Mixed Signals
The president offered a Christmas Address told of how things are improving, like "COVID ... no longer controls our lives" while the news reports that the U.S. is the first nation to report total COVID cases in the 9-figure range (over 100 million). Someone needs to get their stories straight.
Figures
They complained about Trump adding $7 trillion to the national debt (By the way, Obama increased the national debt by the most yet -- $8.6 trillion), but Biden signed that grand budget to take us farther and farther down the national debt rabbit hole. In fact, in his two years in office he has bumped it up $4 trillion. Oh, and here's a fun fact. Only one Democrat voted against the spending bill -- AOC. Hard to believe, being the queen of wanting to spend other people's money, but makes sense. She's opposed to funding ICE or the military, so ... (and that was her reasoning, not my snark.)
The Women of Afghanistan say "Thank You, Joe"
The Taliban doesn't discourage women from working. They have banned them ... from government and non-government work. In August, just after Biden pulled the troops out with their tails between their legs, the Taliban promised to protect women's rights ... per the Sharia law ... which is zero. That's our Joe ... always concerned about people's rights.
Fire That MAiD
In March of next year Canada will start killing the mentally ill. Okay, that sounds harsh, but I don't think it's particularly incorrect. Having already put together a nice package of euthenasia for the masses, the government program called MAiD (Medical Assistance in Dying) will allow the mentally ill to be executed. Where suicide is illegal in most places, the government will assist if you're crazy enough to want it. How long before it is "offered" to those who don't?
Global Warming
Dozens have died in the Buffalo area alone from the winter storm that hit this week. I'm telling you. If this global warming keeps up, we're all going to freeze to death.
Happy New Year
Remember that fabled "Inflation Reduction Act" that was supposed to save us all from soaring inflation? Turns out people making less than $400K a year should expect to pay hefty taxes to cover that "inflation reduction" that was supposed to be a gift from Joe. (I know I received notification that income I was receiving would be getting taxed this coming year when it wasn't this last year.) Not sure how increasing taxes to the poor and middle class is "inflation reduction." Your fine government at work. Happy New Year, all.
Don't Worry; Bee Happy
With all the canceled flights this last week, some of the airlines are taking a closer look at their "work from home" policy. On the other hand, there was a whole lot of Spirit Airline passengers that were severely disappointed that their flights weren't canceled. I don't know if you saw the news item, but apparently Ukrainian president Zelensky shot his eye out while playing with the rocket launcher he got from the U.S. for Christmas. But, seriously, satire aside, why wasn't this a news item around the world? "Breaking: God Is With Us."
As we end this happy year, we think of the new cereal, Lost. Next time your mother goes to the store, tell her to get Lost.
Saturday, December 31, 2022
Friday, December 30, 2022
Surreptitiously Saved by Works
We (Christians) all agree. The thing that makes our faith different from all others is the simple statement, "We are saved by grace through faith apart from works." Every other religion is a "saved by works" religion. Not Christianity. So it seems odd that we'd want to smuggle in "saved by works" to our Christian theology. It is secretive, stealthy, under the radar. It is so covert that most who do it don't know it. But it is undeniable. What is that?
It has been an in-house debate for a long, long time. Can a believer lose his/her salvation? Some say yes and some say no. Beyond that, of course, there are gradations. Some say, "Yes and it happens all the time" while some (okay, a very few) say, "Yes, but it never happens." Some say, "No. In fact, you can sin endlessly and still remain saved." Others (again, fewer in number) say, "No, but that doesn't mean you can sin without consequence." I would like to point out, however, that if you can lose your salvation, there are two undeniable facts. First, according to a "lose your salvation" reading of Hebrews 6:4-6, if you do lose your salvation, you cannot get it back. Second, if you can lose your salvation, then, ultimately, you are saved on the basis of not just Christ's death and resurrection on your behalf, but also on your own ability to remain above that "lose your salvation" line. You are, ultimately, saved by your own efforts to sustain what you were given.
If the truth is to be told, both sides cite their own references for their own positions. In other words, we can all find in Scripture reasons to believe you can lose your salvation and reasons you can't. So I'm not suggesting that one side or the other is operating outside of Scripture. I do think that one side or another is disregarding some Scripture in favor of other Scripture. To be fair, I think that often both sides do that. So I'm not pointing fingers here at a single position, but I am recommending you look again because if we can lose it, we cannot get it again and, if we can keep it, we've accomplished a really amazing feat that Christ's death alone could not do. So much for "that no one may boast" (Eph 2:9).
It has been an in-house debate for a long, long time. Can a believer lose his/her salvation? Some say yes and some say no. Beyond that, of course, there are gradations. Some say, "Yes and it happens all the time" while some (okay, a very few) say, "Yes, but it never happens." Some say, "No. In fact, you can sin endlessly and still remain saved." Others (again, fewer in number) say, "No, but that doesn't mean you can sin without consequence." I would like to point out, however, that if you can lose your salvation, there are two undeniable facts. First, according to a "lose your salvation" reading of Hebrews 6:4-6, if you do lose your salvation, you cannot get it back. Second, if you can lose your salvation, then, ultimately, you are saved on the basis of not just Christ's death and resurrection on your behalf, but also on your own ability to remain above that "lose your salvation" line. You are, ultimately, saved by your own efforts to sustain what you were given.
If the truth is to be told, both sides cite their own references for their own positions. In other words, we can all find in Scripture reasons to believe you can lose your salvation and reasons you can't. So I'm not suggesting that one side or the other is operating outside of Scripture. I do think that one side or another is disregarding some Scripture in favor of other Scripture. To be fair, I think that often both sides do that. So I'm not pointing fingers here at a single position, but I am recommending you look again because if we can lose it, we cannot get it again and, if we can keep it, we've accomplished a really amazing feat that Christ's death alone could not do. So much for "that no one may boast" (Eph 2:9).
Thursday, December 29, 2022
CC&Rs
I watched a movie that took place in a small town in Great Britain probably in the 1930s or so. The town had a church, and one of the plotlines that played out was how their new, young priest sought to replace the candles that lit the church with new electric lighting. In the movie, on the day that he lit it up for them for the first time, people in the church were horrified. One woman ran out screaming, "Witchcraft!"
Now, we know it wasn't witchcraft, but how would we determine if lighting a church by candles is more acceptable to God than lighting it with electric light? The character in that movie found it morally offensive. How would we determine it? For most people, there is no "code." Many of us live in places with home owners associations. When we move in, we're given a book called, typically, the CC&Rs -- the covenants, conditions, and restrictions of our neighborhood. Is it okay to put your trashcans out all week? Consult the CC&Rs. Can I paint my house any color I want? Consult the CC&Rs. Is there anything wrong with leaving a car on blocks in my front yard while I restore it for a month? Consult the CC&Rs. Well, life doesn't seem to come with CC&Rs, so we just ... guess. "I ... guess interracial marriage is wrong." "Well, I ... guess it's not." "I ... guess stealing from the rich and giving to the poor is good." "Well, I ... guess it's not." We don't have CC&Rs for life, so your guess is as good as mine. Yet, we don't acknowledge that. We feel we should impose our guesses on everyone else. Because we guess that's the right thing to do.
For some of us, however, we don't guess. We do recognize CC&Rs, a kind of "owners manual" for life. That "manual" might say, "Don't steal," so we conclude, "It's wrong to steal," but not because we're guessing. It's because it's in the manual. And if this manual is indeed an authoritative manual, it wouldn't be foolish to recommend that others don't steal as well. So when that church lady screamed, "Witchcraft!", I wanted to check the manual and see why. Funny thing. It wasn't in there. Is your pet concern in there?
Now, we know it wasn't witchcraft, but how would we determine if lighting a church by candles is more acceptable to God than lighting it with electric light? The character in that movie found it morally offensive. How would we determine it? For most people, there is no "code." Many of us live in places with home owners associations. When we move in, we're given a book called, typically, the CC&Rs -- the covenants, conditions, and restrictions of our neighborhood. Is it okay to put your trashcans out all week? Consult the CC&Rs. Can I paint my house any color I want? Consult the CC&Rs. Is there anything wrong with leaving a car on blocks in my front yard while I restore it for a month? Consult the CC&Rs. Well, life doesn't seem to come with CC&Rs, so we just ... guess. "I ... guess interracial marriage is wrong." "Well, I ... guess it's not." "I ... guess stealing from the rich and giving to the poor is good." "Well, I ... guess it's not." We don't have CC&Rs for life, so your guess is as good as mine. Yet, we don't acknowledge that. We feel we should impose our guesses on everyone else. Because we guess that's the right thing to do.
For some of us, however, we don't guess. We do recognize CC&Rs, a kind of "owners manual" for life. That "manual" might say, "Don't steal," so we conclude, "It's wrong to steal," but not because we're guessing. It's because it's in the manual. And if this manual is indeed an authoritative manual, it wouldn't be foolish to recommend that others don't steal as well. So when that church lady screamed, "Witchcraft!", I wanted to check the manual and see why. Funny thing. It wasn't in there. Is your pet concern in there?
Wednesday, December 28, 2022
Walk by Faith
In 1947's Miracle on 34th Street, Maureen O'Hara's character makes a theological claim without even knowing it. She tells her questioning daughter, "Faith is believing in things when common sense tells you not to." Well, there you have it, world. All clear now? Except, of course, that's not what the Bible refers to as "faith." The biblical version is "to be convinced" which requires evidence and/or arguments. So let's see if we can get a grasp on these two concepts.
Imagine you are part of Israel a long time ago. You're standing on the shore of the Red Sea with the armies of Egypt charging down on you and you've no place to go. Go back and die or be a slave; go forward and drown. So the guy that led you there stands up in the evening, prays, spreads his arms, and the wind blows. It blows all night. In the morning the sea has parted, leaving a dry path across to the other side. What do you do? Common sense would tell you, "Don't go there. It's not safe." What do you do? Well, setting aside common sense for a moment, what does the evidence say? We have that all-night wind. That was odd. We have water standing. That's not normal. We have a pillar of fire between us and the pursuing army. Never seen that before. Is that all? By no means! We have 10 -- count 'em, 10 -- events previous to this. We saw water turn to blood, flies, frogs, locust. The last one told us to put blood on our doorposts and eat a particular meal while the angel of death passed over and it happened. He actually killed every firstborn in the nation ... but not ours. That's evidence. Common sense says, "Don't walk into that sea bed," but the evidence says, "The One who has done all that we've seen so far is powerful and faithful enough to get us through that."
Interestingly, common sense also tells us to believe. Actual biology professors dedicated to Evolution have told their classes, "What you see will look like design, but that doesn't mean it is." Why? Common sense would say so. God says so (Rom 1:19-20). So biblical faith is to operate on what the evidence and reasoning says is true, which is that God is real and is faithful and trustworthy. When Israel stepped onto that dry sea bed to cross to safety, they were exercising faith. They didn't know that the water wouldn't come crashing back down, but they believed it wouldn't because of the evidence. That's the faith asked of us. Not without reason or evidence, but because of it.
Imagine you are part of Israel a long time ago. You're standing on the shore of the Red Sea with the armies of Egypt charging down on you and you've no place to go. Go back and die or be a slave; go forward and drown. So the guy that led you there stands up in the evening, prays, spreads his arms, and the wind blows. It blows all night. In the morning the sea has parted, leaving a dry path across to the other side. What do you do? Common sense would tell you, "Don't go there. It's not safe." What do you do? Well, setting aside common sense for a moment, what does the evidence say? We have that all-night wind. That was odd. We have water standing. That's not normal. We have a pillar of fire between us and the pursuing army. Never seen that before. Is that all? By no means! We have 10 -- count 'em, 10 -- events previous to this. We saw water turn to blood, flies, frogs, locust. The last one told us to put blood on our doorposts and eat a particular meal while the angel of death passed over and it happened. He actually killed every firstborn in the nation ... but not ours. That's evidence. Common sense says, "Don't walk into that sea bed," but the evidence says, "The One who has done all that we've seen so far is powerful and faithful enough to get us through that."
Interestingly, common sense also tells us to believe. Actual biology professors dedicated to Evolution have told their classes, "What you see will look like design, but that doesn't mean it is." Why? Common sense would say so. God says so (Rom 1:19-20). So biblical faith is to operate on what the evidence and reasoning says is true, which is that God is real and is faithful and trustworthy. When Israel stepped onto that dry sea bed to cross to safety, they were exercising faith. They didn't know that the water wouldn't come crashing back down, but they believed it wouldn't because of the evidence. That's the faith asked of us. Not without reason or evidence, but because of it.
