Prepare Our Hearts

It is not uncommon to go to church Sunday morning and hear the person up front start with something like "Let's prepare our hearts for worship." I understand the phrase. I like it. In fact, for many years it has been my practice. When I go into the sanctuary -- the room in which the service will be held -- I sit down and spend some time talking to God. I talk to Him about a variety of things. I talk to Him about me and my sin and my gratitude for His forgiveness and such ... because he who is forgiven much loves much, and that's a big part of worship. I talk to Him about the people around me ... because we are marked as His disciples by our love for one another, and that's a big part of worship. I talk to Him about the service getting ready to start ... which is obviously a worship service. I ask Him to guide the leadership and guard the worship service and get into our heads and hearts. So I do prepare my heart for worship.

Recently it occurred to me that, while I think that's a good thing, I think I'm not going about it right. I think that preparing my heart for worship shouldn't begin Sunday morning sitting in the service. It shouldn't begin Sunday morning before I'm getting ready to go to church. In fact, it shouldn't begin ... at all. I should have been doing it all along. Paul said, "I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship" (Rom 12:1). The King James says it is your "reasonable worship" (because the Greek word used there is λογικός -- "logikos" -- which, I'm sure, you can see is our source of "logical"). To the world, sacrificing self makes no sense -- it's not logical -- but Jesus said, "If anyone would come after Me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow Me" (Mark 8:34). That is, a starting place for following Christ is to deny self and take up a cross -- die to self. So, sure, the world sees it as unreasonable, but Christ doesn't. He considers it basic.

Now, if my "reasonable worship" is to be a living sacrifice and I want to "prepare my heart for worship," shouldn't that be an everyday thing? Shouldn't we be dying to self daily? Shouldn't we be worshiping by taking up our cross daily? And, if we were in the business of being a living sacrifice to God daily, what would Sunday look like? I'd argue that it would be a lot less intensive preparation (like repenting of the arguments you had with the family that morning on the way to church, for instance) and a lot deeper worship. Seems to me. I'm not saying, "Don't prepare your hearts for worship on Sunday morning." I'm saying, "Do it every day ... and twice on Sunday."

News Weakly - 12/30/23

It Takes An Expert
A group of researchers did a study and discovered that sex, not gender identity, determines the performance of athletes. Wait ... what? Are you sure? You mean a biological male who identifies as a female will have an advantage over biological females in a physical contest? Are you sure? The story, oddly enough, suggests "The study provides a new perspective ..." Um ... no. We all knew that already. Good thing we have science to back us.

No Living Wage
California will be raising their minimum wage to $20/hr in 2024, so Pizza Hut fired all their delivery drivers. They cannot afford to pay those prices and California would mandate it. Others employers will likely follow suit. So, no, California's minimum wage will not provide these drivers a living wage. It will, in fact, not provide them a wage at all. Thank you, California.

Speaking of Minimum Wages ...
It looks so good in California that nearly 10 million Americans will be getting wage hikes in 2024. They will have the largest effect on women and minorities. Well, of course, and on consumers as well, since you know we'll be paying for those wage increases. (It is interesting that these stories compare wages in various states among all states as if income requirements in all states are the same. I live in Arizona and income requirements in, say, Phoenix are not the same as in ... oh, I don't know ... Tucson, but no one appears to recognize this fact.)

Ignorant Outrage
Some conservatives are outraged that Christianity Today said that Jesus was Asian. They're "completely woke," some have said. "Did you guys read the Bible?" one writer challenged. Mind you, Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Israel which is on the western edge of Asia -- Jesus was born in Asia -- but we won't let biblical facts get in the way of our righteous indignation, right?

Follow the Money
A new study says that social media made billions of dollars off minors in 2022. $11 billion according to the study. In 2022 -- one year. Now, most minors don't have that kind of dough, but a good portion of that was from ad revenue on Instagram and TikTok and the like. You can see, then, that social media, while pledging to protect minors, are not incentivized to do any such thing. And, apparently, neither are parents.

It Just Gets Better
Let me start by saying I'd rather not have Trump on the 2024 ballot, so this is not personal preference talking here. Last week, you recall, the Colorado Supreme Court violated the Constitution by convicting Trump of insurrection without a trial. Now Maine has gone a step further. Without court or legal precedent, Maine's top election official has declared Trump guilty of insurrection (remember, the FBI said no insurrection took place) and is not going to be on their ballot either. According to the article linked here, it's part of "a national effort to disqualify the former president." It is pure hatred and solid partisan politics -- unmistakable and undeniable election tampering. Which is precisely what they were accusing Trump of.

Bee All You Can Bee
Literacy in the U.S. is on the decline (real story). Experts are pretty sure it's due to not enough drag queen story hours. I can see their logic (or not). Famed apologist William Lane Craig proved the existence of God by pulling out a plate of delicious fish tacos. "A rational being has recourse against the teleological argument for God - but confronted with fish tacos, one has no choice but to conclude the existence of an all-powerful, loving God." Checkmate, atheists. After being ousted from Congress, George Santos has landed on his feet with a new job as fact-checker at the New York Times. A truthy person we can trust, eh?

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

The Antichrist

You've likely heard the word. If you've had any biblical training, you know exactly who it refers to. Or ... do you? Here, let's try a quick quiz. In which book of the bible is the word, "Antichrist," found? You know ... Revelation, right? With the Beast and the Dragon and all that. Nope. Not there. Oh, maybe Daniel? Okay, there is some "end times" stuff in there, but clearly not that word. Paul wrote about the Day of the Lord to the Thessalonians. One of those epistles? Nope. The word, "antichrist," does not appear in any of the end times writings. It is found in only two books of the Bible under only one author -- John. He mentions "antichrists" (yes, plural) in his first and mentions "an antichrist" in his second epistle. So, to the user of the term, what is it? John describes them in 1 John 2. "Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour" (1 John 2:18). (See? Plural.) What constitutes an antichrist? The word is simply "an opponent of Christ." Makes sense. What else do we know about them? They "have ... appeared." Not pending. Not someday. In John's day. What else? "They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us" (1 John 2:19). Now, that's interesting, isn't it? The Beast of Revelation is a world leader, but these guys come out "from us." They aren't government leaders; they are church people. They are teachers and preachers. How do we know them? They go out from us. They depart the faith, depart the truth, leave off biblical teaching. They do it clearly, measurably. Why? So we would know that they "are not of us." They were from us, but not of us. Never were. Another component of what an antichrist is can be found in 2 John. These John calls "deceivers" who fail to acknowledge that Christ came in the flesh (2 John 1:6-10). In 1 John he writes, "Every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world" (1 John 4:3). That is "antichrist."

I think, perhaps, we've been taught a mistaken piece of information on the antichrist. We were taught he was some end times arch villain. Such a character exists in Scripture, but this is not that person. This is the corner pastor that tells his congregation that Jesus was a nice guy, not God Incarnate. He's a Jehovah's Witness who calls himself a Christian but denies that Jesus was God. He's a really nice Mormon who tells us that Jesus and Satan were brothers and we can be gods, too. They are the liberal preachers that deny the Virgin Birth. They deny that Christ died for our sin because, after all, we're not all that bad and He didn't need to. God's just nice that way. They are the ones who deny the faith and urge us to do the same. Sure, these guys will be around at the end times, but we don't have to wait that long to see them. They're in a lot of places today. Maybe even in your church. Oh, and John says, "If anyone comes to you and does not bring [the teaching of Christ], do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting" (2 John 1:10). John says, "Run!", because "the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds" (2 John 1:11). I don't think John meant that was a good thing.

Jesus vs Jesus

I recently asked why we Christ-ians seem to have a hard time taking God's Word in general and Jesus in particular at face value. I chose a couple of "hard sayings" from Christ that trip us up and entice us to say, "Jesus never said that" in some way or another. One person told me it was because Jesus said a lot in the other direction, so we can be pretty sure He did not say what He appeared to say. When Jesus said, "Many are called; few are chosen" (Matt 22:14), for instance, He couldn't have meant that many are called but few are chosen because Jesus said, "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him" (John 3:17). Jesus said, "If anyone hears My sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world" (John 12:47). The angel that spoke to the shepherds declared, "Behold, I bring you good news of great joy which will be for all the people" (Luke 2:10). Jesus said, "The Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son" (John 5:2), and, "I pass judgment on no one" (John 8:15). These and more clearly tell us that salvation is not limited to the "chosen," the "elect," but includes everyone. "Who's not taking Jesus at face value now, eh?"

