uptight about "propitiation." They don't want to think about an angry God. God, on the other hand, declares it. Demands it. And in that righteous anger we discover a truly remarkable gospel -- Good News. We discover a just God who justifies (Rom 3:26) people who were without hope. I need that propitiation.

Why Didn't God Just Prevent Evil?

Theodicy is the area of Apologetics defined as "the defense of God's goodness and omnipotence in view of the existence of evil." The defense has been ongoing for a long time in Christendom. We have works from Iranaeus (120-200 AD) and Augustine (354-430 AD), but it has been even longer than that. The very first challenge to God's goodness was in the Garden of Eden when the serpent asked, "Did God say ...?" Consider the problem. If the biblical God exists, He is omnipotent and omniscient and loving and morally perfect and would, therefore, have the power to eliminate all evil. Evil exists. Therefore, the biblical God does not exist.

Now, there are problems with this argument. For instance, if such a God does not exist, on what do we base our assessment of evil? That is, if "no God," then "no evil." Evil is just an opinion, a preference. What is our popular term today? A social construct. And -- poof! -- the problem goes away. But that's not a satisfactory answer for anyone. God had to have known that Adam and Eve would sin and had to have been able to prevent it, so why didn't God just prevent evil? The ultimate problem with that objection would be "What if that biblical God had a good reason for allowing evil in the world?" Is there an answer that will retain God's nature while allowing for evil? I think so. I even think it's biblical.

First, let's look at what we know. God created the world (Gen 1:1); Man sinned (Gen 3:1-7). Thus, God did not cause sin; He made a good world (Gen 1:31). Beyond that, we know that God cannot be tempted by evil and He Himself tempts no one (James 1:13). He made everything for its purpose, including the wicked for the day of trouble (Prov 16:4). He works all things according to His counsel (Eph 1:11) while taking no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezek 33:11). There are people destined to disobey the word (1 Peter 2:7-8) and people pre-designated for condemnation (Jude 1:4). And we know that God holds people responsible for their evil while using it for good (Gen 50:20). Ultimately, though, God gives His reason for allowing evil. It is His will to make known His power and wrath (Rom 9:22). If we deny any of this, we deny any reliable source of knowing anything else about God beyond our own meager feelings.

There is the other side to consider. Let's say that God did prevent all sin. In this case, we must first acknowledge that Man would have had no free will. If you cannot choose to sin, you have no free will. Maybe very limited free will at best. Beyond that, what would we know about justice if there would be no injustice? What would we know about grace or mercy if none would ever be applied? What would we know about love without hate as a contrast? What would we know about forgiveness if we were never forgiven? In fact, in so many aspects of God, we would be clueless. It would be an anemic view of God.

In Romans 1 Paul explains that the gospel reveals the righteousness of God. He takes three chapters to unpack the magnitude of the problem of sin and then goes on to uncover the heights of this salvation we've been given, this mercy and grace we've received, this love that we've been overwhelmed with. If we had not sinned, none of that would be possible. Conversely, having sinned and received all this, the response to God is much greater. Jesus said, "He who is forgiven little, loves little" (Luke 7:47). That would certainly stunt our love for Him and blind us to the vastness of His love for us. The presence of evil is a contrast that makes the glory of God shine. I think that's actually a good reason for Him to allow evil.

Telling Yourself the Truth

I've talk to people who are troubled. They are Christians, but they are scared. They aren't sure they are saved. They aren't sure they are loved. Why? Primarily because "I don't feel loved." And I get it. Feeling loved is important and sometimes elusive. It is a problem. But this much we know:

Be content with what you have, for He has said, "I will never never leave you nor forsake you." (Heb 13:5) (Note: That double "never" is in the original Greek; it is not a typo.)

For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Rom 8:38-39)

Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? ... No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. (Rom 8:35, 37)

God shows His love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Rom 5:8)

For openers. Just a smattering of the promises and claims of Scripture. So, emotionally, am I loved? Sometimes it may not feel like it. But that's a primary mistake, isn't it? "Feel like it" is not a measure of biblical love. Biblical love is volitional. God chooses to love. Our version is emotional. We feel it. We love the people and things that are good to us, that are attractive to us. God's version is not that. Indeed, we had all better hope it isn't, because we are not attractive. We are not beneficial to God in our natural condition. So God chooses to love the unlovely and unloveable with His version of love and we are loved. And then Jesus tells us, "Love as I have loved you" (John 13:34). We're supposed to love each other that same way. By choice, apart from personal benefit or attraction.

Here's something else we know. Jesus called Satan "the father of lies" (John 8:44). He is "the deceiver of the world" (Rev 12:9). He deceived Eve in the garden (2 Cor 11:3) and blinds the eyes of unbelievers (2 Cor 4:4) and continues to prowl around seeking to destroy (1 Peter 5:8). Thus, we know the truth -- God demonstrated His love for us and will never leave or fail us -- and we know the lies from Satan. So who are we going to believe? Does God only love us if we feel like He does? Do we believe the lies Satan feeds us through our emotions or trust God and His Word? Will we fold to feelings or tell ourselves the truth?

News Weakly - 7/23/22

I'll Save You Even If It Kills You
Democrat Joe Manchin refused to go along with the "climate tax" demanded by Biden, so Biden plans to ignore the prescribed legislative process and simply use executive action to further increase our cost of living, especially in the area of gas prices, in order to ensure that we can save the planet. He promised to eliminate fossil fuels when he was elected. He's doing his best to carry out that promise no matter what it costs ... us.

When Science Disagrees with Culture
An incarcerated transgender prisoner in New Jersey is being transferred from the women's prison after impregnating two fellow inmates. Need we say more?

Stinkin' Thinkin'
The University of Pennsylvania has nominated swimmer Lia Thomas for the 2022 NCAA Woman of the Year award. Lia has competed on the college women's swim team and won a national championship. Lia has not ever had a period, never had to be careful of becoming pregnant, has not ever dealt with any of the stuff that teenage girls in particular have to endure because Lia is a transgender. Tell me again how there is no accepted standard definition of "woman," but equal rights and equal opportunity for "women" is important and is not jeopardized by biological males who think they're females.

Slavery on Steroids
Vice President Harris slammed Republicans at the 113th NAACP national convention, comparing abortion restrictions to slavery. "Claiming ownership over human bodies." You know, like the women who claim ownership over the human bodies inside and their ultimate right to terminate their existence at will. Before Emancipation, it was illegal in the South to murder slaves. It is still legal in some places in America to own and to kill innocent human beings. I think it's worse than Harris thinks. And I'm talking about pro-abortion.

Is Anyone Taking Notice?
According to CNBC, Biden's approval rating is lower than ever ... lower even than Trump at his lowest. Is anyone taking notice?

Mirage Equality
The House has approved legislation protecting "marriage equality" after Clarence Thomas had suggested that SCOTUS should "reconsider" gay marriage. Here's the thing. There are two ways to achieve "marriage equality." One is to make it available to anyone who wants it which will necessarily exclude those who want something different but want to call that "marriage." The other is to redefine "marriage" to include what that other group wants and offer this other thing to all. The former was what we had. The latter is what we did. The loser is marriage which is now a new beast without clear definition. Ironically, it was called "the Respect for Marriage Act" ... you know ... without any respect.