Tuesday, December 27, 2022
No Quid Pro Quo
They say there are no atheists in foxholes. You know the idea. In times of extreme crisis, many people who did not believe in God suddenly turn to Him. "God, I never believed in You before, but if you can get me out of this situation, I'll do all I can to please you." And while it suggests that everyone really does know there's a God (Rom 1:19-20), it really is a problem all on its own.
Most people, I believe, will take this very same approach with God. "As long as you do what I want, I'll do what You want." That's what they are saying, right? I mean, if God does not get them out of the situation they're concerned about, it is assumed they won't do anything for Him, right? A quid pro quo. But if God is God, there's no option for that. If God is the Creator of the universe, the Lord and King, the Sovereign, then the requirement is we're supposed to do whatever He wants. No quid pro quo. No give and take. So even the seemingly godly prayer is actually a rebellion, and that's not a good thing.
I've seen unbelievers and believers alike take this approach. "If God is not what I think He should be, I'll have nothing to do with Him." If He's not the Grand Butler, the Healer-on-Demand, the grace-without-justice God, then they don't want anything to do with Him. Everyone dies, but if my loved one dies, God is right out. So we try to tempt God with "If you'll do what I want" while we retain the "But if not" clause and think we're being godly. Don't think the Lord of Lords is deceived. Don't let that be your approach.
Most people, I believe, will take this very same approach with God. "As long as you do what I want, I'll do what You want." That's what they are saying, right? I mean, if God does not get them out of the situation they're concerned about, it is assumed they won't do anything for Him, right? A quid pro quo. But if God is God, there's no option for that. If God is the Creator of the universe, the Lord and King, the Sovereign, then the requirement is we're supposed to do whatever He wants. No quid pro quo. No give and take. So even the seemingly godly prayer is actually a rebellion, and that's not a good thing.
I've seen unbelievers and believers alike take this approach. "If God is not what I think He should be, I'll have nothing to do with Him." If He's not the Grand Butler, the Healer-on-Demand, the grace-without-justice God, then they don't want anything to do with Him. Everyone dies, but if my loved one dies, God is right out. So we try to tempt God with "If you'll do what I want" while we retain the "But if not" clause and think we're being godly. Don't think the Lord of Lords is deceived. Don't let that be your approach.
Monday, December 26, 2022
Christmas Is All Wrong
In sports they do a postgame analysis. Let's do the same for Christmas. You know Christmas is all wrong, right?
Christmas is the celebration of the Incarnation. Now, that's crazy. The Creator of the world took on flesh -- creation. The God of the universe became creature. He didn't arrive in a palace or have royal parents. He was laid in a feeding trough, born to poor parents. In fact His father wasn't even His father. His first visitors weren't the elite, but the lowly -- shepherds. Sure, angels announced His birth, but not to the world or even the upper echelon. A group of guys in a field with stinky sheep. It seems like every aspect of this story is just plain wrong.
It only gets worse in the long view. All humans will die, but Jesus was born for that purpose. He didn't cling to being in the form of God, but lowered Himself -- what Paul calls "emptied Himself" (Php 2:7) -- to death on a cross, the most shameful death one can imagine. This sinless Son of God would go on to be executed for crimes He did not commit in order to save people who were His enemies. And, perhaps the final indignity, He opted to make these enemies of His whom He died to redeem His Bride, His Church, His voice on earth.
It's wrong ... all wrong. No one else would have planned it that way. And, oh, God did plan it just that way. Christmas is a celebration of the counterintuitive, a Savior who is born as a child, a God who takes on human flesh, a Creator that takes the form of His created, a Lord who becomes a servant ... quietly ... in a small village in an obscure country ... among animals and enemies ... for their benefit. That's the day we just celebrated. Makes no sense ... unless, of course, you're God.
Christmas is the celebration of the Incarnation. Now, that's crazy. The Creator of the world took on flesh -- creation. The God of the universe became creature. He didn't arrive in a palace or have royal parents. He was laid in a feeding trough, born to poor parents. In fact His father wasn't even His father. His first visitors weren't the elite, but the lowly -- shepherds. Sure, angels announced His birth, but not to the world or even the upper echelon. A group of guys in a field with stinky sheep. It seems like every aspect of this story is just plain wrong.
It only gets worse in the long view. All humans will die, but Jesus was born for that purpose. He didn't cling to being in the form of God, but lowered Himself -- what Paul calls "emptied Himself" (Php 2:7) -- to death on a cross, the most shameful death one can imagine. This sinless Son of God would go on to be executed for crimes He did not commit in order to save people who were His enemies. And, perhaps the final indignity, He opted to make these enemies of His whom He died to redeem His Bride, His Church, His voice on earth.
It's wrong ... all wrong. No one else would have planned it that way. And, oh, God did plan it just that way. Christmas is a celebration of the counterintuitive, a Savior who is born as a child, a God who takes on human flesh, a Creator that takes the form of His created, a Lord who becomes a servant ... quietly ... in a small village in an obscure country ... among animals and enemies ... for their benefit. That's the day we just celebrated. Makes no sense ... unless, of course, you're God.
Sunday, December 25, 2022
The Kneeling Santa
Bishop Nicholas of Myra was born in 270 A.D. in what is now Turkey. He was a devout Christian and loved Jesus. At one point he was imprisoned by Diocletian, a Roman emperor, for his faith. He was legendary for his generosity and gave away most of what he had to those in need. His special interest was needy children. One story is told about Nicholas saving three young girls from misery by secretly putting dowry money in stockings they had hung over the fireplace to dry. In 325 he attended the Council of Nicaea where they discussed whether Jesus was God or not (the Arian heresy). Nicholas is reputed to have slapped Arius for his heresy. The Roman Catholic church sainted him and he was known as the patron saint of charity and children. So Saint Nicholas became Sinterklaas in Holland (the Dutch version of Saint Nicholas) and that word migrated to Santa Claus, but St. Nicholas himself never varied from a avid and sincere follower of Christ who imitated Jesus in loving those he encountered, standing always for Christ.
We are often told that Christmas traditions are largely pagan, stolen from pagan sources, and "Christian-ified" (yes, I made that word up). I think the truth is quite different. And I think that the transition of a man who adored Christ and loved his fellow man in response into a jolly old elf is the exact opposite, a theft from Christian history to pervert the truth. St. Nick lived on his knees before the newborn King. I'll stick with the real Saint Nick, thank you.
Saturday, December 24, 2022
News Weakly - 12/24/22
You're Embarrassing Yourself
His own daughter voted against him, so a New Jersey committeeman who lost his bid for reelection is suing to throw out her ballot. People like that give democracy a bad name. If we get to throw out the ballots of those who we allege "voted wrong," it will not go well for America. Hopefully it will not go well for this dingleberry.
So Many Words That Don't Mean What We Think They Mean
Just keep in mind. If you make unplanned, off-the-cuff remarks that someone finds offensive, like a "made-up language" that is an impression of a "sort of Asian" language, you may not be allowed to work. At all. End of story. An apology will not do. Because we are a kind, inclusive, tolerant, nonjudgmental society.
The Ever-Changing Landscape of PC Language
Ever-helpful Standford University has released a guide to "harmful" language, words we should not use. Well, technically, it is a guide for Stanford from their "Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative," but what's bad for Stanford should also be harmful for the rest of us. So harmful terms like "immigrant" or "American" should be avoided. Like "walk-in" because it "trivializes the experiences of people living with disabilities." And certainly not "paraplegic" or "quadriplegic." Use "person with a spinal cord injury" because that's must less harmful and much clearer. "For although they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks to Him, but they became futile in their thinking" (Rom 1:21). (Note: The Babylon Bee offers their own submissions for language to avoid.)
The Threat
The city of Buffalo, NY, is suing gun manufacturers and distributors as a "threat to public health." The mayor cited "the possession of illegal guns" as the problem, and, apparently, that's caused by the people that make legal guns (and, apparently, not the people doing the crimes). I'm quite sure there will be suits filed against knife makers and the Maker of people with hands and feet (one of the top methods of murder) forthcoming, since we're quite sure the maker of weapons used for murder are the threat. (Postscript. My News Weakly is always a bit satirical and not intended to be literal, but I still feel the need to point out that I didn't defend guns, gun owners, or killing people. My satire here is aimed at the thinking that people that make legal things that can kill are responsible for the problem.)
See? Republicans Can Be Liberal, Too
In an effort to distance themselves from Trump and the $7 trillion debt he incurred for the nation, Republicans have voted in an additional $1.7 trillion funding deal but complain about it. I guess it's no longer just the Democrats who are generous with other people's money.
Thought You Might Be Interested
You may (or may not) recall the story of Andrew Thornburg, the new CEO of the Essendon Football Club in Australia who got fired days after he was hired simply because he went to a church that was known to believe the Bible ... and, as we all know, that means they aren't really excited about homosexual behavior. Mind you, he never said anything of the sort, but what he did conclude was that, clearly, his personal Christian faith was "not tolerated or permitted in the public square." Well, turns out Essendon has apologized. They admitted what they did was wrong and that Thornburg really was a nice guy. Of course, there's no way he'd get his job back, but that was quite an unexpected turn around.
Trump Derangement Syndrome Again
Trump has retorted that the Jan. 6 committee report was "highly partisan" and the media and her hounds are scorning and ridiculing the man for it. I cannot imagine why. I'm no fan of Mr. Trump, but it doesn't take a bias to see that those who made up the committee were either Trump-haters for their political ties or Trump-haters because they hated him. (Seven Democrats and two Republicans who were already outspoken critics of the president can't be construed as "non-partisan" or "unbiased".) The report is highly partisan. If admitting that fact means you believe the report is a lie, I guess I see why you'll need to ridicule the ex-president for it.
Beelieve in Christmas
Not the Bee, but close. Did you hear about the dramatic discovery in Israel? Archaeologists in Bethlehem uncovered the original Yoda-with-Santa-hat-and-coat inflatable decoration likely used by Joseph and Mary that first Christmas. Exciting, isn't it? Now on to the Bee. On the visit of Ukraine's president to Washington D.C., the Bee's headline read, "Biden Nervous as Boss Drops by Unexpectedly." Christmas is on their list of hit points, too. One story is how the nation celebrates Christmas by traumatizing toddlers by taking them to meet Santa. Another is on the husband who, having heard his wife complain about the vacuum cleaner for months, is sure he's found a sure winner of a gift for her. Just a few of the fun stories this week that must be true since I found them on the Internet.
And, as it is Christmas Eve, I'd like to wish you all a warm celebration and remembrance of our Savior's birth.
His own daughter voted against him, so a New Jersey committeeman who lost his bid for reelection is suing to throw out her ballot. People like that give democracy a bad name. If we get to throw out the ballots of those who we allege "voted wrong," it will not go well for America. Hopefully it will not go well for this dingleberry.
So Many Words That Don't Mean What We Think They Mean
Just keep in mind. If you make unplanned, off-the-cuff remarks that someone finds offensive, like a "made-up language" that is an impression of a "sort of Asian" language, you may not be allowed to work. At all. End of story. An apology will not do. Because we are a kind, inclusive, tolerant, nonjudgmental society.
The Ever-Changing Landscape of PC Language
Ever-helpful Standford University has released a guide to "harmful" language, words we should not use. Well, technically, it is a guide for Stanford from their "Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative," but what's bad for Stanford should also be harmful for the rest of us. So harmful terms like "immigrant" or "American" should be avoided. Like "walk-in" because it "trivializes the experiences of people living with disabilities." And certainly not "paraplegic" or "quadriplegic." Use "person with a spinal cord injury" because that's must less harmful and much clearer. "For although they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks to Him, but they became futile in their thinking" (Rom 1:21). (Note: The Babylon Bee offers their own submissions for language to avoid.)
The Threat
The city of Buffalo, NY, is suing gun manufacturers and distributors as a "threat to public health." The mayor cited "the possession of illegal guns" as the problem, and, apparently, that's caused by the people that make legal guns (and, apparently, not the people doing the crimes). I'm quite sure there will be suits filed against knife makers and the Maker of people with hands and feet (one of the top methods of murder) forthcoming, since we're quite sure the maker of weapons used for murder are the threat. (Postscript. My News Weakly is always a bit satirical and not intended to be literal, but I still feel the need to point out that I didn't defend guns, gun owners, or killing people. My satire here is aimed at the thinking that people that make legal things that can kill are responsible for the problem.)
See? Republicans Can Be Liberal, Too
In an effort to distance themselves from Trump and the $7 trillion debt he incurred for the nation, Republicans have voted in an additional $1.7 trillion funding deal but complain about it. I guess it's no longer just the Democrats who are generous with other people's money.