It's an interesting dilemma, isn't it? We can muster a few possible responses. The first and most obvious would be that Jesus was wrong. When He said things like "Many are called but few are chosen" (Matt 22:14) or "The gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it" (Matt 7:14), He was just ... well ... wrong. He was human, after all, and we all know that "to err is human." He wouldn't have been human if He didn't make a mistake from time to time. Or maybe Jesus didn't make a mistake. Maybe the writers of the Gospels made a mistake. Maybe Jesus never said those limiting things; the authors inserted their own ideas in places. Perhaps it's not that at all. Perhaps we just haven't properly understood what Jesus said. We would assume, then, that when He said that He came to save the world, we properly understand that, but when He appears to express restrictions and limitations on who can or will be saved, we're just not interpreting it correctly. It looks like "few" will be saved, but He didn't actually intend for us to understand it that way. That is, He didn't get it wrong; we did.

Without rectifying this situation, I'd like you to consider one thing. If "all Scripture" was "breathed out by God" (2 Tim 2:16-17) and God's Word is truth (John 17:17), we must assume that God's Word is truth and Jesus embodied truth (John 1:1; John 14:6). As such, pitting Jesus against Jesus is nonsense. He either was truth or He was not. He couldn't be partial truth and still be called "the truth." And Jesus said the Holy Spirit was "the Spirit of truth" and would "guide you into all truth" (John 16:13). So if the "Spirit of truth" guides you into understanding that Scripture cannot be properly understood, that is a problem. If you conclude that Scripture means what you think it means regardless of what it clearly says, that is a problem. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that you and I don't have the capacity to understand God's Word, so we should just leave it to the professionals ... in direct contradiction to Jesus's promise of the Spirit of truth. I am not, here, offering an answer to the contradictions raised above. What I'm offering is a basis, a platform on which to examine them. What we cannot do is pit Jesus against Jesus or show how God's Word contradicts God's Word. If you're willing to go there, you have nowhere to stand. And, as that phrase suggests, you have no standing. True believers have no room for explaining away the texts of Scripture. We need to correlate them ... show how they agree, not how they're wrong. When we conclude they're wrong, we are only demonstrating that we're wrong. Or God is wrong. Your choice.

Feeling the Pinch?

In 1 Chronicles 21, David sinfully numbered Israel (1 Chr 21:1), to God's great displeasure (1 Chr 21:7), and it proved costly. David repented, so, by way of atonement, an angel of YHWH commanded the prophet, Gad, to tell David to go build an altar to YHWH on the threshing floor of Ornan, the Jebusite (1 Chr 21:18). So David went to Ornan and asked to buy his threshing floor to build an altar there. Ornan told the king, "Take it for yourself. I'll even give you the oxen to sacrifice" (1 Chr 21:22-23) David's response is interesting. He insisted that he pay full price, "I will not take what is yours for the LORD, or offer a burnt offering which costs me nothing" (1 Chr 21:24). David understood that sacrifice to God ... required sacrifice.

Fast forward some 450 years or so (a guestimate). Jesus was in the temple with His disciples. The rich put in bags of money, but the poor widow put in two small copper coins (Luke 21:1-4). Jesus told His disciples,

"Truly I say to you, this poor widow put in more than all of them; for they all out of their surplus put into the offering; but she out of her poverty put in all that she had to live on." (Luke 21:3-4)

What about you? (I ask about you only because I'm asking about myself.) Do we put in out of our surplus, or do we ... sacrifice. Are we willing, unlike David, to essentially make an offering to God that costs us nothing, or do we give 'til it hurts? Do we see our resources as our resources that, when we're feeling generous (or guilty), we hand some of the extra over to God, or do we see it as God's resources that we owe completely to Him, even if, like the widow, we might not have enough to live on? Are we willing to give to God as long as it doesn't pinch too much, or do we rely on God to supply our needs, so we can give what costs us a lot? Here, let's ask it this way. Which do we love more ... God or "mammon" -- wealth (Luke 16:13)?

Catechism

Even if you're a Protestant, you've likely heard of "catechism" even if you've never encountered it yourself. For some, it calls up thoughts of a solely Roman Catholic notion of taking young kids in to indoctrinate them to the Roman Catholic theology, but the word itself does not require "Roman Catholic" (other Protestant denominations practice it, too) nor is it necessarily a bad thing. Catechism is simply a manual of religious instruction around doctrine, primarily for Christianity, to instruct the young, win converts, and testify to the faith. As such, I would think all Christians of all stripes would embrace such a venture.

We live in a culture that, on one hand, has unprecedented access to the truth of Christianity and, on the other hand, is largely ignorant of doctrine and theology. Believe it or not, there are people living in America today that have never heard of Jesus, let alone the great truths of the faith. They don't know the Gospel. They don't know about God. They don't know about sin. They don't know about the solution. They don't know how this works or how it pertains to daily life. And, to varying degrees, some of these folks are even Christians. Happy in their ignorance, they stand firmly on very thin air, confident in their vague position. Christianity today needs catechism.

"So, smart guy, whose catechism would you use? Roman Catholic? Presbyterian? Someone else?" Oh, no, I'm not arguing for anything as sectarian as that. Scripture says, "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work" (2 Tim 3:16-17). Note the profitability: teaching (presenting the facts), reproof (pointing out error), correction (providing a way back to the truth), and training in righteousness (giving ways to remain in the truth). Notice the effectiveness of Scripture: it equips those who embrace it "for every good work." "Complete" is the description there. Now, that is a catechism we need. And, oh, by the way, it's available just about everywhere. You will, of course, have to pick it up and read it. Preferably not a little. And not always alone. Because the world in general and believers in particular need this catechism right now. Yes, even you and me.

Christmas, 2023

It's Christmas Day, the day we celebrate God, the Son, taking on human form and living here on earth where He would live a sinless life, die on the cross for our sins, and rise again so that we can have peace with God and eternal life with Him. Maybe you object to December 25th as the day. Don't let that stop you from celebrating, preferably daily, God's unspeakable gift (2 Cor 9:15).

There are lots of ways we celebrate His birth, His life, His death and resurrection ... all of it. I'm going to offer you a gift today.

³¹ What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? ³² He who did not spare His own Son but gave Him up for us all, how will He not also with Him graciously give us all things? ³³ Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. ³⁴ Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died — more than that, who was raised — who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. ³⁵ Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? ³⁶ As it is written, "For Your sake we are being killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered." ³⁷ No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. ³⁸ For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, ³⁹ nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Rom 8:31-39)

It is, perhaps, too wonderful to imagine, but it's all true. Who can be against us? No one! Good to know in a culture that is increasingly hostile to Christ and His people. What good will God withhold from us? Nothing! Good to know in a world that is immersed in sin and decay. Who will separate us from His love? Absolutely nothing! Even the "worst" — death, tribulation, suffering, danger, persecution — is classified as victory. In all of that we are "more than conquerors."

So, have a merry Christmas and a joyous New Year as you remind yourself (often, preferably) of the unspeakable gift we received all those centuries ago that has left us in this unbelievably blessed position of being forgiven and loved and supplied and taken care of by God.

The Theology of Santa Claus

(On this Christmas Eve, I thought I'd re-run this post from 2007.)
________
Have you ever considered what kind of theology we can glean from Santa Claus? "No," you say, "why should we?" Well, think about it. Who is omnipresent? Who is omniscient? Who is benevolent? Who knows who is "naughty and nice" and rewards people based on that? It doesn't take a lot of thought to realize that Santa is a god. No one else can do what he does without being supernatural. And then there is the natural connection of Santa Claus to Christmas, making him theologically connected from that angle as well. So ... what kind of theology does Santa give us?

"He knows who is naughty and nice." Santa Claus is supposed to know who is good and who is bad. Based on this, Santa will either give nice gifts to the nice and a lump of coal to the naughty. So far, so good. God, too, knows who is good and who is bad. It's easier for God, however. "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one" (Rom. 3:10-12). "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom 3:23). Santa's theology, then, is that people are basically good. There are a few naughty, but down deep people are, by nature, good.

How does one go about getting on the good side of this minor deity? It's very simple; be good. To curry the favor of Santa Claus, all you have to do is good works. You know ... the standard worldly means to curry God's favor.

What about the naughty folks? Well, we all know that they are supposed to get nothing from Santa (or, at best, coal). That's "justice". On the other hand, have we ever actually seen that happen? Does Santa ever really refuse a child a gift at Christmas? Well, despite all the warnings, we all know that the red-suited guy is too kind to shortchange children. The theology? Relax ... there is nothing to fear. There is no justice. There is no punishment. There are no consequences for sin.

What is the point of Santa? What is he all about? Santa is all about making people happy. His entire existence is devoted to giving people what they want. Theologically, then, we can easily conclude that the purpose of deity is to cater to the desires of humans everywhere. His whole purpose should be to make people happy ... especially by giving them what they want.

Think about it. If we were to devise a deity, what would he be like? He'd be old and white-haired -- a very common conception. He'd be a smiling deity. An angry God is just not acceptable. He'd be interested in good and bad, of course, but not so much so that he'd actually do anything really harmful to anyone over it. No, he'd be a jolly type that would cheerfully warn against doing bad without actually intending any consequences. His sole, overarching concern would be our happiness. There is, after all, nothing more important than us and our happiness.