Just Curious
The news item was that some 17 House Democrats were arrested for participating in an illegal demonstration. They marched on the Supreme Court protesting the June 24th ruling. "We won't go back!" they chanted. Ok. Amusing. But I'm curious. Based on the constitutional structure of the government and current laws, why was the Trumpian protests over the election "anti-democracy" but protest over the already done legal ruling of the Supreme Court is not? How is the former dangerous to our way of government but the latter is not?

Justice vs Justice
Last month the Supreme Court vacated the Roe v Wade ruling that had given women the false impression that killing babies was their constitutional right. They turned the question over to the states. That, as it turns out, is not accurate. So far, 5 states have attempted to block abortions and the court has denied the 10th Amendment in the face of SCOTUS. Now West Virginia has become the 6th. Because if there is going to be justice in this world, our justice system will continue to protect the wanton slaughter of the most vulnerable humans.

Nice ... Not
It's done. The court has ruled. Go home. Fight another day. At least, that's what you'd think. Instead, pro-aborts including members of Congress continue to protest the Court and its Justices, bringing fear and verbal abuse to neighborhoods. If you live in the vicinity of a judge who ruled against their position, you are a "Karen" and a "facist." Winning friends and influencing people.

Some Are More Equal Than Others
Prince Harry spoke at the UN against America's "rolling back of constitutional rights" (which didn't happen). Ironically, he envisioned a "better future for children." Apparently just not all of them. Some, apparently, need killing.

The Cost of Electric Cars
According to USA Today, Ford is planning to slash 8,000 jobs to help fund electric vehicles. So while the likes of Pete Buttigieg assures us that we can all afford electric cars (while citing cars that are either not yet available or no longer made), I'd guess that at least 8,000 Americans will disagree.

We Don't Care
Bloomberg offered a keen insight. If you want to save the planet, you have to stop fossil fuels. One of the best ways to do that is to "Stop the fall in gasoline prices." If you want to make people switch from fossil fuels to your choice of "better," make it too expensive to use. Mind you, the alternatives are less efficient and too expensive to use. Mind you, the biggest impact of such a plan will be on the lower income brackets. As Pete Buttigieg reminded us. "The more pain that we are all experiencing from the high price of gas, the more benefit there is for those who can access electric vehicles." The rest of us don't matter compared to saving the planet, right?

Now That is Ironic
According to CNN the federal investigation of Hunter Biden is reaching a "critical juncture." Prosecutors have been looking into possible tax violations and "making a false statement in connection with Biden's purchase of a firearm at a time he would have been prohibited from doing so because of his acknowledged struggles with drug addiction." You know, the son of our current "Gun-Control-in-Chief."

Unclear on the Concept
Someone is unclear on the concept. At a judicial conference in Montana Justice Elena Kagan said that the Supreme Court needs to keep the confidence of the American public. "If over time the court loses all connection with the public and with public sentiment, that's a dangerous thing for a democracy," she said. Now, someone is confused. The primary role of the Supreme Court is to compare questions before the court with the Constitution to determine if it is legal. It is designed to be a check and balance with the Executive and Judicial branches, limiting government. I was not aware that it was supposed to make its decisions based on popularity, majority, or sentiment. I thought it was about the law. Did I miss a change in the Constitution somewhere?

Batting the Biden Ball
Bad week for the president. First, he appeared to claim he had cancer. So the White House assured us that he only claimed that because of his dementia. A day after his miraculous recovery from cancer, he was diagnosed with COVID. But it's all good. The White House has reassured the nation that the person who is actually running the country is healthy ... whoever that might be. (Hmmm ... Biden with COVID ... how will that affect his ability to sniff hair?)

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

Go and Do Likewise

In Philippians Paul tells the Philippian Christians, "Conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ" (Php 1:27). He summarizes what that looks like, then begins chapter 2 with "Therefore" and goes on to explain how to conduct ourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel.

Therefore if there is any encouragement in Christ, if there is any consolation of love, if there is any fellowship of the Spirit, if any affection and compassion, make my joy complete by being of the same mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose. Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others. (Php 2:1-4)

Paul begins with the motivation. In Christ we have encouragement, consolation of love, fellowship of the Spirit, affection and compassion. In other words, "because of all that we have in Christ ..." we should do this. Do what? Well, ultimately, we should have the mind of Christ (Php 2:5-8). But what does that look like? What does that mean? Paul gives four views on this one concept: same mind, same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose. These are all sides of the same concept. What does this mind of Christ look like?

First, it has the "same mind." Not that we all think alike, but we all think in the same direction. What direction? Not "me" but Christ. Second, it has the same love. This isn't the world's love, predicated on what warms my affections and what I find attractive. It is volitional love based on self-forgetfulness, on a priority set on others, not me. Third, it is united in spirit. Paul uses one word there that we translate "united in spirit." It means literally "soul with" -- a union of souls. Finally, it is driven by one purpose, one intent. We're all going in the same direction with the same love and with one soul for one purpose.

This is, in fact, not humanly normal. Oh, we can do it on occasion, but only on a limited basis. That's because it runs afoul of basic human nature. It means we are not operating from "What's in it for me?" or "What about me?" but are regard others as more important. How often does that happen in human interaction? In this version we do look out for some personal interests, but not exclusively. We are equally consumed with the interest of others. That is, this single-minded, same-love, one-souled purpose is ... others. It pursues first what is best for Christ and second what is best for those around us.

That's what Paul describes when he tells us to have the same mind that Christ had. He did not regard His personal interest to be of importance, but emptied Himself (Php 2:6-7). He relinquished being in the form of God and took on skin. He took on servanthood. Imagine that! The Creator and Lord of all became a slave! All the way to the cross. He didn't indulge, "Hey! What about Me?" He didn't complain, "This isn't right!" He didn't pursue His own best interests first. He ... died ... in the lowliest possible way. "Have this attitude in yourselves" (Php 2:5). Paul told us why we should, how it looks, and how it is done. Go and do likewise.

Blithe Arrogance

For through the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think more highly of himself than he ought to think; but to think so as to have sound judgment, as God has allotted to each a measure of faith. (Rom 12:3)

This verse was a little strange to me for a long time. Paul addresses one side of a question. He says not to think more highly of ourselves than we ought, but any psychologist would tell you that one of the most prevalent problems for humans is poor self-esteem. Why didn't Paul address that? I don't think it was an oversight. I think it was clear-sighted. I think that the universal tendency of all humans is not a potential poor self-image, but, without fail, an overinflated one.