Thought You Might Be Interested
You may (or may not) recall the story of Andrew Thornburg, the new CEO of the Essendon Football Club in Australia who got fired days after he was hired simply because he went to a church that was known to believe the Bible ... and, as we all know, that means they aren't really excited about homosexual behavior. Mind you, he never said anything of the sort, but what he did conclude was that, clearly, his personal Christian faith was "not tolerated or permitted in the public square." Well, turns out Essendon has apologized. They admitted what they did was wrong and that Thornburg really was a nice guy. Of course, there's no way he'd get his job back, but that was quite an unexpected turn around.
Trump Derangement Syndrome Again
Trump has retorted that the Jan. 6 committee report was "highly partisan" and the media and her hounds are scorning and ridiculing the man for it. I cannot imagine why. I'm no fan of Mr. Trump, but it doesn't take a bias to see that those who made up the committee were either Trump-haters for their political ties or Trump-haters because they hated him. (Seven Democrats and two Republicans who were already outspoken critics of the president can't be construed as "non-partisan" or "unbiased".) The report is highly partisan. If admitting that fact means you believe the report is a lie, I guess I see why you'll need to ridicule the ex-president for it.
Beelieve in Christmas
And, as it is Christmas Eve, I'd like to wish you all a warm celebration and remembrance of our Savior's birth.
Friday, December 23, 2022
Christmas Memories
Obama claimed when he was in office that America was no longer a Christian nation. I didn't protest much for two reasons. First, only individuals can be Christians. No nation can come to Christ for its salvation. Second, America had so degraded its acceptance of anything "Christian" that it was no longer in that category any more.
I like to listen to the XM Radio station for Radio Classics. You know, those old radio shows of "the Golden Age of Radio," shows like Suspense and X Minus One. Shows like Jack Benny and The Great Gildersleeve. Radio shows from the '30s to the '50s or so. They're playing largely Christmas stuff right now (go figure), and it has been very interesting to learn that entertainment in that era had no qualms about pushing "the real reason for Christmas." More than a few of them were explicitly about how Christmas isn't about gifts and decorations, about making money and having fun, but about the birth of the Christ child.
Every generation says, "It's not like it used to be." Sometimes they're right. Sometimes they're just forgetful. But hearing these stories of less than 100 years ago broadcast on what was the media of the day compared to what is broadcast today, it is abundantly clear that ... things just aren't like they used to be. America is not a Christian nation, in spirit or even in influence. That has never worked out well for nations in the past. I can't see it going well this time. And we know what God thinks when a people forget Him (Rom 1:18-23).
I like to listen to the XM Radio station for Radio Classics. You know, those old radio shows of "the Golden Age of Radio," shows like Suspense and X Minus One. Shows like Jack Benny and The Great Gildersleeve. Radio shows from the '30s to the '50s or so. They're playing largely Christmas stuff right now (go figure), and it has been very interesting to learn that entertainment in that era had no qualms about pushing "the real reason for Christmas." More than a few of them were explicitly about how Christmas isn't about gifts and decorations, about making money and having fun, but about the birth of the Christ child.
Every generation says, "It's not like it used to be." Sometimes they're right. Sometimes they're just forgetful. But hearing these stories of less than 100 years ago broadcast on what was the media of the day compared to what is broadcast today, it is abundantly clear that ... things just aren't like they used to be. America is not a Christian nation, in spirit or even in influence. That has never worked out well for nations in the past. I can't see it going well this time. And we know what God thinks when a people forget Him (Rom 1:18-23).
Thursday, December 22, 2022
How Can We?
When Luther opposed the Roman Catholic church of his day by declaring, "The righteous shall live by faith" (Rom 1:17), the church was outraged. They called a meeting, the Council of Trent, and pronounced "anathema" -- curses -- upon those who would proclaim such things. One of their "anathemas" was on the notion of justification by faith apart from works. They were opposed to this because, largely, it simply set up a free sin condition. If you're not saved by works, you can sin all you want without any consequence.
Luther was not the first to face this argument. Paul was. Paul wrote, "Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord" (Rom 5:20-21). For the believer, here, the correction to sin is not punishment, but grace. Logically, here, if sin increases, so does grace to counter it. So the logical objection is, "What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?" (Rom 6:1). There it is. "Paul, if you're saying we're saved by grace and you're saying that increasing sin causes increasing grace and we want God to be most glorified, then it only makes sense that we sin more so God can be more gracious." The same objection that Rome had. If we are saved by grace apart from works, then the most logical choice is to sin with all your might. There will be no consequences. Paul didn't stop and take note here. He didn't mitigate. "Well, hang on, I need to explain what I meant by 'where sin increases grace increases more'." No, he didn't change it one iota. What he did say was, "By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?" (Rom 6:2). Interesting comeback. "How can we who died to sin still live in it?" His answer to "Shouldn't we sin all the more?" was, "You can't." He didn't modify or diminish grace. He simply said, "You can't live in sin once you're in Christ." John wrote something similar. "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).
The answer to those who objected to Paul's "saved by grace through faith apart from works" is the same answer to Rome. It is not liberty to sin because being in Christ is a fundamental change of one's nature. Rome complains we could sin all we want, and Paul and John argue that your "want" changes in Christ. Both of them don't simply say you "should not" continue in sin. They say you cannot. It violates the new nature. So while we who are in Christ do sin, it is never comfortable or continuous. Like the fireman who violates his nature to remain safe and runs into a burning building to save someone, he can violate his own nature, but not for long. Which is the idea for us as well. We have died to sin. We are no longer in sin's grip, sin's realm, sin's control. We might revisit it from time to time, but we don't live there anymore.
Luther was not the first to face this argument. Paul was. Paul wrote, "Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord" (Rom 5:20-21). For the believer, here, the correction to sin is not punishment, but grace. Logically, here, if sin increases, so does grace to counter it. So the logical objection is, "What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?" (Rom 6:1). There it is. "Paul, if you're saying we're saved by grace and you're saying that increasing sin causes increasing grace and we want God to be most glorified, then it only makes sense that we sin more so God can be more gracious." The same objection that Rome had. If we are saved by grace apart from works, then the most logical choice is to sin with all your might. There will be no consequences. Paul didn't stop and take note here. He didn't mitigate. "Well, hang on, I need to explain what I meant by 'where sin increases grace increases more'." No, he didn't change it one iota. What he did say was, "By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?" (Rom 6:2). Interesting comeback. "How can we who died to sin still live in it?" His answer to "Shouldn't we sin all the more?" was, "You can't." He didn't modify or diminish grace. He simply said, "You can't live in sin once you're in Christ." John wrote something similar. "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).
The answer to those who objected to Paul's "saved by grace through faith apart from works" is the same answer to Rome. It is not liberty to sin because being in Christ is a fundamental change of one's nature. Rome complains we could sin all we want, and Paul and John argue that your "want" changes in Christ. Both of them don't simply say you "should not" continue in sin. They say you cannot. It violates the new nature. So while we who are in Christ do sin, it is never comfortable or continuous. Like the fireman who violates his nature to remain safe and runs into a burning building to save someone, he can violate his own nature, but not for long. Which is the idea for us as well. We have died to sin. We are no longer in sin's grip, sin's realm, sin's control. We might revisit it from time to time, but we don't live there anymore.
Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. (2 Cor 5:17)Is that your experience, or are you perfectly comfortable indulging and defending sin? If the latter, you might have a serious problem.
Wednesday, December 21, 2022
NYT's Take
A foremost proponent of Christianity, the New York Times (yes, that "proponent" crack was tongue-in-cheek), did a story on churches and Christmas entitled, "O Come All Ye Faithful, Except When Christmas Falls on Sunday." This Christmas, as they note, falls on Sunday, and not a few churches have decided not to compete with family. Christmas morning is a family tradition and, in today's American Christianity at least, church on Sunday only takes second place. Why? Because "practically no one showed up for services" six years ago at the last coincidence of Christmas and Sunday.
I'm having a hard time with this. Jesus said, "If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple" (Luke 14:26). Okay, sure, we all agree that "hate" here means "esteem of lesser value" (cp Matt 15:4, for instance). Elsewhere He puts it much more gently. "Whoever loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me" (Matt 10:37). So we all feel better about it ... but I'm having a hard time laying these truths alongside canceling worship for a family get-together. In what sense does "Family gets priority over worship" a satisfaction of Jesus's demand?
It's not so much the church members that disturb me as it is the churches. Apparently, "teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you" (Matt 28:20) has fallen on deaf ears. Apparently equipping the saints for the work of ministry (Eph 4:12) is not really a priority in too many churches. Asking believers to take up their cross is too much. So we go with a "kinder and gentler" concept ... which isn't Christ's version. That's just plain embarrassing. And too many churches (one is too many) are putting that out there for the New York Times to mock while we're supposed to be celebrating Jesus. Seems wrong to me.
I'm having a hard time with this. Jesus said, "If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple" (Luke 14:26). Okay, sure, we all agree that "hate" here means "esteem of lesser value" (cp Matt 15:4, for instance). Elsewhere He puts it much more gently. "Whoever loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me" (Matt 10:37). So we all feel better about it ... but I'm having a hard time laying these truths alongside canceling worship for a family get-together. In what sense does "Family gets priority over worship" a satisfaction of Jesus's demand?
It's not so much the church members that disturb me as it is the churches. Apparently, "teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you" (Matt 28:20) has fallen on deaf ears. Apparently equipping the saints for the work of ministry (Eph 4:12) is not really a priority in too many churches. Asking believers to take up their cross is too much. So we go with a "kinder and gentler" concept ... which isn't Christ's version. That's just plain embarrassing. And too many churches (one is too many) are putting that out there for the New York Times to mock while we're supposed to be celebrating Jesus. Seems wrong to me.
Tuesday, December 20, 2022
The Example of Joseph
Bill Cosby years ago did a famous bit about Noah and how hard it must have been for Noah to accept that God was asking him to build an ark. "An ark?" "Yes, an ark." "Right ... what's an ark?" I was thinking about Joseph.
"I don't know how to tell you this, Joseph, but your bride-to-be is pregnant." Imagine. In a world where sexual purity was mandatory and failure was punishable by death, Joseph discovered (we don't know how) that Mary was with child (Matt 1:18). Now, Joseph was an amazing fellow. The legal option would be to report her and she would be taken out and stoned to death (Deut 22:20-21). But Joseph set aside his own loss and grief and, "not wanting to disgrace her, planned to send her away secretly" (Matt 1:19). He would divorce her (cancel the marriage contract) quietly so as not to cause her excessive pain or shame. Nice guy. Exceedingly nice. But while he contemplated this, he was informed by no less than an angel of the Lord that this child was not conceived through fornication (technically adultery in their day), but "of the Holy Spirit" (Matt 1:20-21). Perhaps, to me, the most striking response occurs here at this point. "Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife" (Matt 1:24). No hesitation. No question. No, "Hey, what about me, my reputation, my needs?" He married her that very night and "kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son" (Matt 1:25).
Scripture describes Joseph as "a righteous man" (Matt 1:19). I think he was likely a remarkable husband, placing God's instructions above all else and his wife's well-being above his own. Cosby joked about the confusion Noah likely felt with God's instructions, but Scripture offers no such dilemma for Joseph. "God said it, that settles it. Let's get on that right now." I can only hope to some day be that kind of "righteous man."
"I don't know how to tell you this, Joseph, but your bride-to-be is pregnant." Imagine. In a world where sexual purity was mandatory and failure was punishable by death, Joseph discovered (we don't know how) that Mary was with child (Matt 1:18). Now, Joseph was an amazing fellow. The legal option would be to report her and she would be taken out and stoned to death (Deut 22:20-21). But Joseph set aside his own loss and grief and, "not wanting to disgrace her, planned to send her away secretly" (Matt 1:19). He would divorce her (cancel the marriage contract) quietly so as not to cause her excessive pain or shame. Nice guy. Exceedingly nice. But while he contemplated this, he was informed by no less than an angel of the Lord that this child was not conceived through fornication (technically adultery in their day), but "of the Holy Spirit" (Matt 1:20-21). Perhaps, to me, the most striking response occurs here at this point. "Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife" (Matt 1:24). No hesitation. No question. No, "Hey, what about me, my reputation, my needs?" He married her that very night and "kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son" (Matt 1:25).
Scripture describes Joseph as "a righteous man" (Matt 1:19). I think he was likely a remarkable husband, placing God's instructions above all else and his wife's well-being above his own. Cosby joked about the confusion Noah likely felt with God's instructions, but Scripture offers no such dilemma for Joseph. "God said it, that settles it. Let's get on that right now." I can only hope to some day be that kind of "righteous man."
Monday, December 19, 2022
A Virgin Birth? Really??