Why is it that, even in Christian circles, Santa is sacrosanct? Don't question him. Don't even suggest to children that he doesn't exist. It is wrong -- evil -- to tell children there is no Santa. Why is it that we lie to our children about Santa and expect them to believe us when we talk about Christ? Santa denies absolutely fundamental biblical theology like Man's basic sin nature, God's grace (unmerited favor), justification by faith apart from works, the justice of God, His hatred for sin, His holiness. Instead of God and His glory as the central issue, Santa makes us and our happiness the central issue. There is so much false theology to overcome. And there is the damage of parents who knowingly lie to their children. What could possibly be the up side of teaching our children that there really is a Santa Claus?

News Weakly - 12/23/23

Dazed and Confused
The pope has come out. He has approved blessings for same-sex couples. Mind you, the Roman Catholic position on homosexual behavior is that it is sin and they don't recognize same-sex marriage at all, but, hey, when people you say are entrenched in sin, it's surely a good idea to bless them. Like Paul did when he said, "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God?" and includes those who practice homosexual behavior in his list of "unrighteous" (1 Cor 6:9-10). Oh, no, I guess that's not quite a blessing. But the pope knows better than Paul, right?

Bombshell Injustice
NBC News called it a "bombshell decision." Colorado's Supreme Court ruled that Trump was guilty until proven innocent and banned him from appearing on the ballot next year for violating the 14th Amendment, a charge that has not been tried, let alone proven. Nice to know the justice system will deny justice whenever they so desire. Can you say, "Election interference"? Trump questioning the election results, they tell us, was a threat to democracy. What is it when the court assumes guilt and prevents people from voting for their preferred option at all?

Cancel Culture Cancels the 1st Amendment
New York is planning to ignore the 1st Amendment which says, in part, that the government "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" by establishing a law that requires businesses to stay open on Sunday regardless of their religious convictions. Admittedly, this would affect few businesses because, frankly, very few still retain any religious convictions, but if this one floats, why not expand to other restrictions?

Not Getting It
The state of Minnesota is proud to unveil their new state flag, replacing that nasty old one with a Native American on horseback at the center -- obviously a reference to displacing Native Americans (is it?) -- with ... get this ... a white star at the center of a dark blue shape of the state (sort of). Right, like replacing "Native American" in the center with "white star" is much less racist? Haters.

Another Climate Target
A study says that climate change is being impacted by ... breathing. Oh, don't stop there. They say that African populations are more likely to warm the Earth than Asian populations and women more than men. Turns out we're all exhaling some methane and CO₂, so we're all contributing to the problem. The solution is simple; eliminate humans. Apparently black people and women first.

The Not-News News
People is reporting that Hulk Hogan and his wife got baptised in a Florida church recently. "Total surrender and dedication to Jesus is the greatest day of my life," he was quoted as saying. Couldn't be more true. The fact that it's news, however, is that "those people" (stars, Hollywood, front page folk) don't do "religious" because that's no longer acceptable. Which says more about that category of people than it does about Hulk Hogan.

From the Sea to the Sea
You've heard the "from the river to the sea" stuff from that pro-Hamas groups advocating the elimination of Israel. I had to ask, "Does that mean you would advocate the elimination of the United States in favor of giving the land back to the Native Americans?" It's a rhetorical question ... until it's not. "Yes," a University of Minnesota professor would answer. We need to "dismantle the settler project that is the United States." It's called "the land-back movement." Kind of like reparations. This is the kind of politics and scholarship being foisted upon too many young people in our universities ... young people who have not been given the tools to think these things through or even know right from wrong. It can't end well.

Too Funny To Bee True
The Bee has an appropriate story of how Clarence the angel takes Gavin Newsom to Florida to see what California could have been like if he'd never been born. They add to it with the gingerbread house in California that was listed on Zillow for $1.9 million. On that choice of Colorado to prematurely de-list Trump, the Bee reports that Colorado has saved democracy by not allowing people to vote for their preferred candidate. This is when satire is painfully sharp. And I had to laugh at the new "body-positive" scale that just says, "You're totally healthy and definitely won't die at a young age of heart disease." 'Nough said.

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

The Christmas Conspiracy -- Reprise

I originally wrote this back in 2013, but it always makes me smile to hear anti-Christ types singing songs in praise of Jesus, so I'm bringing it up again.
________
You know, just about every popular singer on the planet, past or present, has done some sort of Christmas album. I mean, it's almost unavoidable. Where else are you going to hear Snoop Dogg sing "Santa Claus Goes Straight to the Ghetto" or the heavy metal version of "O Christmas Tree"? (I didn't make those up. They're out there.) But it is almost an indispensable part of the season these days to hear folks like Frank Sinatra (suspected of mob ties) and Barbra Streisand (a Jew) singing lyrics like "He rules the world with truth and grace, And makes the nations prove The glories of His righteousness, And wonders of His love" or "Silent night, holy night, Son of God, love's pure light, Radiant beams from Thy holy face, With the dawn of redeeming grace, Jesus, Lord, at Thy birth"? Now, of course, these folk don't mean what they're singing and they may not even be aware that they're singing it, but it is, nonetheless, being sung, celebrated, recorded, sold, and heard.

Have you ever looked at the theology we've managed to slip into the widely popular Christmas carols everyone has heard? Very clever.

James Chadwick gave us the English version of the French hymn we know as Angels We Have Heard on High which includes, "See Him in a manger laid, Jesus Lord of heaven and earth; Mary, Joseph, lend your aid, With us sing our Savior's birth. Gloria, in excelsis Deo!" And we have popular singers declaring Jesus to be the Lord of heaven and earth and singing, in Latin, "Glory to God in the Highest!"

The traditional Hark! The Herald Angels Sing! gives us "Hail the heaven-born Prince of Peace! Hail the Sun of Righteousness! Light and life to all He brings, risen with healing in His wings. Mild He lays His glory by, Born that man no more may die, Born to raise the sons of earth, Born to give us second birth. Hark! the herald angels sing, 'Glory to the new born King!'" Did you get that? I mean, truly astounding! This comes straight from Philippians 2's version of "the Christmas Story" where "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 (Phil 2:6-8). And they're playing it on the store speakers for everyone to hear.

O Holy Night is a perennial favorite composed by Adolphe Adam in 1847. Translated by minister John Dwight, today's pop singers are happy to use it to remind us " O holy night! The stars are brightly shining, It is the night of our dear Saviour's birth. Long lay the world in sin and error pining, ‘Til He appear'd and the soul felt its worth. A thrill of hope the weary world rejoices, For yonder breaks a new and glorious morn. Fall on your knees! O hear the angel voices! O night divine, O night when Christ was born; O night divine, O night, O night Divine." In our current culture, reminding the world of sin is bad ... unless you do it in a popular Christmas carol.

A 19th century priest, Phillips Brooks, gave us O Little Town of Bethlehem. We all know that one. Good stuff. So we'll all join in and sing, "How silently, how silently The wondrous gift is given! So God imparts to human hearts The blessings of His heaven. No ear may hear His coming, But in this world of sin, Where meek souls will receive Him still, The dear Christ enters in." And we've admitted the bad news -- "this world of sin" -- and the good news, that those who receive Him can be joined with Christ -- the Gospel over the mall audio system.

One of my all-time favorites is What Child is This?. Written by William Chatterton Dix in 1865 and sung to Greensleeves, there are many variations of the lyrics. Still, in most versions you'll find this verse: "So bring Him incense, gold, and myrrh; Come, peasant, king, to own Him! The King of Kings salvation brings; Let loving hearts enthrone Him! Raise, raise the song on high! The virgin sings her lullaby. Joy! joy! for Christ is born, The babe, the son of Mary!" Nested in this beautiful little poem with its simple tune is a wealth of truth. We have the King of Kings. We have salvation. We have the Virgin Birth. We even have the demand to bow to His Lordship -- "Let loving hearts enthrone Him!" So much very, very good stuff in a song you can pick up on any streaming station playing the music of the season.

Some ... are preaching Christ even from envy and strife, but some also from good will; the latter do it out of love ... the former proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition rather than from pure motives .... What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and in this I rejoice. Yes, and I will rejoice (Phil 1:15-18).

No, these secular singers aren't preaching Christ, at least not intentionally. No, they aren't even doing it from envy and strife. Well, yes, probably from selfish ambition. But it in a society increasingly hostile to Christians, the message is going out. When my kids were younger I'd ask them, "Are you paying attention to the words you're hearing?" "No, Dad," they'd tell me, "We just like the tunes." Yeah? Then why is it they were singing along? The words, even without their conscious effort, were sneaking into their brains. And at this time of year from just about every available speaker pop singers and the rest are absentmindedly smuggling God's truth into the minds of unsuspecting listeners, little seeds of the Gospel that God can cause to grow in His time. I think it's kind of cool. "In every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and in this I rejoice. Yes, and I will rejoice!"