Consider. When we look at what God is doing in our world in general and in our lives in particular, we can get ... judgmental. Judgmental of God. Is what He is doing right? Or do we disapprove? Did He let you down? Did He fail to do what you thought He ought to do? Or in the way you thought He ought to do it? We are very, very comfortable sitting in judgment of God's acts and attitudes. Shouldn't He have the same perspectives on things that we do? He ought to make us comfortable. He should shelter us from difficulties. He is obligated to be kind to us, to give us what we demand. And when He doesn't do what we think He should do, we are angry. We threaten. "If that's the way you operate, I'm not sure I want anything to do with you." I wrote that last sentence with a lowercase "you" because in that moment, He is no longer divine; we are. At least in our own minds.

We are His creation, but we regard Him as our servant, sometimes acceptable and sometimes not. We suppress the truth about Him and worship the creature rather than the Creator. That's the fundamental nature of humans. The supplicant in the foxhole magnanimously tells Him, "If you do what I ask, I'll give you what you ask of me." Really? Are we really that arrogant? Do we really believe we have the right to determine which words of Scripture are true and which are false? Which commands are acceptable and which we can freely ignore? Which truths about Him we will allow and which we won't? We actually believe that God loves us because we deserve it somehow. In fact, even in our "poor self-esteem," we shake our fists in the face of God and say, "You made me this way, and You messed up." Because, at our cores, we are blithely arrogant. We routinely think more highly of ourselves than we ought. Which, I suppose, is why Paul didn't urge us not to think too poorly of ourselves. We may be prone to lying to ourselves about our true nature, too high or too low, but we are always of more value than God's opinions.

Yes, Jesus Loves Me

I've been told that all my life. "Jesus loves you." I've been told it's true because "the Bible tells me so." A while back a well known pastor railed against that notion. "We shouldn't say 'the Bible tells me so.'" So what would we be left with? Well, clearly, the ultimate measure of truth -- "I feel like it's true." Then ... what about when I don't?

Truthfully, of course, we can't eject the Bible in favor of "I feel" to arrive at what is or isn't true. No less than Jesus said so. "Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth" (John 17:17). It is unavoidable ... according to Christ. Oddly enough, of course, we have to rely on the Bible to know that Jesus said that the Bible is truth. But that's where we are. That or nothing. Still, we all at times are not internally convinced that "Jesus loves me." We don't feel warm and fuzzy, don't sense His presence, His arms around us. Sometimes we're pretty sure He doesn't like us at all. Certainly not as much as He likes that guy (or girl) who gets all His attention and affection. Look at them. They can feel it deep in their hearts. Why can't I?

We are not left on our own to figure out if Jesus loves us. We are not left to our emotions or perceptions or opinions to know if it's true. Nor are we left to childrens' songs. Here's what we do have available as unequivocal truth.

God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. (Rom 5:8)

That word "demonstrates" in Greek is "συνίστημι" -- sunistēmi. It means literally "to stand near." God stands with love in hand and brings it in front of you to show you -- "demonstrates." How does He personally show you? Well, basically, "Christ died for us." On the basis of Christ dying on our behalf, we can know God loves us. But it is magnified by the description of us. Not "because we were so loveable" or "so good." It wasn't while we deserved it; it was while we didn't. It was while we shook our fists in His face. It was while we were yet sinners. "I want no part of You," we cried and He sent His Son to die for us. Paul goes on to say, "While we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son" (Rom 5:10). "While we were enemies." That's when God made His love abundantly clear.

The most famous verse on this subject is John 3:16. You know it ... or do you? We understand it to be a reference to how much God loved the world. It isn't. It refers to the method in which God loved the world. "God loved the world this way." What way? He gave His one and only Son. And how does that prove God's love? "Whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life." Jesus was satisfied with "I do believe; help my unbelief" (Mark 9:24). Your faith, meager as it might feel, is sufficient proof of God's love, regardless of your sense of it. Your feelings in this are not a valid measure. Remember that. Jesus loves you ... even if the father of lies is whispering the opposite in your ear.

So That No One May Boast

In Acts 13 Paul and Barnabas made a stop on their first missionary journey in Antioch in Pisidia. (As opposed to the other Antioch ... in California. Okay, no, as opposed to Antioch in Syria ... where Paul and Barnabas started out from.) There Paul preached to the Jews in the synagogue, showing them how Jesus was their long-promised Messiah. The next week "the whole city" gathered to hear Paul (Acts 13:44) which, of course, made the Jewish leaders jealous (Acts 13:45) and contradict Paul, so he told them, "Since you thrust it aside and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles" (Acts 13:46). Then we get to verse 48.

And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed. (Acts 13:48)

Wait ... what was that? Who believed? "As many as were appointed to eternal life." Now that's odd, isn't it? You see, we (rightly) understand "believe" (faith) to be the precursor to "saved," but this text suggests there is a precursor to "believe."

Some conclude that Luke (who wrote Acts) must have been confused. Oddly enough, Luke didn't originate the idea. Jesus said it, too. When the Jews asked Him if He was the Messiah, He said,

I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father's name bear witness about Me, but you do not believe because you are not among My sheep. (John 10:25-26)

Don't miss that. He does not say, "You are not among My sheep because you don't believe." That's what we might have said. But He turned that on its head. He said that the reason they don't believe was because they were not among His sheep. Now, He told them earlier, "I have other sheep that are not of this fold" (John 10:16), so His sheep are clearly not simply "those standing here who believe." He was referring to all those whose names have been "written in the book of life from the foundation of the world" (Rev 17:8). They are, then, those who are ... appointed.

We understand that faith is the element that we bring to the table, so to speak, for our salvation. As it turns out, however, that faith is initially "appointed." To have that initial faith we must first be "His sheep." Ultimately, we have no room in the least for boasting. Which, of course, runs radically opposite human nature.

The Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ

Paul's second letter to the church at Thessalonica contains one of those quintessential texts on end times. The second chapter begins with, "Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ ..." (2 Thess 2:1) It contains all that "man of lawlessness" stuff. In that section, Paul writes,

The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. (2 Thess 2:9-10)

Take a look at a couple of features here. First, this "lawless one" is clearly attributed to "the activity of Satan. Of course, we know that the end times are ordained by God, so clearly this is God allowing Satan to produce "power and false signs and wonders" for the purpose of "wicked deception for those who are perishing." Choosing not to save some is absolutely God's prerogative (Rom 9:15, 18), so it shouldn't be a problem that God would allow Satan some work to complete the end of those who wish to perish. Ask Job.

The next thing we note is why God allows Satan to do this -- why these people are perishing. It is not because they didn't know the truth. It is not because they didn't believe the truth. It is "because they refused to love the truth." Now that's interesting. Romans 1 tells us that God's wrath is revealed against those who suppress the truth (Rom 1:18) because "God has shown it to them" (Rom 1:19). They are "without excuse" (Rom 1:20). No, access to the truth is not lacking. Believing the truth is not impossible. Their problem is neither. Their problem is they refuse to love the truth. Now that's a condemnation.