One of the key doctrines often listed among the "essentials" to biblical Christianity is coming up for "review" this week. Jesus, they tell us, was "born of a virgin." Yeah, right. And I saw a unicorn just the other day. So there are not a few people who protest this virgin-birth concept. It is in the category of "not scientifically possible" and, therefore, not possible at all. So they either simply deny it or they go to lengths to explain things like, "Well, sure, Isaiah predicted a 'virgin birth' (Isa 7:14), but what he really meant was a 'maiden' and the term has been mistranslated ever since." Or something like that. Because, as we all know, just because we worship a Creator does not mean that He has the capacity or will to violate His own created order, right?
That's all well and good, I suppose, if you want to deny God's capabilities while trying to exonerate God, but is our only real evidence that Jesus was born of a virgin that text in Isaiah? The term used by Isaiah -- and, subsequently, Matthew (Matt 1:23) -- is perhaps more accurately "maiden," but "maiden" refers to an unmarried woman and "unmarried" strongly implies a virgin in the language and culture (see Deut 22:13-21, for instance). Mary was baffled when she was told she would bear a child because "I am a virgin" (Luke 1:34). If she meant "I'm a maiden who has had sex," it's a nonsensical objection. So in the NASB, for instance, every use (but one) is translated "virgin" (and that exception is "chaste"). And Isaiah's prophecy was intended as "a sign" to Ahaz. What kind of sign is it if a young woman has sex and bears a son? But let's not dicker over words. What else do we know? We know that Jesus was referred to as "the son of Mary" (Mark 6:3) instead of the standard "son of" his father because everyone understood that Jesus's parentage was "in question." Jesus's opponents sneered at Him. "We were not born of fornication" (John 8:41) because his parentage was in question. Joseph was not His father. And when Joseph was engaged to Mary and found out that she was pregnant, what was his response? He "planned to send her away secretly" (Matt 1:19) because he knew he was not the father. Why didn't he do it? Because an angel of the Lord told him that she had conceived "of the Holy Spirit" (Matt 1:20). Joseph believed in the Virgin Birth.
People have been trying to dismiss the Virgin Birth since its Advent (small play on words there). But it really isn't a question of science or rationality. If there is a God, He can do what He wants and we rightly refer to those things as "miracles." No, the question here is not the Virgin Birth. The assault here is on God. Because if Jesus was not born of a human mother and divine Father, He couldn't save us. He was the promised answer to our sin problem way back in Genesis 3:15, where Eve's Seed would defeat Satan. And Adam's sin nature was not passed on to Jesus, essential to His sinless life. The Virgin Birth is, indeed, essential. It is essential in terms of a reliable Bible, in terms of fulfilled prophecy, and in terms of our means of salvation. Make no mistake. Those who deny it are not denying a story; they're denying God Himself.
That's all well and good, I suppose, if you want to deny God's capabilities while trying to exonerate God, but is our only real evidence that Jesus was born of a virgin that text in Isaiah? The term used by Isaiah -- and, subsequently, Matthew (Matt 1:23) -- is perhaps more accurately "maiden," but "maiden" refers to an unmarried woman and "unmarried" strongly implies a virgin in the language and culture (see Deut 22:13-21, for instance). Mary was baffled when she was told she would bear a child because "I am a virgin" (Luke 1:34). If she meant "I'm a maiden who has had sex," it's a nonsensical objection. So in the NASB, for instance, every use (but one) is translated "virgin" (and that exception is "chaste"). And Isaiah's prophecy was intended as "a sign" to Ahaz. What kind of sign is it if a young woman has sex and bears a son? But let's not dicker over words. What else do we know? We know that Jesus was referred to as "the son of Mary" (Mark 6:3) instead of the standard "son of" his father because everyone understood that Jesus's parentage was "in question." Jesus's opponents sneered at Him. "We were not born of fornication" (John 8:41) because his parentage was in question. Joseph was not His father. And when Joseph was engaged to Mary and found out that she was pregnant, what was his response? He "planned to send her away secretly" (Matt 1:19) because he knew he was not the father. Why didn't he do it? Because an angel of the Lord told him that she had conceived "of the Holy Spirit" (Matt 1:20). Joseph believed in the Virgin Birth.
People have been trying to dismiss the Virgin Birth since its Advent (small play on words there). But it really isn't a question of science or rationality. If there is a God, He can do what He wants and we rightly refer to those things as "miracles." No, the question here is not the Virgin Birth. The assault here is on God. Because if Jesus was not born of a human mother and divine Father, He couldn't save us. He was the promised answer to our sin problem way back in Genesis 3:15, where Eve's Seed would defeat Satan. And Adam's sin nature was not passed on to Jesus, essential to His sinless life. The Virgin Birth is, indeed, essential. It is essential in terms of a reliable Bible, in terms of fulfilled prophecy, and in terms of our means of salvation. Make no mistake. Those who deny it are not denying a story; they're denying God Himself.
Sunday, December 18, 2022
In Remembrance
The parable is told of a wife (obviously in the 50's or 60's) who was at home washing dishes at the sink in the mid-morning. Her window looked out on the street in front of her house, and she noticed a young man walking up the street toward her house. She was surprised when he came to a stop in front of her house, pulled out a piece of paper, compared it with her address, and walked up her walkway. When he rang the doorbell, she was a little concerned. "Yes?" "Mrs. Smith, I came here to give you this." And he handed her a crisp $100 bill and walked away. Well, she was dumbfounded. What was this? Why was this? Who was this? What else would follow? Because you don't get something for nothing, right? The next day she was at the same sink at the same time and saw the same man walking up the street. "Here it comes," she thought. "Here's the other shoe." Sure enough, he walked up her walkway, rang the doorbell, and, when she answered it ... gave her another $100 bill and walked away. Not what she was expecting. She was, again, amazed, excited, awed, wondrous. The routine kept up for a week. After the second week, she was standing at the door waiting for him to walk up. At the beginning of the 5th week, she was waiting again, but he just walked by. He stopped at the neighbor's house, walked up to her door, and handed her $100. "Hey!" she shouted as he walked back by her house. "Where's my hundred dollars?!"
That's us, alright. When we first encounter God's amazing grace, we are stunned. We rejoice. We are delighted and grateful. We are in awe (where "awe" includes both "wonder" and "dread"). After a while, of course, we begin to take it for granted, like the sunrise. It's there every day. Why wouldn't we? And then, we demand it. We don't merely expect it; we're upset when it doesn't go our way. "Hey!" we metaphorically complain to God, "Where's my grace?!"
At the Lord's Supper we are called upon to "do this in remembrance of Me" (Luke 22:19; 1 Cor 11:24-25). Remembrance of what? We're called to do this often to remember His body broken for us and His blood spilled for us. Think about that. God planned before time (Titus 1:1-2) to send His Son to become flesh, live a sinless life, and die a horrible death ... for us. Remember that. Jesus voluntarily went to the cross, took our sin on Himself, and gave us His righteousness. Remember that. They did that not for wayward children, but for hostile enemies (Rom 5:10). Remember that. And when you recall all that, see if you haven't sunk to the place of taking for granted -- or even demanding -- God's grace. You can tell if you rmember all that and are bored.
That's us, alright. When we first encounter God's amazing grace, we are stunned. We rejoice. We are delighted and grateful. We are in awe (where "awe" includes both "wonder" and "dread"). After a while, of course, we begin to take it for granted, like the sunrise. It's there every day. Why wouldn't we? And then, we demand it. We don't merely expect it; we're upset when it doesn't go our way. "Hey!" we metaphorically complain to God, "Where's my grace?!"
At the Lord's Supper we are called upon to "do this in remembrance of Me" (Luke 22:19; 1 Cor 11:24-25). Remembrance of what? We're called to do this often to remember His body broken for us and His blood spilled for us. Think about that. God planned before time (Titus 1:1-2) to send His Son to become flesh, live a sinless life, and die a horrible death ... for us. Remember that. Jesus voluntarily went to the cross, took our sin on Himself, and gave us His righteousness. Remember that. They did that not for wayward children, but for hostile enemies (Rom 5:10). Remember that. And when you recall all that, see if you haven't sunk to the place of taking for granted -- or even demanding -- God's grace. You can tell if you rmember all that and are bored.
Saturday, December 17, 2022
News Weakly - 12/17/22
The Guy You Want in Charge
A new, 25-year-old congressman is having trouble getting housing in Washington D.C. because, he says, he has "really bad" credit. The story says the account "illustrates a national housing crisis," but I tend to think it illustrates the failure of too many people and, therefore, our government to be fiscally responsible. Florida voted in a representative to manage the nation's funds who can't manage his own.
Discrimination
Elton John quit Twitter because it is "being used to divide our world." It was not "being used to divide" when it was unleashed on ideas and people that Elton (and others) opposed. It's only now that it includes "misinformation" -- information that is opposed by the ruling class ... whether or not it is true. (Think Hunter Biden, for instance.)
As Promised
Losing governor candidate, Kari Lake, is suing the state to challenge her defeat ... like she promised before the election. Well, would you look at that? A politician who keeps her promises. That's not always a good thing.
Nero Fiddles
Thousands of illegal immigrants crossed the border in El Paso alone last weekend. The Border Patrol is reporting that in the fiscal year that ended in September they encountered 164,000 Nicaraguans alone. "This is not an invasion. Pay no attention to the numbers behind the curtain. Everything is okay," the government assures us.
Not Really News
Not really. Biden signed the bill that erased the longstanding, traditional definition of marriage from the dictionary. "Today is a good day," Biden said. "A day America takes a vital step toward equality, for liberty and justice -- not just for some, but for everyone. Toward creating a nation where decency, dignity and love are recognized, honored and protected." Ironic that he believes that a bill aimed at silencing biblical beliefs and removing a biblical concept of "love" is good "for everyone" and makes love "recognized, honored, and protected."
Preserve and Protect
The White House showed its true colors this week. It reminds me of a house near me. They have a flag like that in the window and a sign that says, "All are welcome here." So I knocked on the door one day and said, "I'd like to tell you about Jesus." They closed the door in my face. Exclusive inclusivity is irrational. And "all" are not welcome if they don't agree with the ruling party.
Science as Hate Speech
I don't like using Fox News as a source, but apparently no Left-leaning sources are carrying this story. A Norwegian filmaker -- a lesbian feminist -- is facing 3 years in prison in Norway for criminal hate speech by claiming on Facebook that a biological male cannot become pregnant or a lesbian. Free speech and, obviously, science are not on the table in Norway, a reality that could be coming soon to country near you.
Did You Know?
The "father" of "no God in our time" could arguably be Charles Darwin whose Origin of the Species set us all free from any so-called Creator. But did you know? The actual title of his book is On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Because Darwin believed that white people were the true human race and the rest were all savages that needed to be exterminated. So why hasn't he (and his line of thinking) been canceled? Where's your god now?
Believing The Big Lie
Democrats have introduced a bill to prevent Trump from running again based on the 14th Amendment -- you can't hold office if you engaged in insurrection. Except Trump did not engage in insurrection and, in fact, the FBI declared such. But, look, if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people believe you, so obviously he did. Who's believing the big lie now? (By the way, that "lie big enough and keep repeating it" line is a quote from Joseph Goebbels.)
Where Would We Bee Without Them?
This was too rich to pass up. The Babylon Bee showed a picture of the White House lit up "with the symbol of a religious cult." Fact or satire? After an earlier, obviously false story about Brittney Griner fleeing back to Russia after seeing an American flag, there was a story about her returning to a quiet life of obscurity in the WNBA. And Mitt Romney, after Kyrsten Sinema's exit, announced he would remain in the Democratic Party. Just a few of the fun stories from the Bee.
A new, 25-year-old congressman is having trouble getting housing in Washington D.C. because, he says, he has "really bad" credit. The story says the account "illustrates a national housing crisis," but I tend to think it illustrates the failure of too many people and, therefore, our government to be fiscally responsible. Florida voted in a representative to manage the nation's funds who can't manage his own.
Discrimination
Elton John quit Twitter because it is "being used to divide our world." It was not "being used to divide" when it was unleashed on ideas and people that Elton (and others) opposed. It's only now that it includes "misinformation" -- information that is opposed by the ruling class ... whether or not it is true. (Think Hunter Biden, for instance.)
As Promised
Losing governor candidate, Kari Lake, is suing the state to challenge her defeat ... like she promised before the election. Well, would you look at that? A politician who keeps her promises. That's not always a good thing.
Nero Fiddles
Thousands of illegal immigrants crossed the border in El Paso alone last weekend. The Border Patrol is reporting that in the fiscal year that ended in September they encountered 164,000 Nicaraguans alone. "This is not an invasion. Pay no attention to the numbers behind the curtain. Everything is okay," the government assures us.