A Man After God's Own Heart

In 1 Samuel 13 the prophet Samuel explains to King Saul that his rule was coming to an end because he had made sacrifices to God outside of God's instructions. He told Saul, "But now your kingdom shall not continue. YHWH has sought out a man after His own heart, and YHWH has commanded him to be prince over His people, because you have not kept what YHWH commanded you" (1 Sa 13:14). Before David took the throne, God called him a man after His own heart. So when we read of a time when this "man after God's own heart" is angry with God, perhaps it's worth looking at.

The event was the return of the Ark of the Covenant from the Philistines. It had been stored for years at the house of Abinadab, and David, seeking to please God (1 Chron 13:2), was getting it back to Jerusalem. So he gathered 30,000 troops (2 Sam 6:1) and prepared a new cart (2 Sam 6:3) and went to get it. Two sons of Abinadab, Uzzah and Ahio, managed the cart (2 Sam 6:3; 1 Chron 13:7) while David and his people celebrated (2 Sam 6:5; 1 Chron 13:8). At one point in the journey, the oxen stumbled (2 Sam 6:6) and Uzzah put his hand up to steady the ark to keep it from falling (2 Sam 6:6; 1 Chron 13:9). For this atrocity, "the anger of YHWH was kindled against Uzzah, and God struck him down there because of his error, and he died there beside the ark of God" (2 Sam 6:7; 1 Chron 13:10). Wait ... what?? Dead on the spot? For keeping God's ark from falling in the mud?? The text says, "And David was angry because YHWH had broken out against Uzzah" (2 Sam 6:8; 1 Chron 13:11). There you have it. The man after God's own heart was angry with God for killing Uzzah who only acted in God's best interest.

Of course, the term, "a man after God's own heart," when used of a human being, cannot be taken as absolute or constant. David, after all, did lots of wrong things before and after this. No, the phrase refers to a generality that was sometimes full and sometimes ... not. In this case, it was one of those "not" times, we can be sure, because if at this moment David had been after God's own heart, he would have concurred with God. If Uzzah had actually been working in God's best interests, he never would have touched the ark. In fact, he never could have since God had prescribed the correct way to transport the ark, and it was not on a cart, new or otherwise, but on poles permanently in place for the ark to be carried (Exo 25:10-15; Num 14:4-6). David failed when he supplied a "new cart" (like the Philistines did when they sent it packing in the first place (1 Sam 6:7)). Uzzah failed when he touched that which God commanded never be touched (Num 4:15). The heart of God was obedience for His name sake and neither David nor Uzzah heeded that ... in order to glorify God.

Isn't that too typical? We believers seek to please God. We sing songs to Him and try to do things that He would like, as we ought to do. The question is, do we consult with God? Do we ask God what would please Him? How often do we seek to please Him in ways He has already said don't please Him? When we embrace what He rejects and call it "glorifying God," can we be considered glorifying God? When we ask "WWJD?" -- "What would Jesus do?" -- and then opt for things specifically contrary to God's Word, are we actually doing what Jesus would do? It's admirable to seek to do what pleases God, but far too often we do it by doing what pleases us without regard for what God has said. That didn't work out for either David or Uzzah. Don't expect it to go better for you or me.

At Face Value

I write primarily to believers, fellow Christians, knowing that unbelievers have a different starting place. We have God's Word; they have ... whatever else they want to have. We, Christians, share (or, at least, ought to share) a passion to follow Christ. Isn't that, after all, the primary idea behind the word, "Christ-ian"? Since that is true, I wonder why we Christ-ians seem to have trouble sometimes taking Christ at His word. I'm not talking about unbelievers. I understand that. What about Christians?

Take, for instance, Jesus's "Many are called; few are chosen" (Matt 22:14). "No, no," we're prone to say, "It's not that few are chosen. It's that they chose not to be." Jesus said, "This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day" (John 6:39). So why is it that not a few Christians believe that Jesus can lose some of those God gave Him? Jesus gave two "no one can" statements in one chapter in John.

"No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day." (John 6:44)

"For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father." (John 6:65)

What do we have here? Twice He said "No one can come to Me." Stop there. According to Jesus, leaving off the next "unless" phrase, how many people can come to Him? Who has that innate capacity? Jesus said, "No one." Then He gives two "unless" statements. In the first it was "unless the Father draws him." In the second it was "unless it has been granted him from the Father." In both cases, the Father must act to overcome this "no one can" condition. If God doesn't act, "no one can." So there are two "unless" statements, two things by which God overcomes our natural inability. One is to draw, and the other is to grant. We need to receive the gift (grant) of coming to Him and we need to be moved (drawn). It doesn't happen on our own. "Oh, no," Christians are quick to say, "that's not what it means at all." But that's what He said. In fact, in the second one, the question He was answering ("For this reason ...") was "There are some of you who do not believe" (John 6:64). Why didn't they believe? They weren't granted. That's what Jesus said. Jesus said, "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing" (John 6:63). That's not a little something.

We are not like the pagans who operate on their own deceitful hearts. We're Christians, aiming at following Christ ... nay, being in Christ's likeness. If we don't take Him at His word -- if we don't take Him at face value -- how can we expect to be an accurate reflection of Him? If we like the nice things He said and discard the difficult, how can we expect to be actual Christ-followers? He had a lot of nice things to say, but He also had some really hard things, like "For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it" (Matt 7:14) and "I never knew you; depart from Me" (Matt 7:23). Just to mention two. Jesus spoke more of hell than anyone else. He required His followers to deny themselves and take up their cross (Matt 16:24). It's not all fun and games. So what will we do? Will we take the difficult with the good? Will we believe Him in all that He says? Or will we pick and choose -- mediate His words to match our wishes? In the latter case, we cannot expect to be faithful representatives if we fail to rightly represent Him.

Contradicting a Contradiction

You are all aware, I'm quite sure, that the Bible itself claims to be "God-breathed" (2 Tim 3:16). If God is reliable, then, the Bible is reliable. Jesus said, "Your Word is truth" (John 17:17). Pretty reliable. "Oh, but Jesus's 'Scripture' was the Old Testament." You might claim that, but Peter disagrees (2 Peter 3:16). That's all good, but, of course, you should also be aware that the Bible contradicts itself, right? The Christmas story is one of the clearest. Matthew and Luke are the two Christmas story tellers. Mark and John skipped it. Matthew tells of Joseph's lineage and gives us the story of the wise men and the flight to Egypt. Luke is silent on all that, gives a different lineage, and includes shepherds, angels, and a visit to Jerusalem that Matthew ignores. So, what was it? Did the family flee to Egypt or did they go to Jerusalem and then to Nazareth? Clearly, a manifest contradiction. Or ... was it?

Let's look at the story ... nay, the stories. Jesus was born, and, after eight days, Jesus was circumcised (Luke 2:21). Then, "when the days for their purification according to the law of Moses were completed, they brought Him up to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord" (Luke 2:22). How long was that? According to Leviticus, when a woman gives birth, she is unclean for 7 days (Lev 12:2) followed by 33 days (Lev 12:4), after which she was required to complete a purification ritual (Luke 12:6-8). Thus, the time from birth to completion of purification was 40 days. At that point, then, Simeon met the Messiah (Luke 2:25-35) followed by Anna, the prophetess (Luke 2:36-38). Then Luke says, "When they had performed everything according to the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, to their own city of Nazareth" (Luke 2:39). What we have here is a sequence. What we don't have here is a complete timeline. That is, we know that Jesus was born, then Jesus was circumcised, then Mary was purified, then the family went to Jerusalem, and finally they went to Nazareth. For a timeline, we know that Jesus was circumcised after 8 days and that the purification period was 40 days, but we don't know how long they were in Jerusalem and we don't know if anything occurred between Jerusalem and Nazareth. Did they, for instance, go to Egypt? If so, for how long? Now, that's an interesting question on its own. The wise men arrived sometime between birth and 2 years (Matt 2:16), but not at birth. (Compare "manger" (Luke 2:7) with "house" (Matt 2:11).) When they left, God warned Joseph to flee to Egypt (Matt 2:13-14), and they only returned after Herod died (Matt 2:15). Note, by the way, that they returned to Israel from Egypt, apparently headed back to Judea -- to Bethlehem. But Joseph was concerned about Herod's brother ruling in Judea, so he opted for a safer place in Galilee -- Nazareth. Now, according to history, Herod died in 4BC. So if Jesus was born in 6BC as most scholars believe today, the longest Jesus could have lived in Egypt was 2 years, although very likely much less. (The closer the magi arrived at the 2 year period, the shorter time Jesus would have spent in Egypt.) So, after the 40 days -- purification period -- did Joseph and Mary return to Bethlehem, flee to Egypt after the visit of the wise men, and return to Nazareth (Matt 2:23) then? Would that be a contradiction to Luke's account? I don't think so. Luke includes nothing like "immediately" or "the next day" or anything like it. You can insert "immediately" if you like, but I could just as easily insert "eventually" and you couldn't prove otherwise. And, just as Matthew's account includes nothing about angels and shepherds and Luke's account includes not a word about magi or Egypt, there is no reason to assume that either didn't happen on the basis of silence. The argument from silence is a poor one.