Paul goes on to write,

Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness. (2 Thess 2:11-12)

So Satan is working deception for those who refuse to love the truth and God confirms it ("a strong delusion") much like He did with Pharaoh. Remember, Pharaoh repeatedly hardened his heart after each plague until, eventually, God hardened his heart. "Oh," God says in essence, "you want to harden your heart against Me despite all the evidence I give? Fine. Let's take that to its logical conclusion. Let's just say 'you win'." In order to show His power, God raised up Pharaoh (Rom 9:17) and God hardened his heart. That's God's prerogative. It's a simple procedure. God doesn't actually have to act. God simply has to remove His protection. Like in Romans 1 where He "gave them up" to impurity (Rom 1:24) and dishnorable passions (Rom 1:26) and, ultimately, a debased mind (Rom 1:28). It's not so much of an action on His part as it is a withdrawal. In this "strong delusion" then He simply says, "You don't love the truth? Fine. Go ahead and believe what is false. Go ahead and condemn yourselves." Note the last factor. They "had pleasure in unrighteousness." They didn't merely endure it or indulge it. They liked it. They pleasured themselves with it. Their condemnation is earned.

Some people have difficulty with "God sends them a strong delusion." I see clearly that the "strong delusion" is Satan's activity that God simply allows it to make His wrath and power known (Rom 9:22) because people simply hate the truth and love unrighteousness. That's not unfair in my view. God lets them have their way and gives them their just condemnation for it. What's most interesting to me, however, is this. This seems to describe our world more and more. That is, our world is, on an increasing basis, demonstrating a hatred for truth and a love of pleasure in unrighteousness. How else do we make sense of people who identify themselves based on who they want to have sex with? How else do we explain a nation of people that affirm that "man" and "woman" are "social constructs" and you are what you feel like you are? How else do we understand the radical redefinition of "marriage"? How else do we make any sense of "all white people are racist and no one else is"? How else does "We are inclusive and we exclude you" make any sense? How else is "I'm a follower of the Word of God (John 1:1) and I don't much care or believe in the Word of God" reasonable? Jesus prayed, "Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth" (John 17:17). Some Christians argue, "Well, no, not so much." That only makes sense in a world of people who refuse to love the truth. So, my ultimate question. How close do you think this brings us to these last days -- the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ?

The Great Co-Mission

And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age." (Matt 28:18-20)

We know that text. It's called "The Great Commission." It's where Jesus tells His disciples to be evangelists. Or ... is it? These are the last words of Jesus recorded in Matthew's Gospel. Perhaps we ought to look a little closer.

According to the dictionary, a commission is a formal warrant granting the power to perform various acts or duties. The word has its roots in the Medieval Latin term, "commissiō," meaning "commitment" where "mittere" meant "to send for a purpose" and the prefix meant "with." Yes, I know, a lot of blather, but it's very important in this context and this commission. If this text is "The Great Commission" where "commission" refers to being "sent on a mission with", exactly how does that work?

We know the gist of the text. Be missionaries, so to speak, right? Not quite. Notice the verbs: "go," "make disciples," "baptizing," "teaching." First, you'll notice that it's a lot more than "evangelize." Second, you may have noticed that "evangelize" is not explicitly there. In Mark's version we read, "Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel" (Mark 16:15), so it is in there, but not explicitly in this Matthew text. It is implied. So this mission we've been sent on has four specific components. First, go. Don't sit. Don't stay home. Don't hide. Go. It is literally "as you are going" because we all do go. As you are going wherever you are going, then, do these three things. First, make disciples. Now, at this juncture it is quite clear that "preach the gospel" is necessary since the gospel is what makes converts, but it's necessary like a key is necessary to getting into your house. If you take the key with you and never walk through the door, you never get into your house. You never go home. So, start making disciples with the gospel, sure, but that's just opening the door to the command. Make Christ followers. Make people who are learning of Christ. Jesus told His disciples "I gave you an example that you also should do as I did to you" (John 13:15). Paul told the Corinthians, "Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ" (1 Cor 11:1). We make Christ followers by being Christ followers and then walking alongside others to do the same. This isn't "short-term missions." This is a lifestyle. Paul didn't make converts; he made churches. Scripture says "[Christ] gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ" (Eph 4:11-12). Apostles are God's messengers. Prophets are those who tell what God has proclaimed. Evangelists are preachers of the good news. Pastors are those who shepherd and teachers are those who teach. There is a certain sense in which we all are called to be all of these to some people. It's called "making disciples."

So what does "making disciples" look like? It includes "baptizing." Here, it is baptizing them into the name -- the nature and character -- of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. It includes our "water baptism" concept, but just as much it includes immersing them into the Triune God. The word, "baptizing," in Greek means literally "to whelm." Flood them with God. While you're at it, teach them. The verb is a prolonged (causitive) form for learning. Learning what? It is not about learning knowledge, although knowledge is necessary. It is not teaching them what Jesus commanded, although knowing what He commanded is necessary. It is about teaching them to obey what He commanded. All that He commanded.

When you look at the commission He has given as it is given, it gets to be pretty daunting. We thought we could get away with "Give them your testimony" or "Share the 4 Spiritual Laws" or something and be done. This isn't an event; it's a condition. It isn't a single act; it is a mission. It is huge. That's why it is a co-mission. At least, that's how Jesus presented it. He started with His authority and ability. "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. Go therefore ..." "Therefore" because His authority (absolute) is the reason we do it. And He ended with "I am with you always." We're not alone in this seemingly impossible task. We are on a mission from God, but we are not in it alone. We are literal missionaries in a literal mission field. Wherever we happen to be. We are operating at His command under His authority and His power with His constant presence. It is is indeed a literal co-mission -- His and ours. It would seem to me, given the gravity of the task and the authority that gave it to us, the power behind it and the Presence in it, that we ought to be about our Savior's business.

News Weakly - 7/16/22

The Politics of Killing Babies
A retired 3-star general worked as a contractor for the Army mentoring officers, staff, and students participating in war games until he made an "offensive" tweet about Jill Biden. The story lied about "overturning the constitutional right to abortion" and Mrs. Biden lied about women having the right to make decisions about their own bodies being stolen, but General Volesky's tweet about "Glad to see you finally know what a woman is" was considered "partisan politics" and he was suspended. Now, I wasn't aware that concern for women and children and killing babies was "partisan politics." I guess it's good to know that abortion isn't a "life" issue or a "moral" issue; it's a Democrat thing.

Business as Usual
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is moving to discipline personnel on horseback who confronted illegal migrants. The false narrative was that they had used their reins to whip people although it was later denied by witnesses, but that doesn't stop our government from defending criminals and disciplining non-offenders while ignoring blatant criminal behavior (like Hunter Biden, Jane's Revenge, or protesting at judges' homes, etc.), right? Nothing to see here; business as usual.

An Inconvenient Voice
A California teen is warning parents and doctors and government not to transition kids. She isn't uninformed. She transitioned to being a boy between the ages of 13 and 16 only to discover it was a mistake and the damage done to her is irreparable. She represents an inconvenient voice regarding an inconvenient truth.