Not Really News
Not really. Biden signed the bill that erased the longstanding, traditional definition of marriage from the dictionary. "Today is a good day," Biden said. "A day America takes a vital step toward equality, for liberty and justice -- not just for some, but for everyone. Toward creating a nation where decency, dignity and love are recognized, honored and protected." Ironic that he believes that a bill aimed at silencing biblical beliefs and removing a biblical concept of "love" is good "for everyone" and makes love "recognized, honored, and protected."
Preserve and Protect
Science as Hate Speech
I don't like using Fox News as a source, but apparently no Left-leaning sources are carrying this story. A Norwegian filmaker -- a lesbian feminist -- is facing 3 years in prison in Norway for criminal hate speech by claiming on Facebook that a biological male cannot become pregnant or a lesbian. Free speech and, obviously, science are not on the table in Norway, a reality that could be coming soon to country near you.
Did You Know?
The "father" of "no God in our time" could arguably be Charles Darwin whose Origin of the Species set us all free from any so-called Creator. But did you know? The actual title of his book is On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Because Darwin believed that white people were the true human race and the rest were all savages that needed to be exterminated. So why hasn't he (and his line of thinking) been canceled? Where's your god now?
Believing The Big Lie
Democrats have introduced a bill to prevent Trump from running again based on the 14th Amendment -- you can't hold office if you engaged in insurrection. Except Trump did not engage in insurrection and, in fact, the FBI declared such. But, look, if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people believe you, so obviously he did. Who's believing the big lie now? (By the way, that "lie big enough and keep repeating it" line is a quote from Joseph Goebbels.)
Where Would We Bee Without Them?
This was too rich to pass up. The Babylon Bee showed a picture of the White House lit up "with the symbol of a religious cult." Fact or satire? After an earlier, obviously false story about Brittney Griner fleeing back to Russia after seeing an American flag, there was a story about her returning to a quiet life of obscurity in the WNBA. And Mitt Romney, after Kyrsten Sinema's exit, announced he would remain in the Democratic Party. Just a few of the fun stories from the Bee.
Friday, December 16, 2022
Sexual Sequence
I don't know why, but I never noticed this before.
In Romans 1, Paul declares that the gospel is "the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes" (Rom 1:16) because "in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith" (Rom 1:17). Then he proceeds to show how God is righteous in His wrath against "all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness" (Rom 1:18). God, he says, has made Himself known and we suppress that truth. We know God, but we don't honor Him as God or give thanks (Rom 1:21). The result is futile thinking and foolish hearts. "Therefore," Paul writes, "God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them" (Rom 1:24). See that? Did you catch the sequence? 1) We suppress the truth about God, making us foolish. 2) We are given over to lusts. The first consequence of failing to honor God is ... sexual immorality. The second consequence is "degrading passions" (Rom 1:26) that give rise to perverted sexual immorality -- abandoning "the natural function" (Rom 1:26-27). I never noticed that sequence before ... that the very first outcome of becoming futile in thinking and foolish of heart is sexual immorality.
Perhaps that's why Scripture hits that topic so hard. Maybe that's why there are few sins so clearly and repeatedly warned against as that one. Sexual immorality is a sin, but this suggests that failing to honor God makes us stupid, and this is the first sign of the futile and foolish heart. And what does that say about self-identified Christians who are embracing the prevalent sexual immorality of our day?
In Romans 1, Paul declares that the gospel is "the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes" (Rom 1:16) because "in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith" (Rom 1:17). Then he proceeds to show how God is righteous in His wrath against "all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness" (Rom 1:18). God, he says, has made Himself known and we suppress that truth. We know God, but we don't honor Him as God or give thanks (Rom 1:21). The result is futile thinking and foolish hearts. "Therefore," Paul writes, "God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them" (Rom 1:24). See that? Did you catch the sequence? 1) We suppress the truth about God, making us foolish. 2) We are given over to lusts. The first consequence of failing to honor God is ... sexual immorality. The second consequence is "degrading passions" (Rom 1:26) that give rise to perverted sexual immorality -- abandoning "the natural function" (Rom 1:26-27). I never noticed that sequence before ... that the very first outcome of becoming futile in thinking and foolish of heart is sexual immorality.
Perhaps that's why Scripture hits that topic so hard. Maybe that's why there are few sins so clearly and repeatedly warned against as that one. Sexual immorality is a sin, but this suggests that failing to honor God makes us stupid, and this is the first sign of the futile and foolish heart. And what does that say about self-identified Christians who are embracing the prevalent sexual immorality of our day?
Thursday, December 15, 2022
Death and Life
Paul asked the Christians in Rome, "How shall we who died to sin still live in it?" (Rom 6:2). He goes on to explain in what sense we have died to sin -- buried with Christ and raised to "newness of life" (Rom 6:3-4), and that's all clear, but that question nags at me. "How shall we who died to sin still live in it?"
We (believers) live in this constant dichotomy. "What I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate" (Rom 7:15). Because we, you see, are in a different position than unbelievers. We are in a different category than the unregenerated. They are "slaves of sin" (Rom 6:17). They sin because it's their nature to do so and they have no other options. They are hostile to God. If "good" is defined as "love God with all your heart," they can't. And we ... can.
Paul says, "Do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts, and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God" (Rom 6:12-13). So we do it by choice. Paul says we can be "slaves of righteousness" (Rom 6:20). We can be "alive to God in Christ Jesus" (Rom 6:11). That's what I want. I want to be dead to sin and alive to God. I don't want to just visit that place; I want to live there. I won't be able to this side of human life, but I can get ever closer. That's where I want to be.
We (believers) live in this constant dichotomy. "What I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate" (Rom 7:15). Because we, you see, are in a different position than unbelievers. We are in a different category than the unregenerated. They are "slaves of sin" (Rom 6:17). They sin because it's their nature to do so and they have no other options. They are hostile to God. If "good" is defined as "love God with all your heart," they can't. And we ... can.
Paul says, "Do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts, and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God" (Rom 6:12-13). So we do it by choice. Paul says we can be "slaves of righteousness" (Rom 6:20). We can be "alive to God in Christ Jesus" (Rom 6:11). That's what I want. I want to be dead to sin and alive to God. I don't want to just visit that place; I want to live there. I won't be able to this side of human life, but I can get ever closer. That's where I want to be.
Wednesday, December 14, 2022
I Deserve Better
We've all felt that at one time or another to one degree or another, and some in an ongoing way. There are a couple of possible approaches to that. One would be to deny it. "No, you don't." And there may be some reasons to claim that. But Scripture takes a different approach.
Humans naturally tend to believe that we are the center of the universe. We are "it." Everything, figuratively, revolves around us. It's not true. So there is reason to question whether it is true that "I deserve better." But consider the case of someone who actually did deserve better. The Bible says of Jesus that "All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being" (John 1:3). Paul wrote, "From Him and through Him and to Him are all things" (Rom 11:36). Colossians says that "in Him all things hold together" (Col 1:17). That is, He is the actual center of the universe, the highest being. How did He handle that? Did He cling to "I deserve better"? In Philippians we read, "Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus ..." (Php 2:5). Oh, that could be important for people who, you know, consider themselves Christ-followers. What attitude did He have that we ought to have?
Scripture does not argue here against "I deserve better" with "No, you don't." God's Word here accepts that and urges us to something better. "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 2:3-4). God's Word urges us to have the attitude of Christ. When He was wronged, when He faced injustice, when He got far less than He rightly deserved, He faced it without anger. Jesus endured the cross and ignored the shame "for the joy set before Him" (Heb 12:2).
We, who are Christ-followers ... do we? Do we ignore our losses -- even our unjust losses -- considering others as more important and looking to "a better possession and a lasting one" (Heb 10:34)? Or do we angrily declare, "I deserve better"? Jesus certainly deserved better than death on the cross. If He bore that without anger or retaliation, shouldn't we? Conversely, if we refuse, can we rightly call ourselves "Christians" -- "Christ-followers"?
Humans naturally tend to believe that we are the center of the universe. We are "it." Everything, figuratively, revolves around us. It's not true. So there is reason to question whether it is true that "I deserve better." But consider the case of someone who actually did deserve better. The Bible says of Jesus that "All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being" (John 1:3). Paul wrote, "From Him and through Him and to Him are all things" (Rom 11:36). Colossians says that "in Him all things hold together" (Col 1:17). That is, He is the actual center of the universe, the highest being. How did He handle that? Did He cling to "I deserve better"? In Philippians we read, "Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus ..." (Php 2:5). Oh, that could be important for people who, you know, consider themselves Christ-followers. What attitude did He have that we ought to have?
Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. (Php 2:5-8)Notice that there is no hint of "I deserve better." He absolutely did, but He didn't claim it. He didn't regard it as "a thing to be grasped." Instead, He humbled Himself ... to death. To the worst kind of death.
Scripture does not argue here against "I deserve better" with "No, you don't." God's Word here accepts that and urges us to something better. "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 2:3-4). God's Word urges us to have the attitude of Christ. When He was wronged, when He faced injustice, when He got far less than He rightly deserved, He faced it without anger. Jesus endured the cross and ignored the shame "for the joy set before Him" (Heb 12:2).
We, who are Christ-followers ... do we? Do we ignore our losses -- even our unjust losses -- considering others as more important and looking to "a better possession and a lasting one" (Heb 10:34)? Or do we angrily declare, "I deserve better"? Jesus certainly deserved better than death on the cross. If He bore that without anger or retaliation, shouldn't we? Conversely, if we refuse, can we rightly call ourselves "Christians" -- "Christ-followers"?
Tuesday, December 13, 2022
Love is Love
I've been thinking about the slogan, "Love is love." It is used as a bludgeon these days by the LGBT+ crowd to warn us to back off any suggestion that what they're doing may be wrong. The problem is it doesn't work because the problem is they're right ... and don't know it.
Biblically, love has several faces. There is the familial love -- mentioned in Scripture only in its absence (Rom 1:31; 2 Tim 3:3) -- and there is brotherly love -- the love of friends -- and there is the one we all know ... agapē. That one is commanded, so it's not in the common category of emotional love; it's a choice. It is the denial of self in favor of the best for the loved one. I recently saw a self-help guru explaining the difference between respect and love. "Love," he said, "is when they want you." Not biblically. Love is self-forgetfulness that seeks the best for the other.
So, let's take that version and plug it back into the slogan, "Love is love." It is. Regardless of gender or person, love seeks the best for others. Conversely, if God warns against sexual immorality, seeking sexual immorality for others is not love. If those who engage in sexual immorality or adultery or homosexual behavior (to name a few) "will not inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor 6:9-10), it cannot be love to encourage that for others. So, as it turns out, they're right; love is love. We all should be doing it more and more. The problem is they keep using that word, and God's Word doesn't think it means what they think it means.
Biblically, love has several faces. There is the familial love -- mentioned in Scripture only in its absence (Rom 1:31; 2 Tim 3:3) -- and there is brotherly love -- the love of friends -- and there is the one we all know ... agapē. That one is commanded, so it's not in the common category of emotional love; it's a choice. It is the denial of self in favor of the best for the loved one. I recently saw a self-help guru explaining the difference between respect and love. "Love," he said, "is when they want you." Not biblically. Love is self-forgetfulness that seeks the best for the other.
So, let's take that version and plug it back into the slogan, "Love is love." It is. Regardless of gender or person, love seeks the best for others. Conversely, if God warns against sexual immorality, seeking sexual immorality for others is not love. If those who engage in sexual immorality or adultery or homosexual behavior (to name a few) "will not inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor 6:9-10), it cannot be love to encourage that for others. So, as it turns out, they're right; love is love. We all should be doing it more and more. The problem is they keep using that word, and God's Word doesn't think it means what they think it means.
Monday, December 12, 2022
Moment by Moment
I've always been fascinated by a particular aspect of some of the Old Testament stories. Take, for instance, the Exodus. Israel, as slaves in Egypt, weren't interested in Moses's help. "Go away. You're only going to make it worse." But they sat through ten plagues, untouched; clearly from God. At the tenth, they went through elaborate preparations including smearing blood on the doorway and intricate food preparations. When the angel of death passed through, he skipped them and killed every firstborn in the nation. No mistaking it. This was God's work. So the Egyptians gave them riches and Pharaoh kicked them out and they headed for freedom. Then Pharaoh changed his mind and Israel found herself between the Red Sea and Pharaoh's pursuing army, blocked visibly by God. And the wind blew all night and dry land opened up and they walked across in safety and, when they were done, they stood and watched as the sea collapsed back on Pharaoh's army and drowned them all. Hooray!! So how is it that a mere few days later they were bemoaning Moses bringing them into the desert? "Sure, God is pretty impressive," they seemed to be saying, "but what has He done for us lately?"
We do the same. We forget quickly what He does for us. So, let me help you out. What has He done for you lately? Remember that breath you just took? That came from Him. Have you noticed how your atoms don't just fly apart, your molecules don't just scatter? That's His work. Did you eat today? He did that. Well ... you get the idea.