The way we arrive at the two accounts as a contradiction is by starting with the premise that God's Word is not reliable, that God's Word is not God's Word. He didn't breath it. He didn't supply it. He didn't protect it. In fact, the way we arrive at these two accounts as contradictory rather than complimentary is by assuming that you just can't trust Jesus when He says, "Your Word is truth." And while I would not be surprised if those who don't follow Christ don't trust Jesus or the Bible, I would be surprised if one who steadfastly claimed such could be classified as a follower of Christ.

What About Joseph?

The New Testament begins with the genealogy of Joseph (Matt 1:17), the man who would be Jesus's ... step-father. Joseph was the man who would serve as the earthly father of Jesus, the Messiah, the Son of God. What do we know about Joseph? Precious little.

We know that Joseph was from Nazareth in Galilee (Luke 2:3-5). We know that Joseph was betrothed to Mary. Now, their betrothal was quite different from ours today. Since almost all marriages were arranged in those days (and, by the way, for much of history, up to and including today in parts of the world), Joseph's parents, then, would have engaged in a contract, as it were, with Mary's parents for their children to wed, including paying a mohar -- kind of a dowry -- paid in cash, goods, and/or services. There was a period of engagement in which the fact that they were to wed was made known. Then there was a ceremony that started the betrothal period. During that time, they were not actually married -- living together, etc. -- but they were classified as husband and wife (Matt 1:16, 19). The betrothal period was the time allowed for the groom to prepare a place for the bride. He set up a business and a home, etc. When all was ready, he would return and retrieve his bride. (Does any of that sound familiar (John 14:2-3)?) They would go through a marriage ceremony that could last a week or more and then be married. When we meet Joseph, he and Mary are in that betrothal period (Matt 1:18). We know that Joseph was a kind and conscientious man. We know this because when he found out Mary was pregnant, he knew she had been unfaithful. He had the option to publicly disgrace her, but he opted instead to divorce her quietly so as not to disgrace her (Matt 1:19)¹. We know that he was a man of faith because before he could divorce Mary, an angel visited him and told him this bizarre story about Mary being with child from the Holy Spirit (Matt 1:20-25) ... and Joseph believed and obeyed. When Joseph was warned in a dream to flee to Egypt because Herod would try to kill his son, he didn't hesitate to obey (Matt 2:13-14). He left the same night. Joseph doesn't last long in the Gospels. He was around until Jesus was 12 when they took Jesus to Jerusalem for the Passover (Luke 2:41-42). Joseph was not mindful that Jesus was God Incarnate -- the Son of the Living God -- because Jesus had to remind him (Luke 2:49). We don't see Joseph again in Scripture. We know that Joseph was a carpenter because they referred to Jesus as the son of a carpenter (Matt 13:55). We don't know much else about him.

Frankly, we don't know a whole lot about Jesus's earthly father. The Roman Catholics are pretty sure he was married (polygamist), but history tells us that polygamy was all but gone in Jesus's day. They are also quite sure he was a lot older than Mary, but, that's in order to support the perpetual virginity of Mary (because, after all, how could a husband go his whole life without sex?). We know no such thing from Scripture. What we do know is that he was a conscientious man, diligently pursuing God's instructions, obeying dreams from God without question, and taking care of his family. Asked to do some amazingly difficult things (like marrying a woman that everyone was sure had cheated on him), he obeyed without blinking. He seems to have died at a young age, given his absence from any texts after Jesus's 12th year, but God used him mightily to be a dad to His Son and an example to all us who follow. Thanks, Joseph.
________

¹ In Matthew 19 in the discussion of divorce with the Pharisees, Jesus said not to divorce ... at all (Matt 19:4-6). They questioned Him about giving her a certificate of divorce from Moses (Matt 19:7). Jesus said, "I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery" (Matt 19:9). Jesus did not mention adultery as the exception. The word for adultery was in that sentence (moichaō), but Jesus used "porneia" as the exception. While porneia refers to any kind of sex outside of marital sex (which would include adultery), it seems strange that Jesus would use two different words in one sentence if He meant the same thing. The rational explanation was that the divorce that Jesus allowed on the basis of sexual immorality was not for adultery, but for sexual infidelity during the period of betrothal. (Note: In biblical times, the penalty for adultery wasn't divorce; it was stoning (John 8:1-5).)

Rest

In his epistle to the church at Philippi, Paul tells them the secret of being content in whatever circumstances he found himself (Php 4:11). The secret was that he could do all things through Christ (Php 4:13). To that end, he makes this startling claim. "My God will supply all your needs according to His riches in glory in Christ Jesus" (Php 4:19). Now, think about that.

First, note, he is talking about "my God." Not "any god." Not Allah or some Hindu deity. Not fame, fortune, power -- the typical gods of this age. "My God." The God he talked about and taught about and wrote about. The God, he said, with whom we have peace because of Christ (Rom 5:1). The God who demonstrated His love toward us by sending His Son for sinners (Rom 5:8). Paul says of his God, "For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things" (Rom 11:36). All things consist in Him (Col 1:17). The God whose Son propitiated -- appeased -- God's righteous wrath by His blood (Rom 3:25). He is the God "who is able to do far more abundantly beyond all that we ask or think, according to the power that works within us" (Eph 3:20). Of this God Paul says, if He "who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things?" (Rom 8:32). Not just any god. That God.

Then look at the claim. He will "supply all your needs." First, then, He does it. Not someone or something else. Not you or your spouse or your job. Not the government or the world. He does it. Oh, He might use something or someone as a vehicle -- a delivery mode -- but make no mistake. It is Him. Second, not merely some; all. Not one need you have will not be met. Not one. If you think you're lacking something you need, it's either on its way to being met or you are mistaken.

The last thought is, perhaps, the sweetest. God Himself will supply. God Himself will supply all your needs. How do you know? How can you trust it? Because He supplies your needs "according to His riches." Not yours. Not someone else's. His riches. The riches of His glory.The riches of His glory in Christ Jesus. That is, an unlimited and ready supply. That, dear reader, ought to be a great source of peace. In an uncertain and chaotic world, you can have that certainty ... if you'll only accept it. It should change what you demand from others and ease your disappointment in others. It should calm your fears and take your worries. If only you'll accept it.

News Weakly - 12/16/23

Not All Speech is Protected
Last week the president of the University of Pennsylvania resigned after criticism and pressure from her admission to Congress that the call for genocide could be perfectly acceptable on their campus¹. Some are crying, "Free Speech!" and "Cancel Culture!" I ask, "How is a rally to foment genocide of Jews different than calling 'Fire!' in a crowded theater?" That is, was she canceled because she said the unpopular? Was she canceled because she violated the current acceptable position? Or is she out because her position defending the call for genocide cross the line against free speech? I'd suggest the latter.

When Race Matters
A Catholic priest was stabbed to death in his small Nebraska church rectory this week. Motive was not listed. Oddly, neither was race. The priest was white and the guy they arrested was black. Had it been reversed, the headline would have read "White burglar stabs black priest." That is, after all, the only way it works, right?

The Hate is Great with This One
A Norwegian tanker was hit by a Houti missile launched from Yemen. Why? They were carrying palm oil for biofuel to Italy, but Yemen attacked them thinking they were carrying fuel oil to Israel. And the Houtis have promised to attack any ship dealing with Israel. As any good, law-abiding, Jew-hating terror organization will do. That's what hate's about.

Word of the Year
Merriam-Webster has given its "word of the year" for 2023. The word is "authentic." That, they say, is because "We see in 2023 a kind of crisis of authenticity." How true! They cite AI and deepfake photos and videos. Beyond those, the lack of authentic love and authentic marriage, the failure to grasp even authentic gender, and, of course, the complete disavowal of the authentic Word of God even among many who call themselves "Christian" are all glaring examples of our "crisis of authenticity." Good choice, Merriam-Webster. I bet you didn't know how good.

Religious War
The UN has passed a resolution calling on Israel and Hamas to cease shooting at each other. Israel's "I will if you will" is not good enough and Hamas is unwilling to violate their religion to comply. Hamas is openly aiming for genocide, but it's Israel who is the real bad guy. Dastardly "self-defense" types².