Mostly Peaceful
Last week protesters outside Morton's Steakhouse demanded that they send out Justice Kavanaugh who was eating inside. They were, according to the restaurant, "unruly." The story is that they warned Kavanaugh to leave by the back door. AOC ridiculed Kavanaugh over it. Later, when a rude man catcalled AOC, she "was actually walking over to deck him" because Kavanaugh should not expect respect or privacy, but she absolutely should. It's good that they can threaten and intimidate judges, but not embarrass AOC. She defeeinitely does not believe in "equal protection." Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg wants all judges to know that this behavior is to be expected and is suitable. He recalled that they "swore up and down in front of God and everyone including the United States Congress that they were going to leave settled case law alone." He recalled incorrectly. So just keep in mind, if judges rule in a way you don't approve, they should expect protest, harrassment, threats, etc. Just not violence. You know ... "mostly peaceful" protests like we've seen in the last few years.

I Thought Dodge Was a Car Maker
A federal judge in Arizona blocked Arizona's "personhood" law that would give legal rights to unborn children. The reason he blocked it was not that unborn children were not "persons." He blocked it because it would be "anyone's guess" what criminal laws abortion providers would be breaking. It was not "That's wrong." It was "We don't want to think about it." Nice dodge. Because protecting life seems to be of precious little concern to many.

Upside Down
We tear down old monuments of old people that are no longer in vogue and then build monuments to drug dealers who are now cool. Tell me this isn't a crazy world.

Right Away
A judge in Minnesota struck down Minnesota's abortion restrictions because they violate Minnesota's constitution. So in Minnesota you have no right to physician care, hospitalization, parental notification, and informed consent among other things. (Not my words -- the judge's.) Nice. Move to Minnesota where they protect your rights by removing them.

Agreed! Next!
I want to know why this continues to be part of the debate. The Biden administration is telling hospitals they must provide abortion services if the life of the mother is at risk. Is that even a question? If the reason we oppose killing babies is that we're opposed to ending innocent lives, then of course we would want to save the life of a woman whose life is in danger. No question. Of course, former Surgeon General of the United States Dr. C. Everett Koop said, "The fact of the matter is that abortion as a necessity to save the life of the mother is so rare as to be nonexistent," but pro-life does not mean -- cannot mean -- killing mothers. Stop this nonsense!

What a Relief!
In Louisiana the court struck down their abortion ban. Don't worry, baby killers. States may outlaw abortion, but the courts will be legislating from the bench regardless of state laws. You'll still be able to continue killing those innocents with glee.

Discouraging Marriage
It has long been understood that the government will use laws for social engineering. Give families a tax break to encourage families. Pass tariffs on imports to discourage foreign trade. That kind of thing. Currently the government has let their wishes be known -- don't get married. It will cost you more in taxes if you file jointly than if you file separately. We got it, Dems. Let's discourage marriage.

Because You Matter to Them
The news item is that Sen. Joe Manachin (D-W.Va.) is opposing Biden's new "climate tax" against the support of the rest of the Dems. "Climate tax?" you ask. In 2020 U.S. refineries produced 161 million metric tons of CO₂. If Biden has his way, he will charge those refineries (and every other industry) $20 per ton as a "climate tax." If the new tax had been in effect in 2020, American refineries would have needed to pay $3.2 billion in additional taxes. Now, I'm sure they would have simply absorbed the loss and our gas prices wouldn't have gone up over that as well ... right? Pretty sure all industry will be happy to pay taxes like that and not pass the cost on to us, right? Right?

Un-bee-lievable
The White House is still searching for a Biden they can send out in public. Good luck with that.

After California Governor Newsom launched ads in Florida urging them to move to California to escape the right (no joke), Ron DeSantis is running ads asking California libs not to move to Florida. Makes sense.

And, (not the Bee), AOC is claiming she was nearly murdered on the Capitol steps this week. (In case you missed that joke, here is the link to the true story)

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

Calling Good Evil

I was going to put this on my News Weakly segment, but it's too long. So ...

A domestic terrorist group called Jane's Revenge has been attacking churches, crisis pregnancy centers, and even offices of some in Congress since the memo leak from the Supreme Court. They've documented some of their work and broadcast increasingly malevolent threats. Crisis pregnancy centers in particular have been their target. If you want to help a pregnant woman take her baby to term, you are evil. So they vandalize, destroy, even burn to get their message across.

Instead of addressing this terrorism on American soil, Senator Elizabeth Warren is encouraging it by demanding to have all crisis pregnancy centers "shut down" because they "fool" and "torture" "pregnant persons." Close them all. All across the country. These places outnumber abortion clinics three to one and they must not be allowed to continue at all.

I am completely baffled. Is she really looking to mandate all "crisis pregnancies" be aborted? Is helping women (sorry ... "pregnant persons") in crisis who don't wish to kill the baby "torture"? Helping pregnant women to have their babies is evil? No one has mandated that women in pregnancy crisis go to these clinics. They are simply made available. They simply offer an alternative to "Kill your baby." But, like so many other current groups, "alternative" is not allowed? For instance, I've never campaigned to outlaw or eliminate LGBTx groups, organizations, whatever. I simply ask that they don't put it in my face. You know ... live and let live. But today that perspective is called "intolerance" and "hate" even though it is the definition of "tolerance" and contains no hate. In the same way, current voices like the senator are not saying, "You may choose to keep your baby and you can find help for that, or you can choose to kill your baby and you can find help for that." No, they are asserting that encouraging and helping women to have their babies is torture and must not be allowed to continue. For women in crisis (and apparently "women" are no longer in view for modern voices -- only "pregnant people"), the only allowable option seems to be "abort." According to Planned Parenthood's annual reports, 96.9% of their clients get abortions. Only 0.7% get adoption referrals and 2.4% get prenatal care of any kind. What does Mrs. Warren recommend for the women in crisis who don't want to kill their babies? No options.

Where does this insanity end? So much hate.

Act Like a Christian

I've heard well-meaning believers say such things to fellow believers. They'll see someone doing something "unchristianly" and tell them, "You call yourself a believer? You need to act like a Christian." It always struck me as odd. First, do we need to act like one or be one? Shouldn't our changed hearts produce changed lives? Christianity, after all, is not an act, is it? Beyond that, what, exactly, does that mean?. What does "act like a Christian" look like?

Jesus said, "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander" (Matt 15:19), so I would argue that "act like a Christian" should be more of "act like your new heart tells you." Paul wrote about his longing to know Christ "and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith" (Php 3:9). Living Christ's righteousness. He admitted he had not yet obtained perfection (Php 3:12), but he pressed on toward that goal (Php 3:14). And then he said, "Only let us hold true to what we have attained" (Php 3:16). What have we attained? Perfection in Christ. How do we hold true to that? By changed living -- "acting like a Christian." Except it's not an act; it's allowing the inner reality to become more and more lived out in the outer person.