We, like the Israelites of old, tend to be a forgetful and ungrateful lot. Scripture says that all things belong to Him and that all things are "from Him and through Him and to Him." Something to keep in mind ... moment by moment.
We do the same. We forget quickly what He does for us. So, let me help you out. What has He done for you lately? Remember that breath you just took? That came from Him. Have you noticed how your atoms don't just fly apart, your molecules don't just scatter? That's His work. Did you eat today? He did that. Well ... you get the idea.
We, like the Israelites of old, tend to be a forgetful and ungrateful lot. Scripture says that all things belong to Him and that all things are "from Him and through Him and to Him." Something to keep in mind ... moment by moment.
Sunday, December 11, 2022
Count the Cost
Jesus said, "For which of you, desiring to build a tower, does not first sit down and count the cost, whether he has enough to complete it?" (Luke 14:28). Note the "for" at the beginning. What was the cost He wanted us to cost?
"If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple. Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple" (Luke 14:26-27).
We like to emphasize the simplicity of the gospel. You know. Saved by faith apart from works. Repent and believe. Easy, peasy. And that's not wrong; it is simple. But it's not easy. Jesus said we need to count the cost. What cost? On the face of it, it's faith and repentance. But what are they? Repentance isn't simply to be "sorry." It is a change in direction. And faith isn't merely to believe facts. It is to place your weight on Christ. This faith is dead faith if it has no works (James 2:17). So to believe and repent is a serious commitment. In Jesus's terms, it is more important than family and even self. Paul told the Philippian jailer that in order to be saved he had to "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ" (Acts 16:31). That is, not merely "Believe there was a Jesus," but to place his faith on Jesus, the Messiah, as Lord. Coming to Christ costs us all.
It is costly to become a disciple of Christ. We bring all that we have -- our possessions, our talents, our treasures, our sin, our failures, our hostility ... all -- and He takes it all. He takes our sin and wipes the slate clean and then gives us His righteousness. He comes to live in us and gives us His Holy Spirit. God is at work in us to will and to do His good pleasure. We surrender all our meager rags and get back all His fabulous riches. It is expensive, but only a fool would pass it up. Then again, the fool says in his heart "There is no God," so I'm sure that happens ... a lot. On the other hand, "he is no fool who gives up that which he cannot keep in order to gain that which he cannot lose." (Jim Elliot)
We like to emphasize the simplicity of the gospel. You know. Saved by faith apart from works. Repent and believe. Easy, peasy. And that's not wrong; it is simple. But it's not easy. Jesus said we need to count the cost. What cost? On the face of it, it's faith and repentance. But what are they? Repentance isn't simply to be "sorry." It is a change in direction. And faith isn't merely to believe facts. It is to place your weight on Christ. This faith is dead faith if it has no works (James 2:17). So to believe and repent is a serious commitment. In Jesus's terms, it is more important than family and even self. Paul told the Philippian jailer that in order to be saved he had to "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ" (Acts 16:31). That is, not merely "Believe there was a Jesus," but to place his faith on Jesus, the Messiah, as Lord. Coming to Christ costs us all.
It is costly to become a disciple of Christ. We bring all that we have -- our possessions, our talents, our treasures, our sin, our failures, our hostility ... all -- and He takes it all. He takes our sin and wipes the slate clean and then gives us His righteousness. He comes to live in us and gives us His Holy Spirit. God is at work in us to will and to do His good pleasure. We surrender all our meager rags and get back all His fabulous riches. It is expensive, but only a fool would pass it up. Then again, the fool says in his heart "There is no God," so I'm sure that happens ... a lot. On the other hand, "he is no fool who gives up that which he cannot keep in order to gain that which he cannot lose." (Jim Elliot)
Saturday, December 10, 2022
News Weakly - 12/10/22
Head Scratcher
Okay, I'll admit. I don't get this one. A judge in Indiana has blocked their abortion ban on the grounds ... get this ... of religious freedom. Apparently there are religions out there that mandate killing babies.
Irony
The irony is deep with this one. When a president takes the oath of office (or a citizen joins the military), the oath includes the promise to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." So it is ironic that a current presidential candidate (actually, the only declared candidate to date) would call for the termination of the Constitution. The irony gets worse when you realize that there were those in the January 6 debacle who, in the name of Trump, were quoting the military version to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Will they now consider the guy that called for the end of the Constitution an enemy? And how is he going to take that oath?
No Bias Here
You know the story. The Supreme Court is going to hear a web designer's case who is asking for First Amendment rights to the free exercise of her religion when it comes to producing something for same-sex weddings. All well and good ... except you can hardly find a news outlet that will say that. No, it's "anti-gay marriage" or "anti-equal treatment" or ... well, you've seen them. The coverage I've seen warned about the impact this would have on black people who will be discriminated against or "mall Santas who might refuse to take photographs with minority children" ... which, of course, is not the aim or the question. But, of course, we can always expect our news outlets to report the story without bias, right? And, as we all know, we affirm the freedom of religion ... except, of course, for the areas in which we require people to change their religious beliefs. It's only fair. (Note: The law forbids discrimination on the basis of "disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry." No one is discriminating on any of those. They are just asking not to be forced to support two people of the same sex having a wedding. It's not the people; it's the forced participation in the act.)
Values Clarification
President Biden agreed to trade a high-profile Russian prisoner, an arms dealer known as "the Merchant of Death" -- one of the world's largest illicit arms dealers -- for an American basketball player who hates America, leaving an American corporate security executive in Russia. We are all quite clear on our nation's priorities now. Brittney Griner is free, Paul Whelan can rot, and Russia has their major arms dealer, but at least we'll have a good, drug-using women's basketball player back. It's what we call "values clarification."
Who Says You Can't Buy Happiness ...
... with other people's money? Since when was the government in the business of taking our tax dollars to shore up Teamsters' pension funds? Oh, yeah, since COVID, I guess, but only labor union pension funds. The rest of you can all hang. (How is this not a president buying off labor unions after running roughshod over the rail unions last week?)
A Previous Catastrophe
A group of scientists have discovered that Greenland was a lush green place 2 million years ago. You know, like what will happen if global climate change happens. Which, as we all know, is bad ... cataclysmic. Or is it? And ... I wonder who caused it 2 million years ago.
Bait and Switch
Senator Kyrsten Sinema announced she was exiting the Democratic Party and registering as an independent. Isn't that a bit ... disingenuous? I mean, all her Dem buddies voted her in here in Arizona and then she exits. They will no longer expect to be represented. The Republicans never expected her to represent them. Now it's just the independents who didn't actually vote her in. Seems wrong somehow.
Another Redefinition -- "Child Abuse"
Eric Trump has admitted to "child abuse" (according to social media) by making his kids ... do things. Evil things. Like reciting the Pledge of Allegiance like we had to every school day growing up. Like praying. Mandatory prayers for his children?! Next thing you'll tell me he's making them go to sleep at a certain hour and eat healthy food!! Abuser!
The A, Bee, Sees
The Bee is reporting on Kamala Harris on Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day urging Americans not to forget January 6. Well, how can we? It has taken them 2 years to investigate with their crack "anti-Trump" squad. In COVID news, a recent study found that masks are 75% effective at keeping kids safe from oxygen. That's good, right? Finally, is this really news? The DNC and the media have apparently colluded to suppress a story about the DNC and the media colluding to suppress stories. Like that wasn't obvious.
Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
Okay, I'll admit. I don't get this one. A judge in Indiana has blocked their abortion ban on the grounds ... get this ... of religious freedom. Apparently there are religions out there that mandate killing babies.
Irony
The irony is deep with this one. When a president takes the oath of office (or a citizen joins the military), the oath includes the promise to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." So it is ironic that a current presidential candidate (actually, the only declared candidate to date) would call for the termination of the Constitution. The irony gets worse when you realize that there were those in the January 6 debacle who, in the name of Trump, were quoting the military version to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Will they now consider the guy that called for the end of the Constitution an enemy? And how is he going to take that oath?
No Bias Here
You know the story. The Supreme Court is going to hear a web designer's case who is asking for First Amendment rights to the free exercise of her religion when it comes to producing something for same-sex weddings. All well and good ... except you can hardly find a news outlet that will say that. No, it's "anti-gay marriage" or "anti-equal treatment" or ... well, you've seen them. The coverage I've seen warned about the impact this would have on black people who will be discriminated against or "mall Santas who might refuse to take photographs with minority children" ... which, of course, is not the aim or the question. But, of course, we can always expect our news outlets to report the story without bias, right? And, as we all know, we affirm the freedom of religion ... except, of course, for the areas in which we require people to change their religious beliefs. It's only fair. (Note: The law forbids discrimination on the basis of "disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry." No one is discriminating on any of those. They are just asking not to be forced to support two people of the same sex having a wedding. It's not the people; it's the forced participation in the act.)
Values Clarification
President Biden agreed to trade a high-profile Russian prisoner, an arms dealer known as "the Merchant of Death" -- one of the world's largest illicit arms dealers -- for an American basketball player who hates America, leaving an American corporate security executive in Russia. We are all quite clear on our nation's priorities now. Brittney Griner is free, Paul Whelan can rot, and Russia has their major arms dealer, but at least we'll have a good, drug-using women's basketball player back. It's what we call "values clarification."
Who Says You Can't Buy Happiness ...
... with other people's money? Since when was the government in the business of taking our tax dollars to shore up Teamsters' pension funds? Oh, yeah, since COVID, I guess, but only labor union pension funds. The rest of you can all hang. (How is this not a president buying off labor unions after running roughshod over the rail unions last week?)
A Previous Catastrophe
A group of scientists have discovered that Greenland was a lush green place 2 million years ago. You know, like what will happen if global climate change happens. Which, as we all know, is bad ... cataclysmic. Or is it? And ... I wonder who caused it 2 million years ago.
Bait and Switch
Senator Kyrsten Sinema announced she was exiting the Democratic Party and registering as an independent. Isn't that a bit ... disingenuous? I mean, all her Dem buddies voted her in here in Arizona and then she exits. They will no longer expect to be represented. The Republicans never expected her to represent them. Now it's just the independents who didn't actually vote her in. Seems wrong somehow.
Another Redefinition -- "Child Abuse"
Eric Trump has admitted to "child abuse" (according to social media) by making his kids ... do things. Evil things. Like reciting the Pledge of Allegiance like we had to every school day growing up. Like praying. Mandatory prayers for his children?! Next thing you'll tell me he's making them go to sleep at a certain hour and eat healthy food!! Abuser!
The A, Bee, Sees
The Bee is reporting on Kamala Harris on Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day urging Americans not to forget January 6. Well, how can we? It has taken them 2 years to investigate with their crack "anti-Trump" squad. In COVID news, a recent study found that masks are 75% effective at keeping kids safe from oxygen. That's good, right? Finally, is this really news? The DNC and the media have apparently colluded to suppress a story about the DNC and the media colluding to suppress stories. Like that wasn't obvious.
Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
Friday, December 09, 2022
Mental Issues
Paul told the Roman Christians "not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment" (Rom 12:3). That's odd, isn't it? Because some people think more highly of themselves, but others think too lowly of themselves, don't they? I mean, self-esteem is a big problem, isn't it? And ultimately, in Paul's list of "really important issues," is thinking too highly of yourself really that important?
It turns out, I think, that it is. It turns out, I believe, to be critically important. Because sin rots the brain (Rom 1:21, 28). Because our thoughts are not God's thoughts (Isa 55:8-9). Because our hearts are deceitful (Jer 17:9) and the mind set on the flesh is hostile to God (Rom 8:7). "It does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot" (Rom 8:7). So it is a given that we will naturally think too highly of ourselves. We will think that we know best. We will think that God is just like us. We will think that if God doesn't share our values and our point of view, He very well ought to. We even think of prayer that way. We are asking Him for stuff and if He doesn't give us what we ask for, He's not a very good God.
It's just the nature of sin. We make ourselves central which, of course, is His position. We ... think too highly of ourselves. The trick is not, then, to think more lowly of yourself. The trick is self-forgetfulness. And, of course, that can't be done without a functioning relationship with Him, the actual center of all things. So I suppose, in order to "think with sober judgment," our first (and ongoing) efforts ought to be toward walking in a relationship with Him.
It turns out, I think, that it is. It turns out, I believe, to be critically important. Because sin rots the brain (Rom 1:21, 28). Because our thoughts are not God's thoughts (Isa 55:8-9). Because our hearts are deceitful (Jer 17:9) and the mind set on the flesh is hostile to God (Rom 8:7). "It does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot" (Rom 8:7). So it is a given that we will naturally think too highly of ourselves. We will think that we know best. We will think that God is just like us. We will think that if God doesn't share our values and our point of view, He very well ought to. We even think of prayer that way. We are asking Him for stuff and if He doesn't give us what we ask for, He's not a very good God.