Strange Twists
In a clever move to garner support for their cause, a group of Jewish protesters sat down on the southbound lanes of the 110 freeway in the middle of rush hour demanding that Israel stop defending itself against those whose declared intentions are to wipe Israel from the map. Yeah ... Jewish protesters. Strange, right? Now, I don't know about you, but when I find a sudden obstacle to my commute like this, my first reaction is, "I wonder who they are ... so I can make sure I oppose them like they have opposed me." But, hey, that's just me. Most people love to support causes that make their lives more miserable.

All You Have To Do Is Look
The teachers who are supposed to teach kids how to read and write are suing the state of Florida over the right to use pronouns that disagree with birth sex (read "biology"). "We will teach your kids, but we will teach them what we think they should know and not science and not logic and not biology, and you will embrace it." Let's get names and fire the incompetent teachers who literally can't recognize truth that would be staring them in the face if it was legal to do so.

You May Do What We Approve
Toledo, Iowa, just removed their longtime, traditional Nativity scene from the local fire department after an atheist group argued that it was "divisive" to allow a Christmas scene on public property. Mind you, the atheist group will not be removing Christmas from their calendars and will indeed still be expecting Christmas off. Those aren't "divisive," you see. The problem is only the public recognition of Christmas ... which happens everywhere in the U.S. every year. Illogic and double standards abound.

Too Funny to Bee Ignored
The Bee is reporting that Pope Francis has excommunicated St. Paul for having outdated views on women and marriage. Is that really satire? Seems more likely than humorous. Elsewhere, you heard that the president of Harvard, Claudine Gay, was under fire for agreeing that "genocide" is a suitable topic on the campus. In the review, it turns out she has a habit of plagiarizing other peoples work (actual story). (Harvard has cleared her by redefining "plagiarism" to "improperly citing".) In response to her critics, Gay has given an inspiring "I Have a Dream" speech. Good move. Iowa's state capitol has a display honoring Satan next to the nativity scene (actual story). People are complaining about the Democratic statue because "Sick, disturbing, Democrat displays have no place in the house where state laws are passed."

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

FOOTNOTES

¹ Note: FIRE is the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, an organization seeking to defend fundamental rights on American college campuses. Of the 248 institutions they rank, Harvard is 248th on free speech. The University of Pennsylvania is second to last. "Free speech" is a fluid term, apparently, where "free speech" is encouraged as long as the message is acceptable ... like calling for intifada on campus.

² I think I need to point out that calling out Hamas as an agent for evil 1) does not necessarily reflect on the casual occupants of Gaza and 2) does not constitute support for Israel's current actions. To say that Hamas's intent to eliminate Israel does not require that I concur with Israel's current approach in Gaza. I am not offering a defense for Israel's actions even if I can understand them. I am simply pointing out that Hamas's genocidal aims are evil over against the loud voices that endorse their intent to wipe Israel from the map.

Take Care

Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called "today," that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. (Heb 3:12-13)

What a powerful text, especially in our day. It is defense against evil, a protection against an unbelieving heart, a redirection from falling away from the living God. It is a commanded way in which we avoid becoming hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. Good stuff. "And?"

The text tells us that some of us have within ourselves "an evil, unbelieving heart." Now, our world tells us that people are basically good, while the Scriptures tell us that there is none who does good; no, not one (Jer 17:9; Rom 3:12). That is, while our world holds that the natural human default is "good," God's Word says our default is "not good." Evil resides in every one of us. It is the product, according to this text, of an "unbelieving heart." Because each of us doubts, each of us wavers, each of us questions -- "Can God be trusted?" I think our default there is, "I'm pretty sure I know what's best for me" with the implied, "not God." And that evil in each of us that is produced by unbelief in each of us leads us away from the living God.

We need to act. We need to respond. And we don't need to only look out for ourselves. This problem is bigger than that. We need to "exhort one another every day." Okay, now, that's going too far. We don't like "exhort." Isn't that meddling? Isn't that judgmental? Isn't that self-righteous? The word is literally "to call near" and carries the imagery of walking alongside another. "I'm here. Let's get through this together." It is, indeed, urging another to go the right way, do the right thing, be the right person, but it's not from a position of superiority. It's from "We're in this together." So, from both directions, we don't like it. We don't like to meddle in the affairs and sins of others. We don't like to admit we're suffering the same things. Because sin is deceitful and we seem to forget that. But it isn't a suggestion; it's a command. And what would it look like if Christ's Body was fundamentally a "Let's work together to support one another toward erasing sin in our lives and becoming more Christlike" body? One can only imagine, but one thing I know for sure. It would be a more obedient and loving body. And I'm pretty sure that's what we Christ-followers ought to want to be, right?

Strange Bedfellows

I grew up in Protestant circles -- largely but not exclusively Baptist -- so I wasn't really aware of Reformed theology or Presbyterian liturgy and the like. Then I discovered the Westminster Confession. I was surprised to learn that the London Baptist Confession was incredibly close to the Westminster Confession. Then there was the Shorter Catechism. We Protestants heard that Catholic kids endure "catechism" which consisted of classes on Roman Catholic theology and was their indoctrination into the Roman Catholic church. As it turned out, some Protestant groups had the same thing, and the Shorter Catechism was just that ... for Protestants, as it were. "Indoctrination? Really?" We don't like the term, of course, but, why? Do we not want our kids to learn our doctrine? Do we not want to teach them what we believe? Well, in fact, everyone indoctrinates their people, whether it's their kids or other family or their friends or ... We all urge what we believe on other people. And why not? And why should it not be formal, as in "catechism"?

The very first question that these kids learning the Shorter Catechism had to learn -- there would be a test -- was "What is the chief end of man?" Think of that. They were asking a 10-12-year-olds to consider that kind of thing. The answer?

Man's chief end is to glorify God^a, and to enjoy Him forever^b.

^a Ps. 86:9; Isa. 60:21; Rom. 11:36; 1 Cor. 6:20; 10:31; Rev. 4:11
^b Ps. 16:5-11; 144:15; Isa. 12:2; Luke 2:10; Phil. 4:4; Rev. 21:3-4

Complete with biblical reasons why the claim is made.

Now, we don't seem to think very often about where we are going. I mean consciously. We take action to approach a topic or correct an idea or reinforce a truth by instinct, usually, not with awareness of the aim ... the "end." Why are we correcting theology, defending the gospel, standing on the Word of God, and so on? Why do we oppose "same-sex mirage"¹ with such vehemence, for instance? Is it "because it's wrong"? Not good enough. Is it because "the Bible disagrees"? That's true, but still not good enough. Or is it about the glory of God? Is it about God's name and God's righteousness and God's holiness? Ah, now that's a high enough aim! But ... is it ours?

These days we find ourselves with strange bedfellows. We find we like Jordan Peterson because he speaks out against "personal pronouns" and defends our right to believe even though he himself doesn't believe. (He claims to believe in God and even calls himself a "Christian" while explicitly distancing himself from Christian doctrine and considers the Bible metaphorical.) We like Ben Shapiro who is a conservative Jew. Dennis Prager has been a real voice of reason through the years, but he's a Jewish voice, not a Christian one. So we have this dilemma. They are saying good things. You'll find gay conservatives saying good things. You'll discover self-styled gay Christians saying good things. So do we latch onto them as "one of our boys" or do we reject them as "the enemy" because they don't share our root cause? The question is a logical fallacy. It is possible to receive the argument without embracing the source. But the only way we can do that and the only way we can proceed for God (our chief end) is to remember our chief end -- to glorify God. Without it, we're lost.
________

¹ I am not trying to be unkind with the use of the term "same-sex mirage". I need to continually point out that there is a fundamental difference between "marriage" and what we are calling "marriage" when we put the term "same-sex", "homosexual", or "gay" in front of it. I am not objecting to it on moral grounds. I am objecting because they're not the same thing, and I use "mirage" in its place to call that to your attention.

Exceptance

If you're paying attention, you'd catch that the title of this piece is a word that doesn't exist. There is "acceptance," but not "exceptance." There is "accept" and "except." Are they related? Sure! First, they are homophones -- they sound alike. Beyond that, they have similar origins. Both have "cept" in common, rooted in Latin "capere" -- "to take" or "to grasp." The "ex" part is "out" and "ac" is "to." Both reference "to take" or "to grasp," while one is "out" and the other is "to." See? Very clear. And in today's world "acceptance" is important. Critical even. Certainly demanded.

"Tolerance" and "acceptance" are linked in our language. The dictionary defines "tolerance" as "willingness to accept behavior and beliefs that are different from your own, although you might not agree with or approve of them." Ah, there it is, a link! What does it mean to "accept behavior"? Again, the dictionary says "acceptance" is "general agreement that something is satisfactory or right, or that someone should be included in a group." So it is not simply "to take," but to take "as right." So now I have a problem. If you take something as right "although you might not agree with or approve of them," you're operating on a contradiction. Do you approve or don't you? Do you agree or don't you? If you approve and/or agree, then tolerance is no longer necessary. If you don't take as right, then you don't "accept." Which is where I get "exceptance." Yes, it's my word, but I need it ... right here. If tolerance requires "although you might not agree with or approve of them" and a willingness to allow them to continue, I think "exceptance" is more appropriate. "No, I don't agree with that, but I'll make an exception and not work to eliminate it." It is, in fact, the only way I can make sense out of "tolerance."