So what does that look like? Well, at first glance, it's fairly simple -- quite obvious. If "Christian" is "follower of Christ," then "act like a Christian" is "imitate Christ." That is at once both simple and complicated. Simple. On the surface, Jesus obeyed what His Father commanded in all things. Easy. In fact, there were two guiding principles: love God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself. Those two contain all the rules, so those were the two Jesus lived by and, therefore, we as followers of Christ should live by. Complicated. Such a set of guiding principles is frankly impossible for the Natural Man. In our natural mode of thinking, our question is "What's best for me?" and no one, including you godly folk, questions it. It is natural. Jesus's primary questions were "What's in it for God?" followed by "What's in it for My neighbor?" (Note: I'm pretty sure He capitalized His own pronouns, etc.) (Ok, maybe not a big deal in 1st century Greek or Aramaic.) Jesus lived His life outwardly. His view was not "Me," but upward and outward. Paul told the Philippians, "Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves" (Php 2:3). Jesus lived that. Paul told them,

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though He was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. (Php 2:5-8)

Notice. In none of that do we see "What is best for me?" Nowhere is there a "me first" or "personal comfort" or "too much to give." He didn't concern Himself with "My personal justice" or "My personal gain." Jesus did feed Himself, clothe Himself, sleep, etc. He did those things necessary to accomplish His Father's will. He did what He needed to do to meet the needs of others. Jesus did things that are about "Jesus," but only so far as was necessary for Jesus to do what the Father wanted for His glory or for those around Him. He even, for His Father, used a whip on moneychangers and, for the deluded Pharisees, pronounced curses ("Woe to you ...") on the Pharisees. He wasn't all "light and flowers." But none of it was self-directed. None of it was about Him. When they attributed His works to Satan, He warned them, "Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven" (Matt 12:32). Jesus lived love -- love for God and love for His neighbor. Not that namby-pamby, cuddly-warm kind, but real love that always sought what was best for the loved one. That directed all His attention, all His efforts, all His vision. Complicated ... like that.

We might say, "Act like a Christian," but Christianity isn't an act and Christianity is not made up of activities. It's not about works. We are saved (the primary concept of "Christianity") apart from works. On the other hand, we are saved (apart from works) for good works (Eph 2:8-10). Works, then, are the natural byproduct of being "born again," of receiving a "new heart." The standard we've been given for what "act like a Christian" looks like is Christ. That standard points our attention, first, to God -- what pleases Him -- and, second, to those around us and what is best for them. That kind of mindset is directly opposed to the mindset of those who are dead in sin. It is only possible when powered by the Holy Spirit. But if we have been clothed in the righteousness of Christ, shouldn't we seek to live up to that righteousness? Just because it's hard doesn't mean it's not right ... or best.

The End

The phrase, "the end," often carries with it a sense of loss or fear, particularly when it refers to the end of life. We know that no one gets out of this life alive, but the notion of death is still a major fear. Eschatology is the word Christians use to talk about the study of the "end times." Others refer to "the Apocalypse" and refer to anything of great disaaster as "apocalyptic." You'd think that Christians would embrace the concepts of death and the end times, but even Christians fear those ideas. Why is that?

Biblically "the end" has two possible outcomes. One is eternal life with God and the other is eternal death without God. Sometimes we minimize those into "heaven" and "hell" and that's not necessarily incorrect; it's just not the whole picture. "Heaven" is a shiny place with clouds and harps and streets of gold and, frankly, a lot of us think that would be boring before long. "Hell" is a place of fire and a lot of them think that's just plain silly. But an eternity in the presence of God can never be boring and "a place of fire" cannot begin to express the torment of an eternity without God.

Do you know where the term "apocalypse" comes from? It is the Greek word ἀποκάλυψις -- apokalupsis -- that is the word that gives us the title of the last book of the Bible -- Revelation. Our culture sees "apocalypse" as disaster; John saw it as "The revelation of Jesus Christ" (Rev 1:1). And if Jesus was right -- the world hates Him (John 15:24) -- I can see how the world would combine the revelation of Christ with disaster. But, of course, while Jesus was not wrong, people don't equate the two together because of Jesus. They do it because the Revelation speaks of the end. And that's bad ... to them. So that's the question, isn't it? Do you love this world so much that an eternity with God is bad? Or terrifying? That's a problem. Do you find Paul a bit insane when he says "to die is gain" (Php 1:21)? That's a problem. Consider it from this perspective. If you were told that heaven would be a place of joy and no more tears or sickness and all that, but Jesus would not be there, would you want to go? Where your treasure is, there your heart will be. Your gut response to "the end" might be a good test of where your treasure is.

Hard Sayings - "Two or More"

Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven. For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst. (Matt 18:19-20)

Verse 19 is not a method of coercing God to do what want. It is an instruction on how to deal with the difficulty of carrying out Matthew 18:15-17. It's hard to regard people you care about as Gentiles and tax gatherers -- as outsiders. But don't worry. God has already done it, so your task is merely to carry it out (Matt 18:18). He begins verse 19 with "again" meaning "I'm on the same topic," so in verse 19 the "ask anything" in view is "in regards to this discipline process." That's the context. Who asks anything? "Two of you." Any two? Not in context. Jesus already referenced two in verse 16, so I'd guess it is those who brought the case to the church. Those folks are praying for God's will regarding this sinning brother. God will answer that prayer.

The next verse -- Matthew 18:20 -- is another seriously misunderstood text from the lips of our Savior. I have been in multiple prayer meetings where they prayed, "Jesus, we gather here knowing you are here with us because You said, 'Where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst.'" It always left me wondering, "So, what if I'm praying with four other people? Or is He not there when I pray alone?" You know, like He commanded (Matt 6:6). So we have refused to examine this text for what it really means because we think that God requires a quorum to show up? The verse is at the end of a section of Scripture where Jesus is explaining how to handle sinning believers. Matthew 18:15-17 gives Jesus's four-step process of attempting to restore a sinning brother. The final step is a bit egregious, so in Matthew 18:18, Jesus explains that when we do that, we are doing what God has already done. Verse 19 tells us to do it with prayer. Verse 20 is a reminder that serves a dual purpose at the end of this difficult procedure. First, remember; Jesus is there. You didn't go through this alone. You did what He told you and He's there. Second, remember, Jesus is there. This was a serious and difficult thing to do, so don't make light of it. Remember it's about Him and not you. It is not lightweight or frivolous. It's important, and it's not about you.

Christ commands church discipline. He requires that we seek to bear one another's burdens even when that burden is their sin. We don't ignore it; we confront it in love and gentleness. As quietly as possible. If one is enough, great! If not, two or three. If that doesn't get there, make it a part of the whole group, always with prayer and self-reflection seeking restoration, not punitive action. If the group doesn't bring about repentance, the actions of the brother in question and their refusal to repent suggests they may not be a brother. Treat them as an unbeliever. Remember, it's God's call. Remember, God will do His will. Remember, Jesus is there. God approves of repentance and restoration as well as those who, with prayer and caution and love, seek to bring it about in those around them. Not quite the original thought of Jesus showing up when two are there, is it?