It's just the nature of sin. We make ourselves central which, of course, is His position. We ... think too highly of ourselves. The trick is not, then, to think more lowly of yourself. The trick is self-forgetfulness. And, of course, that can't be done without a functioning relationship with Him, the actual center of all things. So I suppose, in order to "think with sober judgment," our first (and ongoing) efforts ought to be toward walking in a relationship with Him.
Thursday, December 08, 2022
Why Does It Matter?
We Christians have a reputation for "moral grounds." We seem to always be doing battle over moral issues. We want people to ... well ... stop being bad. I suppose that might be an accurate portrayal. But should it be? Is our primary concern that people be good?
In Paul's first letter to the church at Corinth we read, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor 6:9-10). Controversial, I know, what with all that "homosexuality" stuff and all, but I want to point out two things. First, that particular issue is one of nine that Paul cites, and it's not a comprehensive list. He's simply listing things that point to "the unrighteous." So when we make "those who practice homosexuality" our primary focus, we're selecting a really small view. Second, notice what Paul's concern was. It wasn't, "They shouldn't be doing those things!" It wasn't the behavior at all. The problem was "the unrighteous" and the concern was that they would not inherit the kingdom of God.
Would it change your views, your outlook, your interactions with others, your direction if you were more concerned about the eternal welfare of others than you were about their "bad behavior"? Would it make any difference in your approach and your prayers if the key issue in your mind was not "Those behaviors are bad" but "These people won't inherit the kingdom!"? Is our primary concern immoral behavior or is it lost souls who need the solution we have to offer?
In Paul's first letter to the church at Corinth we read, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor 6:9-10). Controversial, I know, what with all that "homosexuality" stuff and all, but I want to point out two things. First, that particular issue is one of nine that Paul cites, and it's not a comprehensive list. He's simply listing things that point to "the unrighteous." So when we make "those who practice homosexuality" our primary focus, we're selecting a really small view. Second, notice what Paul's concern was. It wasn't, "They shouldn't be doing those things!" It wasn't the behavior at all. The problem was "the unrighteous" and the concern was that they would not inherit the kingdom of God.
Would it change your views, your outlook, your interactions with others, your direction if you were more concerned about the eternal welfare of others than you were about their "bad behavior"? Would it make any difference in your approach and your prayers if the key issue in your mind was not "Those behaviors are bad" but "These people won't inherit the kingdom!"? Is our primary concern immoral behavior or is it lost souls who need the solution we have to offer?
Wednesday, December 07, 2022
Confused
My wife is watching a Canadian show set in the 1890s about a police detective who uses advanced (for the time) scientific methods to solve crimes. The character is a nice guy and a devout Roman Catholic. In one episode two "sodomites" (the term they used in the show) end up dying -- one murdered and the other by suicide. The mystery is solved (and it's not quite about their sexual proclivities), but the detective is having a crisis of faith. He confesses to his priest, "How is it that two good men by all standards will be eternally damned for one sin?" Obviously the actor is following the script. Obviously the script writers were oblivious.
Scripture doesn't present us as basically "good men by all standards." Scripture claims, "No one does good, not even one" (Rom 3:12; Psa 14:3; Psa 53:3). Now, those two positions -- "basically good by all standards" and "no one does good; not even one" -- are as far apart as it gets. And it's not merely a difference of opinion over whether or not homosexual behavior is a sin. It's much more. If the biblical position is that natural man does no actual good, then the problem is not "mostly good" people, but people who have no natural conception of what "bad" really is.
Our kindly and confused police detective felt no concern about imposing his own sense of "good" on God, where God becomes the problem because He's confused. Writers aside, we generally have the same issue. We don't question our standards and values; we question God's. Which clearly points to a failure to grasp the obvious. We are naturally in rebellion against the Master of the Universe and are mostly proud of it. Which naturally demands repentance rather than rebellion.
Scripture doesn't present us as basically "good men by all standards." Scripture claims, "No one does good, not even one" (Rom 3:12; Psa 14:3; Psa 53:3). Now, those two positions -- "basically good by all standards" and "no one does good; not even one" -- are as far apart as it gets. And it's not merely a difference of opinion over whether or not homosexual behavior is a sin. It's much more. If the biblical position is that natural man does no actual good, then the problem is not "mostly good" people, but people who have no natural conception of what "bad" really is.
Our kindly and confused police detective felt no concern about imposing his own sense of "good" on God, where God becomes the problem because He's confused. Writers aside, we generally have the same issue. We don't question our standards and values; we question God's. Which clearly points to a failure to grasp the obvious. We are naturally in rebellion against the Master of the Universe and are mostly proud of it. Which naturally demands repentance rather than rebellion.
Tuesday, December 06, 2022
Sex Sells
I know ... I'm not supposed to ask this. It's not "Christian." I, of course, would disagree, but I understand. Still, I'm going to ask, primarily because I'd guess most of us don't really know the answer. What is the definition of "sex"? Not as in "gender" -- male or female -- but in terms of the act.
Here's what we know. Sex outside of marriage is sin. Okay, settled. Except no one is saying just what "sex" is in that context. I'm thinking, for instance, of the classic "bases" we learned when we were teens. First base is holding hands, second base is "above the waist," third base is "below the waist," and home base is sexual intercourse. Given that structure, when have two people engaged in "sex"? Obviously "home base" is a given, but what about, say, holding hands? Second base? Where is the line? Some argue that sex begins at penetration. Those, then, assure us that having oral sex is not sex ... except you can't call it "oral sex" and say it's not sex, can you? So it's somewhat dicey. One article I read said it can be anything from penetration on out to cuddling. In fact, sex may not even include another person. So it can get really baffling trying to determine what is or is not "sex."
Besides the stupid "titillating" that occurs in such a question, there are real issues. For instance, Jesus said, "Whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery" (Matt 19:9). So, your definition of "sexual immorality" will be important here. "He masturbated, so I can divorce him." "He looked at porn, so I can divorce him." "He lusted after a woman, so I can divorce him." Without a definition, Jesus's primary position -- "What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate" (Matt 19:6) -- gets tossed aside by making just about anything ("any cause" (Matt 19:3)) sexual sin. And Paul urges, "Flee from sexual immorality" (1 Cor 6:18). How can we do that if we can't even define it? So I'm not just playing around here. It is significant. I'm also not offering a definition at this point. I'm just asking you to think about it.
Here's what we know. Sex outside of marriage is sin. Okay, settled. Except no one is saying just what "sex" is in that context. I'm thinking, for instance, of the classic "bases" we learned when we were teens. First base is holding hands, second base is "above the waist," third base is "below the waist," and home base is sexual intercourse. Given that structure, when have two people engaged in "sex"? Obviously "home base" is a given, but what about, say, holding hands? Second base? Where is the line? Some argue that sex begins at penetration. Those, then, assure us that having oral sex is not sex ... except you can't call it "oral sex" and say it's not sex, can you? So it's somewhat dicey. One article I read said it can be anything from penetration on out to cuddling. In fact, sex may not even include another person. So it can get really baffling trying to determine what is or is not "sex."
Besides the stupid "titillating" that occurs in such a question, there are real issues. For instance, Jesus said, "Whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery" (Matt 19:9). So, your definition of "sexual immorality" will be important here. "He masturbated, so I can divorce him." "He looked at porn, so I can divorce him." "He lusted after a woman, so I can divorce him." Without a definition, Jesus's primary position -- "What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate" (Matt 19:6) -- gets tossed aside by making just about anything ("any cause" (Matt 19:3)) sexual sin. And Paul urges, "Flee from sexual immorality" (1 Cor 6:18). How can we do that if we can't even define it? So I'm not just playing around here. It is significant. I'm also not offering a definition at this point. I'm just asking you to think about it.
Monday, December 05, 2022
What Do You Know?
In Romans 6, Paul is discussing the question, "Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?" (Rom 6:1). He answers (almost incredulously) "How can we who died to sin still live in it??" (Rom 6:2). (The way he says it would suggest two question marks. He's really clear here that the answer is "No!") But Paul, as clear as he is here, suggests another possibility -- ignorance.
Notice in that text that he asks "do you not know" and later talks about what we ought to know -- "that our old self was crucified with Him." Later he says that we know "that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him" (Rom 6:9). We need to know this stuff. We need to know that we have died to sin. We need to know that we have been buried in Christ's likeness to be raised in Christ's likeness. We need to know this because it is incredibly practical. We are freed from sin!! We won't die again!! Our salvation is secured in Christ!! And we can (and, ultimately, will) defeat sin. It's a process. It's a long process. It won't be complete on this side of eternity, but it is a certainty. That's good to know.
Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? (Rom 6:3)Paul suggests that the only reason that those who have died to sin would continue in sin would be that they didn't know it. "Do you not know??" Assuming the best, then, Paul explains, in case they didn't know, in what sense we have "died to sin."
Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; for he who has died is freed from sin. (Rom 6:4-7)It is important, then, to know that we are dead to sin. By that, it means we are in Christ now and no longer in Adam (1 Cor 15:22). We are no longer ruled by the god of this world, but by Christ. We will still sin (as indicated by the original question, "Are we to continue in sin ...?"), but we are no longer ruled by it. Like John's "No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God" (1 John 3:9). That death to sin occurs when we are buried with Him through baptism. Now, mind you, "baptism" means, simply, "immersion" -- "to be whelmed." Generally it is whelmed in a liquid (they used it to refer to dipping fabrics in dye), but Paul also uses it when we are "baptized into one body" by the Spirit (1 Cor 12:13). Here, then, it is to be immersed into Christ, being identified with His death, burial, and resurrection. Our practice of water baptism is a physical, symbolic version of that spiritual reality when we come to Christ. We are buried with Him and raised to new life with Him when we place our trust in Him for salvation.
Notice in that text that he asks "do you not know" and later talks about what we ought to know -- "that our old self was crucified with Him." Later he says that we know "that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him" (Rom 6:9). We need to know this stuff. We need to know that we have died to sin. We need to know that we have been buried in Christ's likeness to be raised in Christ's likeness. We need to know this because it is incredibly practical. We are freed from sin!! We won't die again!! Our salvation is secured in Christ!! And we can (and, ultimately, will) defeat sin. It's a process. It's a long process. It won't be complete on this side of eternity, but it is a certainty. That's good to know.
Sunday, December 04, 2022
A Prayer
At the end of his first epistle to the church at Thessalonica, Paul includes a prayer.
The other part, though, that I find interesting here is easily missed. It's one little word that carries a load of meaning. The word is "kept." Notice who is at work here. The prayer (obviously) is to God and it is for God to do something. God sanctifies and ... God keeps. The prayer is for God's complete sanctification and for God to keep us perfectly. Now, think about that for a moment, because we generally think in terms of "work out your salvation." Here Paul says that we are kept by God. And that, brothers and sisters, is a great relief. The ultimate way that we are sanctified and we are blameless is because God is doing it.
Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. (1 Thess 5:23)The prayer includes a couple of interesting components. First, he includes this phrase describing the whole being: "spirit and soul and body." It is Paul's description of human beings or, at least, those who are in Christ. Now, I've heard lots of discussions on what we are. Some argue that we are spirit and body. To this group, "spirit" and "soul" are synonyms. And, biblically, this often appears to be the case. Jesus warned about not fearing the body, but the one who is able to destroy both soul and body (Matt 10:28). Two parts. In the Old Testament Scripture talks about the two almost interchangeably. In Genesis 41:8 "his spirit was troubled" and in Psalm 42:6 "my soul is cast down." Emotions are experienced in both. In John 12 Jesus was troubled in His soul (John 12:27) and, in John 13, He was troubled in the spirit (John 13:21). So in some uses and some applications there appears to be no distinction. Still, in this text as well as Hebrews 4:12 there is a distinction. In this text Paul clearly sees them as distinct, even if he doesn't say how they are, and in the Hebrews text we read that the Word of God can divide between the soul and the spirit. It appears, then, that they are closely connected (difficult to divide) but not simply two words for one thing. We are, then, a sort of mini-trinity. Kind of like being in the image of God (Gen 1:26).
The other part, though, that I find interesting here is easily missed. It's one little word that carries a load of meaning. The word is "kept." Notice who is at work here. The prayer (obviously) is to God and it is for God to do something. God sanctifies and ... God keeps. The prayer is for God's complete sanctification and for God to keep us perfectly. Now, think about that for a moment, because we generally think in terms of "work out your salvation." Here Paul says that we are kept by God. And that, brothers and sisters, is a great relief. The ultimate way that we are sanctified and we are blameless is because God is doing it.