Christians like the word "accept" in one very particular application: "Accept Jesus into your heart." Strange thing. You won't find that phrase or anything like it in Scripture. You find "receive" (John 1:12), but not "accept." Why? Well, "receive" is passive while "accept" is active. In "receive" something comes to you and in "accept" you choose to take something in. Which is interesting because, thinking that through, "Accept Jesus" would put the weight on you (which the natural man wants to have) while "receive Jesus" puts the weight on Him. In terms of "acceptance," we offer Christ our approval and He comes in or, in the case of "receive," He comes in and we passively receive Him. His choice, not ours. Which, interestingly enough is exactly what Jesus said. "You did not choose Me, but I chose you" (John 15:16). Hmm.

Nativity

(Please note: This is largely tongue-in-cheek. Despite the apparent tone, I'm mostly just joking around.)

Nativity. The word means just generally "birth", but it is almost exclusively used for the Nativity -- the birth of Christ. Now, I've already said how important the event is, so you shouldn't be surprised at what I'm about to say. Once ... just once I'd like to see an accurate Nativity scene.

Your typical Nativity scene includes Mary and Joseph in proximity to a manger with a baby in it, at least one shepherd, three kings or magi or whatever you want to call them, a star, and an angel. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Consider. Matthew's account talks about the wisemen/magi/kings. There is no reference to "three." The only reason the tradition is three is because three gifts are mentioned (and Roman Catholic lore with Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar has cemented them in place, including racial indications). We don't actually know how many showed up. We don't actually know where they came from beyond "the East." What we do know is that their arrival caused quite a stir (Matt 2:3), but why would 3 guys on camels cause a stir? What we do know is they were not at the birth. That's right. We have some certain clues on that. Herod ordered the deaths of all male babies under the age of 2, a ridiculous thing to do if He was not even a day old. Further, we knew they were in a stable (or so), but Matthew says they were "going into the house" (Matt 2:11). Not the same place He was born. Not the same time. Moving on, I'm okay with one shepherd, although I'm pretty sure it was the whole group of them, but Scripture says nothing about an angel overhead. The shepherds had a visitation from angels, but nothing is mentioned about being where Jesus was. (And the star didn't move over His home until the wise men arrived ... which we've already discussed.)

Okay, so far has been logic, conjecture, clues and conclusions. This last one, though, is not. We know the shepherds got word from angels and went into town to find "this thing that has happened, which the Lord has made known to us" (Luke 2:15). The following text is explicit. "And they went with haste and found Mary, and Joseph, and the baby lying in a manger" (Luke 2:16). Clear as a bell. When the shepherds arrived, there weren't two parents standing by while a baby laid in the manger. No, no. The text says that entire family -- Mary and Joseph and the baby -- were lying in the manger. So, let me know when you find a version of the Nativity that gets all that right. In the meantime, I'll live with what we've got ... if I must.

That's Not Fair!

Christmas is Advent, defined as "the arrival of a notable person." In Christendom, "Advent" also includes the second-coming. That is, "Advent" is the culmination of God's redemptive plan from beginning to end. What is God's redemptive plan? In brief, "everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved" (Acts 2:21). The gospel. "But," some counter, "if God doesn't save everyone, it's not good news, is it? If He only saves some and not others, how can that be 'the gospel'?" Scripture says, "It depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy" (Rom 9:16). Scripture says, "He has mercy on whomever He wills, and He hardens whomever He wills" (Rom 9:18). The seemingly natural response is "That's not fair!" To which Paul responds, "Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?" (Rom 9:21).

Look, let's think this through. Jesus was abundantly clear. "Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few" (Matt 7:13-14). According to Jesus, "few" are saved and "many" are not. Sorry, universalists. Those are Jesus's words, not mine. So the accusation must be that if all are not saved, Jesus is unfair. If all are not saved, God is unjust. "Well," some tap dance, "at least everyone has to have the opportunity." Okay, let's go with that. Define "opportunity." John 3:16 famously says that God loved the world in a particular way -- "that whoever believes in [His Son] should not perish but have eternal life." That's pretty broad. That's a universal opportunity -- "whoever." But in today's world, "equal opportunity" is out and "equal outcome" is in and, quite clearly, not everyone will believe in Him. Is that unfair? Or, a counter question: would "fair" mean that no one gets the choice to reject Him and everyone must believe? Or does "fair" allow for "you get what you choose"?

Scripture operates on the premise that God is unique. That's part of being "holy, holy, holy." He is uniquely just while being gracious (giving to some the good they don't deserve) and merciful (not giving the consequences that justice demands). He is always good and He is always right. Abraham asked the ultimate rhetorical question, "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is right?" (Gen 18:25). Yes, Abraham, absolutely. So the plan is clearly to offer salvation to all with the absolute certainty that not all will receive it. Those who choose not to receive it will receive their just reward while those who do will receive mercy. On no count can that be considered unfair ... unless, of course, you're opposed to the God of the Bible. But, at that point you're on your own.

Peace on Earth

If I ask you what the angels said to the shepherds, it is almost a certainty that you'd be able to tell me they said, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men" (Luke 2:14). Interestingly, that's the King James Version and almost no other translation says that. They all agree with "Glory to God in the highest." That's fine. They all agree, with minor variations, with "peace on earth." (You know, like "on earth, peace.") But that last phrase ... it's not the same. The King James suggests God's "good will toward men." Most of them say something like "among men with whom He is pleased." Do you see the conditional there? The Contemporary English Version (CEV) says, "to everyone who pleases God." That is, the peace that God is bringing is limited to those with whom God is pleased and not extended to all. British theologian John Gill (1697-1771) understands it to mean that the peace He is bringing is "to the free favour, good will, and pleasure of God towards chosen men in Christ Jesus." Now that's not quite we've heard, is it?

Of course, this has always been a bit of a problem, hasn't it? Regardless of which translation you read, they all say that Christ was bringing "peace on earth." To which many say, "Where's the peace?" According to one link I found, historians estimate that over the past 3,400 years or so, humans have enjoyed 268 scattered years without war. That's 8%. Where's the peace? Did we misunderstand that? No. Jesus said, "I give you peace, the kind of peace that only I can give" (John 14:27). Fine ... where is it? Wait! He went on to say, "It isn't like the peace that this world can give. So don't be worried or afraid" (John 14:27). So, we're not talking about "world peace" in the sense that we like to think of it. We're not talking about a universal "ceasefire." In fact, Scripture warns about making such claims. "While people are saying, 'There is peace and security,' then sudden destruction will come upon them as labor pains come upon a pregnant woman, and they will not escape" (1 Thess 5:3). God condemned those who "have healed the wound of My people lightly, saying, 'Peace, peace,' when there is no peace" (Jer 6:14). No, the world is at war until the end.

What, then? Where's the promised peace? Where's the peace Jesus said He was leaving? It's not, explicitly, the peace that this world can give. What then? In the John 14 text, Jesus was promising them His Holy Spirit (John 14:26). That's peace. And Paul is clear. "Do not be anxious about anything, 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 understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus" (Php 4:6-7). Believers can find peace in the middle of unrest in their relationship with God. With the Spirit within us and with prayer and supplication with thanksgiving, we can know a peace that is not normal, not human. It is beyond normal comprehension. And it's available ... to all those who are in Christ. So, I guess we know now what the angels meant, eh?

News Weakly - 12/9/23

Antisemitism
The ceasefire between Israel and Hamas ended when Hamas fired rockets into Israel. So VP Kamala Harris is urging Israel to show restraint in responding because too many human shields used by Hamas have been injured. Apparently no one is calling for restraint from the terrorists who calling for the end of the Jews. Which, in my way of thinking, is definitely antisemitic.

Take the Bad with the Good
After the writers started it, the actors went on strike. They've been on strike since July 14. Now they've won $1 billion in new compensation and benefits, ending the strike in Hollywood. Of course, that story alongside Angelina Jolie's "Hollywood is a sick place" story seems like maybe ... just maybe ... actors not acting and writers not writing might be considered an improvement. (Oh, and can you guess who they're planning to pay for those new compensations?)

Your Tax Dollars at Work
Here's the plan. Biden pledges to take $6 billion of your tax dollars and give half to a private company to build its own Los-Angeles-to-Las-Vegas high-speed electric rail line because supplementing a single private entity with your money is in the best interest of the nation. The other half will go to the initial segment of a California-funded project between Los Angeles and San Francisco. Mind you, "The money is a fraction of the total cost to build the routes," so someone is going to benefit greatly from your dollars ... and it's not the American public. You're welcome.