Future Perfect Passive

I learned a new term the other day: "future perfect passive." It refers to something that is accomplished but not completed, something that will be finished at a certain moment in the future. The Greek version of this is in the sense of "will have been done." That is, there is no doubt, no question. All that remains is the final fulfillment. I learned this term while looking at Matthew 18:18.

Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (ESV)

Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven. (NASB)

Truly I say to you, Whatever you bind on the earth will be, having been bound in Heaven. And whatever you loose on the earth will be, having been loosed in Heaven. (LITV)

Verily I say to you, Whatever things ye may bind upon the earth shall be having been bound in the heavens, and whatever things ye may loose on the earth shall be having been loosed in the heavens. (YLT)

The ESV puts it the way we're used to it. The NASB, Literal Translation of the Holy Bible (LITV), and Young's Literal Translation (YLT) all take into account this verb tense. And it appears to turn the whole thing on its head.

Many people understand the text to say that God (in heaven) is required to do whatever we command (bind or loose). We bind it and He's required to concur in heaven. Or loose it. But that's not what the verb tense implies. In the traditional translations it is, but in these more literal ones it is reversed. Whatsoever we bind on earth has already been bound in heaven (or loosed). The completion of the "has been bound in heaven" is in the "bound on earth," not vice versa. Those who are doing the binding or loosing are doing so at the behest of heaven, not as instructions for heaven.

This is important given the context. Matthew 18:15-20 is about what to do in the case of a sinning believer. There is a process (Matt 18:15-17) that ends, if not in repentance, with "let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector." That's not pleasant. That's actually somewhat scary. Can we actually do that? Can we declare this person among the unbelievers? On whose authority? The text above -- Matthew 18:18 -- answers that question. If you go through that process precisely as instructed -- aiming to restore, hoping for repentance, out of deep and abiding love for your brother -- and he doesn't repent, you are acting out what heaven has already done. You are completing the work God already began. You are arriving at a foregone conclusion as intended by God.

To me this radically changes the image I had of this process. It's not about righteous indignation. It's not about "holier than thou." It's not about telling God who's good and who's bad. It is a humble ending to a humble beginning following God's instructions for God's sure ends. That feels a lot different. It puts the emphasis on the hand of God rather than the tools that hand is holding.

Judgmental

One of the big things that the self-righteous liberals like to be judgmental and intolerant about is people who are judgmental and intolerant. Never mind the double standard. Never mind the failure to grasp the meaning of "tolerance" (which requires there to be a difference of opinion to tolerate). They concur with "Only God can judge me" (with the implied "and He won't") and require everyone to stand aside and keep your mouth shut. So when a Christian points to God's Word and says, "That thing you're doing is sin," they have breached the "code of ethics." "You can't say that. You shouldn't be so judgmental." It is said that the best known verse in the Bible is "Judge not, that you be not judged."

The Bible, of course, disagrees. Let me be more specific. Jesus disagrees. Jesus gave instructions. "If your brother sins against you," He began and laid out the proper approach (Matt 18:15-17). It is a four-step approach. First, you go and tell him his fault (Matt 18:15). "Oh, no! That's judgmental!" Jesus thought it was right. Jesus said, "If he listens to you, you have gained your brother." The second step is to take two or three witnesses (Matt 18:16). If he repents, you're good to go. If not, the third step is to take it to the church (Matt 18:17). Again, if he repents, we're golden. If not, the final step is to "let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector." See him (or her) as unsaved, an unbeliever. Outside of the fellowship. Deeply in need of Christ. It's called "church discipline." It is from the lips of Jesus.

It seems judgmental, but we have very good reasons to engage in such distasteful behavior. There are two primary concerns. The first Jesus lists here. "If he listens to you, you have gained your brother." His welfare. Paul wrote in Galatians 6, "Brethren, even if anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself, so that you too will not be tempted" (Gal 6:1). The point is restoration, not punishment. James wrote, "My brethren, if any among you strays from the truth and one turns him back, let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins" (James 5:19-20). Saving, not condemning. Covering sins, not magnifying them. In Paul's version it includes "in a spirit of gentleness" and a healthy dose of "each one looking to yourself." Not some self-righteous church lady image. In the best interest of your fellow believers, we are supposed to help them in this way.

Paul lists a second reason. In 1 Corinthians 5 we read about a church member engaging in a sin "of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles" (1 Cor 5:1): he is sleeping with his step-mother. The Corinthian Christians prided themselves on their nonjudgmental attitude and Paul says, "You have become arrogant and have not mourned" (1 Cor 5:2). So he takes the astounding step of turning the man over to Satan "for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus" (1 Cor 5:5). Note that same primary concern -- the sinner's best interest. Yes, there is pain to come, but it is so that "his spirit may be saved." But he goes on to give the second reason. "Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough?" (1 Cor 5:6). We often disregard this second even more than we disregard the first reason. We fail to see that unaddressed sin in the camp will become a much larger problem than if it had been handled when it was small. For the health of the body of Christ, we must address these things.

Our modern world would like to tell us that the really loving thing to do is to just back off. Let them be who they will be. Don't say anything about their "indiscretions" and "faux pas." Jesus disagreed. The really loving thing to do is to gain your brother. The really caring thing to do is to restore a sinning saint. The really healthy response to sin is to seek to restore the sinner. We do this for the person who is transgressing God's commands, but we also do it for all of the rest of us. To fail to do so is to hold the cure for cancer and withhold it because "I want to be tolerant and nonjudgmental." A lie from the father of lies.

News Weakly - 7/9/22

Move On
Moveon.org has hosted a petition to impeach Justice Clarence Thomas. His crime? He voted against abortion. "If that's not enough," the petition says (as if "voting the way we didn't want him to" is enough to impeach someone), he also voted "wrong" in other travesties, like the insurrection hoax. Oh, and he has a conservative (read "bad") wife. I mean, what else do we need? Well, all we need to do is get really angry and make sure a lot of people agree and justice will demand that he is gone. Well, I say, good luck with that. Please ... move on.

Just Wondering
Just thinking out loud here. If "Pride goes before destruction" (Prov 16:18) and Pride Month just ended, what should we expect in July? And, consider. Pride month ... we got that. I'm sure we can work in lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, envy, and wrath months, too. Should be no problem, right? Just thinking.

The "D" Stands for "Double Standard"
In Minnesota, the DFL legalized THC-infused edibles. It caught Republican Sen. Jim Abeler by surprise because he didn't read the legislation he voted for. And now, of course, the senator is up for ridicule ... unlike Congress that never read, say, the Obamacare bill. But "they're on our side." It's only "the other guys" that deserve such ridicule.

Department of Jokers?
The DOJ is suing Arizona because they require people to be legally qualified to vote and the DOJ thinks that's unfair. Now, if the law says that you have to be a citizen to vote and the DOJ sues people for enforcing that, in what sense are they the department of justice?