Saturday, December 03, 2022
News Weakly - 12/3/22
Cautionary Tale
Last week some 2,500 people posed nude on a beach in Australia to raise awareness of skin cancer. A large crowd saying, "Do as I say, not as I do." Because nothing raises awareness of skin cancer like doing the very thing that causes it.
You Keep Using That Word
The Senate has passed the legislation to protect "same-sex and interracial marriages." No one, clearly, is paying attention. First, "interracial marriage" and "same-sex marriage" are not similar things. They've tried to make that connection for a long time, but it's false. Marriage has a definition -- the union of a man and a woman. The race of that man and woman is not a part of that definition. The sex of the two individuals is. And codifying "same-sex marriage" erases that definition ... with no suitable replacement. Protecting marriage between races is good, but eliminating the definition of marriage is not protecting marriage. Linking the two hides that fact. And, seriously, do Republican senators think an amendment will protect religious liberty? If we can vote to ensure "marriage equality" by eliminating the definition of marriage, it's a small step to affirm religious liberty while removing it.
The Same Story?
It's kind of weird. Just like the push to protect marriage by eradicating its definition, Biden is urging Congress to force rail labor unions to agree to his "deal" "as a proud pro-labor president." Hang on, Mr. President. You favor labor unions by overriding labor unions? Another radical disconnect. (And it's not just me that thinks so.) And the Democratic-run House sealed the deal, overriding capitalism, free enterprise, and labor unions by force of law. "You will accept our offer and you will like it. Because this is America and we decide what's best."
Obfuscation ... Look It Up
Stewart Rhodes, founder of Oath Keepers, was found guilty of "seditious conspiracy" for the Jan 6 "attack" on the U.S. Capitol. Mind you, the FBI already declared that the event was not insurrection. Mind you, "sedition" is defined as "conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarch." Mind you that lots of people and groups from all corners urge people to rebel against the authority of the state. But, of course, no one will think of this in those terms.
What a Strange World
Disney released a new animated family-friendly movie -- Strange World. It included a main character who was LGBT, and no one can figure out why it failed to clear $20 million on a 5-day weekend. Can't imagine, given that all parents love the idea of taking their kids to pro-LGBT cartoons. What a strange world!
Ain't MisBeeHavin'
The Bee highlighted the shenanigans in China this week with their coverage of those nutty anti-science right-wingers who were protesting President Xi's common sense COVID restrictions. Go figure. Then there was the report on Blake Ruff, a biological male who identifies as a big furry Alaskan Malamute, who won Best in Show at the Kennel Club's annual dog show competition. And why not?
Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
Last week some 2,500 people posed nude on a beach in Australia to raise awareness of skin cancer. A large crowd saying, "Do as I say, not as I do." Because nothing raises awareness of skin cancer like doing the very thing that causes it.
You Keep Using That Word
The Senate has passed the legislation to protect "same-sex and interracial marriages." No one, clearly, is paying attention. First, "interracial marriage" and "same-sex marriage" are not similar things. They've tried to make that connection for a long time, but it's false. Marriage has a definition -- the union of a man and a woman. The race of that man and woman is not a part of that definition. The sex of the two individuals is. And codifying "same-sex marriage" erases that definition ... with no suitable replacement. Protecting marriage between races is good, but eliminating the definition of marriage is not protecting marriage. Linking the two hides that fact. And, seriously, do Republican senators think an amendment will protect religious liberty? If we can vote to ensure "marriage equality" by eliminating the definition of marriage, it's a small step to affirm religious liberty while removing it.
The Same Story?
It's kind of weird. Just like the push to protect marriage by eradicating its definition, Biden is urging Congress to force rail labor unions to agree to his "deal" "as a proud pro-labor president." Hang on, Mr. President. You favor labor unions by overriding labor unions? Another radical disconnect. (And it's not just me that thinks so.) And the Democratic-run House sealed the deal, overriding capitalism, free enterprise, and labor unions by force of law. "You will accept our offer and you will like it. Because this is America and we decide what's best."
Obfuscation ... Look It Up
Stewart Rhodes, founder of Oath Keepers, was found guilty of "seditious conspiracy" for the Jan 6 "attack" on the U.S. Capitol. Mind you, the FBI already declared that the event was not insurrection. Mind you, "sedition" is defined as "conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarch." Mind you that lots of people and groups from all corners urge people to rebel against the authority of the state. But, of course, no one will think of this in those terms.
What a Strange World
Disney released a new animated family-friendly movie -- Strange World. It included a main character who was LGBT, and no one can figure out why it failed to clear $20 million on a 5-day weekend. Can't imagine, given that all parents love the idea of taking their kids to pro-LGBT cartoons. What a strange world!
Ain't MisBeeHavin'
The Bee highlighted the shenanigans in China this week with their coverage of those nutty anti-science right-wingers who were protesting President Xi's common sense COVID restrictions. Go figure. Then there was the report on Blake Ruff, a biological male who identifies as a big furry Alaskan Malamute, who won Best in Show at the Kennel Club's annual dog show competition. And why not?
Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
Friday, December 02, 2022
Peace
Chapter 5 of Paul's epistle to the church in Rome begins like this:
I don't know if you noticed it, but "peace with God" is linguistically ambiguous. Does it mean that between us and God there is peace, or does it mean that, with God, we have peace? The answer is equally ambiguous. Yes. The context makes it clear that the "peace with God" that we enjoy comes from being justified by faith, diverting His wrath (Rom 3:25 -- "propitiation"). Where His righteous anger against our sin once stood, we now enjoy peace.
That's the meaning of the text, but, in truth, the outcome is also that, with God, we now have peace. Because we are justified by faith, we can now "Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all comprehension, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus" (Php 4:6-7). Our new relationship with God through Christ means that we can give all our concerns to Him and experience supernatural, incomprehensible peace. In fact, that's what was promised at His Advent, wasn't it? "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among those with whom He is pleased!" (Luke 2:14). That "those with whom He is pleased" refers to those who come to Him in faith, and to them He brings peace. Supernatural, incomprehensible peace, a wonderful gift in a world of unrest.
Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. (Rom 5:1)It starts with a "therefore," so there is context to consider. This one is ... the first 4 chapters. Paul explains that God's righteousness is revealed in the gospel (Rom 1:17) and then steps right out to explain that God's righteousness is also in God's righteous wrath (Rom 1:18-3:20) ... which we've earned. But, he says, there is an answer. "We hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law" (Rom 3:28). From 3:21 through the end of chapter 4, Paul explains and illustrates the basic premise of the gospel -- saved by faith. Therefore ...
I don't know if you noticed it, but "peace with God" is linguistically ambiguous. Does it mean that between us and God there is peace, or does it mean that, with God, we have peace? The answer is equally ambiguous. Yes. The context makes it clear that the "peace with God" that we enjoy comes from being justified by faith, diverting His wrath (Rom 3:25 -- "propitiation"). Where His righteous anger against our sin once stood, we now enjoy peace.
That's the meaning of the text, but, in truth, the outcome is also that, with God, we now have peace. Because we are justified by faith, we can now "Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all comprehension, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus" (Php 4:6-7). Our new relationship with God through Christ means that we can give all our concerns to Him and experience supernatural, incomprehensible peace. In fact, that's what was promised at His Advent, wasn't it? "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among those with whom He is pleased!" (Luke 2:14). That "those with whom He is pleased" refers to those who come to Him in faith, and to them He brings peace. Supernatural, incomprehensible peace, a wonderful gift in a world of unrest.
Thursday, December 01, 2022
Self Righteousness
Oh, look ... I'm missing a hyphen there, aren't I? No. I'm not writing about self-righteousness. I'm writing about a righteousness we determine on our own. This week a sufficient number of Republican senators voted to devalue and undefine marriage in order to include "same-sex" in that category. Not merely to include it, but to give it legal protections. Mind you, it was less than 15 years ago that California was fighting tooth and nail against it. On two occasions, Californians sought to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman and twice the courts shot it down. But here, 14 years later, it isn't merely a question anymore; it is (or very soon will be) law. The Democrats and those Republicans have removed what the court recognized back in 2008 as "the longstanding, traditional definition of marriage" and replaced it with ... well, nothing at all. That is, "We decide what is right and no one else." That is the self righteousness I'm talking about. But I'm not writing to unbelieving, pharisaical types. I'm writing to genuine Christians. So let's consider this for a moment.
We are "people of the Book," so to speak. Our beliefs and our doctrines and our rules are laid out in God's Word. We're not supposed to be making them up. We have a written manual. Jesus prayed, "Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth" (John 17:17), a glorious, single-sentence sermon. We are sanctified -- set apart and made more like Christ -- in the truth which is found in God's Word. Simple stuff. Straightforward. Not complicated. So why is it so hard?
When the serpent in the garden asked Eve what God commanded, she answered correctly -- "You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden" (Gen 3:3) -- and then added to it -- "neither shall you touch it." We've been adding and subtracting ever since. A generation prior to mine, for instance, was quite certain that smoking, drinking, dancing, playing cards, and going to movies were all sinful behaviors and all good Christians avoided them. I can't find them in my Bible. On the other hand, commands like, "Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord" (Eph 5:22) and the "male counterpart" -- husbands are to love their wives like Christ loved the church, giving up self (Eph 5:25) -- are not obscure, unclear, unknown, or hard to grasp, but they are rarely obeyed. Lots of Christian wives believe they should submit to their husbands ... just not in everyday practice when he is wrong and she is right. Lots of good Christian husbands embrace the command to love their wives ... except, of course, for that "gave Himself up for her" part. But those same people will likely take you to task for, oh, I don't know, using the Lord's name in vain, for instance, without a twitch of shame that they are ... self righteous. They are practicing a righteousness that they themselves make up and adhere to ... when it's convenient.
Just a couple of examples here. I'm sure if you thought about it you could come up with your own list. I'm also sure that if you did, it would not be a list of things that you are being self righteous about, because the essence of this kind of self righteousness is that it is primarily defined by what we think is right and that is essentially how we choose to live. Brothers and sisters, these things ought not be. Paul told the Philippian jailer, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved" and we'd prefer to leave off that "Lord" part. We live the classical oxymoronic cry from Peter -- "No, Lord." And then we bemoan those naughty homosexuals or liberals or whatever other group of sinners (the broader group to which we all belong). We need repentance. We need to submit. Jesus said we were to make disciples and teach them to "observe all that I have commanded you" (Matt 28:19-20). We need to learn that, too, rather than pick and choose our own version of "righteousness" and be satisfied.
We are "people of the Book," so to speak. Our beliefs and our doctrines and our rules are laid out in God's Word. We're not supposed to be making them up. We have a written manual. Jesus prayed, "Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth" (John 17:17), a glorious, single-sentence sermon. We are sanctified -- set apart and made more like Christ -- in the truth which is found in God's Word. Simple stuff. Straightforward. Not complicated. So why is it so hard?
When the serpent in the garden asked Eve what God commanded, she answered correctly -- "You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden" (Gen 3:3) -- and then added to it -- "neither shall you touch it." We've been adding and subtracting ever since. A generation prior to mine, for instance, was quite certain that smoking, drinking, dancing, playing cards, and going to movies were all sinful behaviors and all good Christians avoided them. I can't find them in my Bible. On the other hand, commands like, "Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord" (Eph 5:22) and the "male counterpart" -- husbands are to love their wives like Christ loved the church, giving up self (Eph 5:25) -- are not obscure, unclear, unknown, or hard to grasp, but they are rarely obeyed. Lots of Christian wives believe they should submit to their husbands ... just not in everyday practice when he is wrong and she is right. Lots of good Christian husbands embrace the command to love their wives ... except, of course, for that "gave Himself up for her" part. But those same people will likely take you to task for, oh, I don't know, using the Lord's name in vain, for instance, without a twitch of shame that they are ... self righteous. They are practicing a righteousness that they themselves make up and adhere to ... when it's convenient.
Just a couple of examples here. I'm sure if you thought about it you could come up with your own list. I'm also sure that if you did, it would not be a list of things that you are being self righteous about, because the essence of this kind of self righteousness is that it is primarily defined by what we think is right and that is essentially how we choose to live. Brothers and sisters, these things ought not be. Paul told the Philippian jailer, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved" and we'd prefer to leave off that "Lord" part. We live the classical oxymoronic cry from Peter -- "No, Lord." And then we bemoan those naughty homosexuals or liberals or whatever other group of sinners (the broader group to which we all belong). We need repentance. We need to submit. Jesus said we were to make disciples and teach them to "observe all that I have commanded you" (Matt 28:19-20). We need to learn that, too, rather than pick and choose our own version of "righteousness" and be satisfied.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)