Like Father, Like Son
Hunter Biden has now been indicted on 9 tax charges along with gun charges. I can hear Joe now, shouting, "I don't know the man!" just before the cock crows. Oh, sorry ... mixed metaphors.

Thanks a Lot
Biden (and his ilk) continue to drive the economy. This week they reported that job openings fell to the lowest they've been in 28 months (you know, soon after Biden took office) while jobless claims climbed. Keep this up and a lot more people will be able to vote on Election Day, 2024, without taking time off work.

Must Bee True
The kindly folks at Babylon Bee are standing in solidarity with their fellow fake news writers going on strike at the Washington Post. Nice. The latest GTA -- Grand Theft Auto 6 -- is coming, but some Californians are wondering why they'd play the game if they can just do the actual crimes without consequences in some California cities. Go figure. And three Ivy League presidents testified before Congress (real story) this week about campus antisemitism (which could cost one university $100 million in donations), saying, "Not all calls for genocide are bad." I'm sure the "from the river to the sea" movement (calling for the total elimination of Israel) has a lot of good people in it.

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

Debunked

It's interesting at this time of year the number of "click bait" offerings I see explaining that science has debunked Scripture. They're in lists, usually. You know, "20 things in the Bible disproved by science." That kind of thing. The first one, typically, is "Creation," because, as we all know, Evolution is a proven thing. I mean, it's not, but most seem to think it is. (At no point has science offered any theory of the origin of everything. Just "since the Big Bang" or the like. Further, "proof" is elusive, even for evolutionary science which, many people are unaware, is constantly changing because it keeps disproving itself.) And so it goes. Israel never crossed the Red Sea. That couldn't happen according to science. No global flood, of course. (It's important that you ignore the signs in nature around the world that might lead you to believe it did happen.) Obviously no one rises from the dead. And so forth. Of course, the definition of "miracle" is "an event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws," so by definition Bible miracles would defy science, but that doesn't bother people today.

I started with "It's interesting at this time of year" because one of the most common "Bible myths" debunked in these lists is the Virgin Birth. Now, there are some miracles without which Christianity could not exist. I'm thinking, first and foremost, of the Resurrection. Even Paul said, "If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain" (1 Cor 15:14). Absolutely essential. But what about the Virgin Birth? Is that important? I would argue it is. I would argue that it is essential. Why? First, from a logical approach, Both Old and New Testaments called for it.

Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel. (Isa 7:14)

"Now, Stan, you know that 'virgin' in that text could be translated 'maiden' and not mean a virgin at all." Okay, got it. So the claim in Isaiah that the sign that God would give would be the ordinary birth of a child to a woman. Got it. Remarkable, isn't it? No, the prophecy and promise was a sign (a common biblical term for "miracle") and a virgin, being with child, would indeed be miraculous. When Matthew quotes Isaiah (Matt 1:23), he refers to a "virgin" as well. You'd think a Jewish writer would know his Jewish Bible, wouldn't you? Another thing. If the Holy Spirit was supposed to lead His people into all truth, why is it that all Christians for all time up until the 19th century (the beginning of scientific inquiry into religion¹) understood it to mean "virgin" and not "young maiden"? That would make Him either an incompetent or an ineffective God, wouldn't it? One other logical possibility: it was just wrong. It's a fairy tale made up by people. Which, then, would mean that the Bible is not reliable for truth statements and Christianity is as much a myth as its source book is. No, no, for these logical reasons and more, "born of a virgin" is essential, not optional. There is, however, another reason why it is essential. Scripture claims that sin and death came "through one man" -- Adam. Through Adam, sin passed to all people. If Christ had been fathered by a human father, He would have inherited a human nature that included sin. But Christ's Father wasn't human. As such, Christ could live a sinless life (Heb 4:15), an absolute necessity for the spotless Lamb of God to take away the sin of the world (John 1:29). In order for Christ's death to effectively pay for the sins of the world, He would have to have no sin Himself. That wouldn't be possible if He was born with a sin nature. Thus, a virgin birth where the father was not human was absolutely necessary.

Of course, not everyone agrees with this. Clearly those who deny it deny the reliability of Scripture. Those who deny it also tend to deny miracles at all. You likely will hear them shooting down Creation and Noah's Flood. They have no problem cutting and pasting their Bibles so the stuff they don't agree with is erased and new stuff is inserted to make it more palatable. But if "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work" (2 Tim 3:16-17) and God is faithful and true, then those who deny the Virgin Birth or the rest do so at their own peril, because they are denying what God's Word declares to be true, and Jesus said, "Your word is truth" (John 17:17). It's kind of hard to be classified as a Christian -- a follower of Christ -- while telling us that Christ was wrong, isn't it?
________

¹ Note: Religion in general and God in particular are all about the "supernatural." That is, this by definition is outside of nature, of science. It's like using a voltmeter to measure light intensity. Science is designed to analyze the natural and is not equipped to measure the supernatural. Thus, though there might be touch points between the supernatural and the natural where the supernatural leaves an imprint on the natural, the idea that science can be used to prove or disprove religion is definitionally nonsensical.

Pearl Harbor, 2023

It's only idle imagination -- wild conjecture -- I know, but what if? What if the attack on Pearl Harbor happened today, December 7, 2023? Given the current people in the current United States of America with the current culture and the current mindset, what would happen?

I'm pretty sure there would be loud voices for action, for retaliation, for safety and security. There would have been outrage, of course. But, if you consider, for instance, the response to October 7, 2023, it is my suspicion that there would have been louder voices opposing any of that. There would have been those calling for no war, those calling for the U.S. to disarm. There would have certainly been those urging a ceasefire rather than retaliation. I'm pretty sure there would even be "Pearl Harbor deniers." "It never happened. It's a conspiracy!" (I have, on my wall at home, a paper from July 21, 1969 with the news headline, "Man Walks on the Moon." Recently we had some work done in our house and one of the workers saw that and said, "That never happened." They're doing it today with the October 7 attack.) There would be marches blocking traffic and wreaking havoc demanding we do no harm. They tell me that 2,400 people died in the attack in 1941. They tell me that Japan lost 2.5 to 3 million people including something like 800,000 civilians in the subsequent war, compared to the 111,000 or so Americans who died. That would be unacceptable. No way. And, frankly, patriotism today likely wouldn't have been sufficient to supply the needs of the military to do anything about it anyway. There would undoubtedly be those gloating over it. "America got what she deserved." There would have been fingers pointing to the "sins" of colonialization and racism and such. I'd guess no small number would applaud Japan for their sneak attack. "America earned it."

The response to the bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941 was a surge of outrage and a rush to join the armed forces to secure our nation and punish those who threatened it. The people were willing to make extreme sacrifices overseas and at home to accomplish this. But we live in different times. If the loudest voices clamoring for a ceasefire in Gaza and the end of Israel are any indication, America would have gone out with a whimper. They call that "progressive" and "liberal." I'd guess there are still people around today who would choose different words for it.

Tolerance vs Intolerance

Tolerance. That's all they're asking for. Tolerance. But you conservative folk, you people that hold to an older position, you're intolerant. You don't embrace the new position. You need to be ... tolerant. You need to be inclusive. You need to be nonjudgmental.

In this "battle for the dictionary" world we now find ourselves, it is frightening to see people using words as weapons without regard for the words or their consequences. Tolerance, inclusivity, equality ... these kinds of words are bandied about without regard for their actual meaning and without regard for the outcome if we actually did what they intend we do with them. Take tolerance. To tolerate, according to the dictionary, is "to accept behavior and beliefs that are different from your own, although you might not agree with or approve of them." Notice the critical component -- behavior or beliefs you might not agree with or approve of. If we're talking about things you agree with and approve of, there is no tolerance. There is no need for tolerance. You do not tolerate things you embrace. But today's "tolerance" means "to accept and approve of views opposed to your own." Again, it is not tolerance to accept and approve. It's compromise or acquiescence, but it is not tolerance. So think this through. You have View A and you have View B. They are in opposition. View B tells View A, "You must tolerate our view" by which they do not mean "You must allow us our view" but, instead, "You must reject A and embrace B." Clearly, when you turn that around, you can see it. View B is demanding "tolerance" from View A that requires the elimination of View A. But tolerance is allowing View A to go on even though View B doesn't agree. So those demanding tolerance are actually demanding the elimination of opposing views ... the opposite of tolerance.

You find this problem all over our culture today. "We are inclusive, and if you are not going to be our kind of inclusive, we're going to exclude you." "You need to be nonjudgmental, and if you are not, we will judge you." "You need to show tolerance to our position because we will not tolerate your opposition." It is, in fact, contradictory. It is irrational. It is insane. And we know the actual problem. "The heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick; Who can understand it?" (Jer 17:9). "Even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened" (Rom 1:21). Or, putting it in Jesus's terms, "You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies" (John 8:44). Now, some might say that's intolerant ...