Not Misinformation
Bette Midler and Macy Gray are in trouble. Both made "transphobic" statements that were ... you know ... undeniably true. Midler complained that they were taking away "women" and making them "birthing people" and that was just mean of her. Gray said that just because you change body parts, it doesn't make you a woman. Really mean. Both are true. The science is undeniable. Neither suggested that trans people were bad people. Both simply wanted to point out that "woman" has a meaning and "because I feel like it" is not part of that. Haters. Of course, it will make it difficult to support equal rights for women when "women" becomes this vague, undefined, "because I feel like it" term.

No Surprise, But ...
It's not like this wasn't a likely possibility, but President Biden is issuing an executive order to protect the continued murder of babies. Executive orders have limits and it appears that they can be used for good or ill, and, clearly, Democrats in general and this president in particular, over against the majority of nations (who, if they allow abortion, limit it) and over against his stated religion (Catholic) and over against laws of various states which is, therefore, over against the 10th Amendment, are all proving that protecting the Constitution and the people for which it stands is all nonsense as long as they can kill who they want in order ... to have unprotected sex when they want. No surprise, but sad and even alarming just the same.

Tower of Babble
You may have heard that Justice Kavanaugh was harrassed while having dinner in a restaurant. You know, like "mostly peaceful" folk do with people they don't like. Because the restaurant told the truth about the unruly protesters, thousands of false reservations were made at restaurant. And AOC thought it was funny that Justice Kavanaugh couldn't eat dinner in peace because "he decided half the country should risk death if they have an ectopic pregnancy within the wrong state lines." Of course, it's a lie. All the states that have currently banned or limited abortion include the exception of the risk of a mother's life. But, of course, truth is not an issue for her type. It should be to all of you.

The A, Bee, C's
On the tails of our Independence Day celebration, the British parliament has convened a special July 4 commission to investigate colonial insurrection. (For the record, folks, that is what an insurrection looks like, not that ridiculous Jan 6 thing.) In Texas, the story is out that Elon Musk, father of 9, is planning to go to Mars ... to get some peace and quiet. And after the president gave his passionate speech demanding that gas stations lower their prices, he is now asking pollsters to raise his approval rating. We'll see how that goes.

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

________
Postscript: Please note that there is nothing in the news about the Department of Justice or the Attorney General or any national law enforcement agencies taking any action on the criminals that illegal attempted to coerce Supreme Court Justices to vote the way they wanted them to or to investigate and bring to justice any of the domestic terrorists responsible for ongoing attacks on churches and pregnancy centers. I wonder why that is. Note: It's not a conspiracy theory when the conspirators openly document it.

Just Thinking Out Loud

I was just mulling this over the other day. In Romans Paul writes, "As it is written, 'None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.'" (Rom 3:10-12). And no small number of Christians say, "Well, we know that isn't true." (I use the term "Christian" there even though some are simply self-professed Christians, but I know genuine Christians who balk at the claim as well.) "We know that's not true because lots of people seek for God. We know that's true because there are a lot of good people." So some embrace Scripture ... selectively. Some stuff they agree with and some they don't.

A lot of these people tend toward the "red letter" view. "Much of Scripture," in their view, "is up for debate, but we can trust the words of Jesus." So they classify themselves as "Jesus followers" because they believe they follow His words. Oddly enough, they do so while ignoring them. It wasn't Paul who said those things; he was quoting the Old Testament. And Paul wasn't the first New Testament speaker to voice it. That would be Jesus. Jesus, speaking in red letters, said, "No one is good except God alone" (Luke 18:19). Exactly the same thing Paul said. I haven't heard anyone say, "Well, we know that isn't true" regarding Jesus's words. Yet, if they discard Paul, they discard Jesus, too. Jesus said, "You do not believe because you are not among My sheep" (John 10:26), carefully and clearly placing "among My sheep" before "believe." Jesus said, "No one can come to Me unless it is granted him by the Father" (John 6:65). You say people seek for God? Jesus says they can't -- "no one can." And those "red letter" types embrace Jesus's words ... selectively.

In taking the "high ground" ("We only accept the words of Jesus"), these people ignore the Word that was God (John 1:1), making themselves out to be the ultimate arbiter of truth when Jesus said, "I am ... the Truth" (John 14:6). They conflate their own perspectives and standards to be God's views and standards and reject out of hand the things God says if He disagrees with them. Not quite the "high ground" they were aiming for ... unless we're talking about the Old Testament "high places" (e.g., 1 Kings 3:2–3) where idols were worshiped.

From the Perspective of Normal

I read an interesting piece on Canada's social, political, and moral climate. Interesting. From 1963 on Canada has been shifting to perhaps "the world's most liberal society." They accomplished it by establishing "vast liberal-leaning media, juridical, academic, educational, bureaucratic, and corporate structures." Today, then, there is no "far right" in Canada not because it's banned, but because they've become so used to "liberal" as the norm that they wouldn't consider it. I would say, "There, but for the grace of God, goes America."

I'm not looking here to evaluate Canada or even liberalism. I'm looking at "normal." In China, for instance, the populace has been so isolated and so controlled for so long that they generally consider it "normal." The majority takes no offense at governmental overreach. Large segments are not up in arms over loss of rights or liberties. They never had them. Much like the Middle Ages when people lived from birth to grave as serfs and peasants, people seem to see "normal" as acceptable and right without further evaluation. It's only from outside "normal" that anyone will further examine such things.

This is the approach of the LGBTQ types of the day. Make it "normal" and no one will notice. It cannot be normal (statistically) because it constitutes less than 5% of the population, but if you make it appear normal enough, people won't notice. It is the approach of the Left, where "inclusivity by exclusivity" is regarded as right and good and no one notices because it's "normal" or "reproductive rights" over "human rights" is right and good because it's "normal." Control the media, academia, education of children, etc., and you can make your side out to be "normal" and, therefore, good and soon enough no one will know any different and anyone who disagrees, regardless of why they disagree, will have their claims evaluated; they will be rejected simply as "abnormal."

The article says that "Canada lacks many aspects of America that may temper the aforementioned trends." Things like a strong military, organized and especially conservative religion, homeschooling, traditional-leaning private schools, and various independent publications. These tend to balance out the controls of the Left in those areas and our "normal" includes them. You can sense, however, that our society is moving away from them, and a new "normal" is right around the corner for us, as well. For instance, in 2000 Californians voted in Prop 22 that defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman. In 2004, Then San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom (yes, that Gavin Newsom) illegally allowed some 4,000 marriage licenses to be issued in San Francisco. In May of 2008 the California Supreme Court declared Prop 22 unconstitutional and threw it out, ordering the immediate redefinition of marriage to change from the "longstanding, traditional definition" to include "same-sex." In response, Californians voted again to make "one man and one woman" the definition, this time as part of the state constitution. In 2013 the U.S. Supreme Court nullified the will of the people and, in 2015, made the new definition federal law. Wrong or right is not my point. The radical and sudden shift from a normal "No, that's not marriage" to "How could you think it's not?" took seven years in this country. What's next? Will we continue to allow "normal" to define right and wrong, good and bad, or will we have some standard we can look to that is universal, objective, and true? I think we all know the answer to that. So the real question is what will YOU do? Accept "normal" as good or believe God?