Free?

We here in America have guaranteed freedoms by virtue of our Bill of Rights. Well ... sort of. We know, for example, that we have the freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and the free exercise of religion. But ... do we? I hope you know that these are not absolute. The press, for instance, is not free to print libel. Libel is a printed false statement than can damage someone's reputation. So there is a limit to the freedom of the press. Same goes for speech, too, right? It is called slander, and making a public statement that is false and damages a person's reputation is equally illegal. Free speech is not absolute. Neither is the free exercise of religion. For instance, people that fly airplanes into buildings in the name of their religion don't get a pass because of the First Amendment. So in these examples, there is a common theme. We have such freedoms ... unless they 1) are false and 2) cause harm to others.

This, I'm fairly sure, is the direction we are going in the question of the freedom of religion. They want to shut down our right to believe that certain things indulged by some are sin. Primarily, of course, that would be sexual immorality of various types, especially of the homosexual type. But not just sexual sin. So they try to force businesses, for instance, to violate their religious beliefs in the name of "equal treatment" and then call it "harm" that they were "mistreated." Now, truth be told, very little of that is true. What harm is there in saying, "I'm sorry; I can't do that. But I can direct you to several people who can"? It isn't really mistreatment and there is no real harm. But it doesn't matter. They'll classify it as "brutal" and "hateful" and place it in the "harm" category simply so they can remove your right to the free exercise of your religion.

I don't tell you this so you can gear up for war. I don't offer you this insight so you can build up your defenses and prepare your litigation. This isn't new and it isn't a surprise and, if it is, you weren't paying attention. We should not be suprised even if a "fiery ordeal" came on us (1 Peter 4:12). In fact, that should be cause for rejoicing (1 Peter 4:13). (Yes, let that sink in for a moment. How far are we American Christians from that idea?) No, I'm trying to urge you to keep in mind the purpose. We aren't trying to make people more moral; we're trying to bring them to Christ. We're not trying to express our moral indignation; we're trying to express our dismay that they would not be allowed to inherit the kingdom (1 Cor 6:9-10). Urging people to repent is not a matter of superior morality; it's an act of love. They will often forget that. Don't you forget it. Let none of you suffer as an evildoer or a "meddler" (1 Peter 4:15). "For it is time for judgment to begin at the household of God; and if it begins with us, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God?" (1 Peter 4:17)

Don't Walk

Come with me for a moment to Psalm 1.

Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers; but his delight is in the law of the LORD, and on His law he meditates day and night. (Psa 1:1-2)

If you read that in a simple, straightforward way, you might conclude that we should not be spending any time in the company of sinners. Based on that text, that is not an unreasonable conclusion. Some have concluded that very thing. So they've sequestered themselves in monasteries or communes because "Scripture says so." And that would be a mistake.

"Oh, really?" some might say. "I thought you were all about taking Scripture literally." I am. All of it. If we interpret these verses on their own, that might be where we go, but if we interpret them in the light of Scripture, we would come to a different conclusion. Take, for instance, Paul's instructions "not to associate with sexually immoral people" (1 Cor 5:9). "See? There it is again!" Except Paul explicitly says, "not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world" (1 Cor 5:10). So it does not refer to avoiding worldly sinners. Of course, the most obvious proof of that is Christ Himself who spent so much time in the company of tax collectors and prostitutes and the like that His detractors referred to Him as a "friend of sinners" (Luke 7:34). No, that Psalm 1 text does not mean we must not associate with sinners. If we did not, how would we fulfill the command to "Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation" (Mark 16:15)?

So it doesn't mean not to associate with sinners. We're not done yet. If not that, what? The three parallel types -- the wicked, the sinners, and the scoffers -- need Christ, so we aren't to avoid them. What, then? We are to avoid walking in their counsel, standing in their way, sitting in their seat. We are not to live that way. We spend time with them, but don't operate by their counsel. We are in their company, but don't live their way. We are comfortable in their presence, but not with their lifestyle. We are to be in the world (John 17:15), but not of it (John 17:16). How about you? Does that describe you? Do you embrace the counsel of the world over Scripture? Is your lifestyle a godly one or a worldly one? Are you more comfortable with the world's view or with God's view? Things to ask yourself.

The Name

In his letter to the church at Philippi, Paul tells them to have the same attitude Jesus had -- give up self (Php 2:5-8). Now, that's not natural and that's not easy, but it is commanded. The Christian life should be marked by that kind of humility. It's interesting, then, to continue the thought. Paul goes on to say,

Therefore God has highly exalted Him and bestowed on Him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Php 2:9-11)

Yes, we can all agree ... Paul writes some long sentences. So let's look at it for a moment. The reason God exalted Christ was because He humbled Himself. And the way God exalted Christ was to give Him "the name that is above every name."

That one is a bit puzzling. What name did God give Jesus that is above every name? On the surface, of course, it would seem to be "Jesus." God gave Him that name, remember (Luke 1:31). In another sense, however, it could be "Lord" since that name is above every name and that is what every tongue will confess. Ultimately, I suspect, the reference is not to a noun used to identify a person or thing. Instead, I suspect it's more at the character that the person possesses. For instance, when we baptize it is "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt 28:19). That's not a question of terms, but of authority and character. In the old days when a messenger came to you "in the name of the king," it wasn't a noun in view, but the authority and character of the king. Thus, I would argue that this name above every name wasn't merely "Jesus" or even "Lord," but His overriding authority and character in all things -- above all things.

I want, then, to point out two features here. First, those who agree with this "above all" name will be without exception. Every knee will bow and every tongue confess that He is Lord. In the end, there will be no question or disagreement. For those of us who already agree, we will continue, and for those who have denied it for life, they will submit and agree. All of us. The other feature here is the reason for all of this -- the glory of God the Father. As always, everything is all about that. The sooner we come around to making that our primary concern, the sooner we'll be fully functioning as we are designed to function. -- to the glory of God.

News Weakly - 2/25/2023

Thought Crimes?
The headline said a New York City woman was arrested "for setting Pride flag on fire" along with other crimes. Vandalizing police cars is indeed criminal, but if burning an American flag is acceptable -- even cheered -- what makes the Pride flag sacrosanct? She should be arrested for vandalism and criminal mischief, but we've moved way beyond reasonable laws when disapproving a sexual orientation is criminal.

First World Problems
Two Real Housewives of the Potomac stars named their podcast "Reasonably Shady." Rapper Eminem owns the trademark for "Slim Shady" and "Shady," so he's upset. Good thinking. I am filing a trademark patent on the word "the" and hope to sue anyone in the future who uses "the" without permission. I'm thinking big bucks.

Bizarre
Florida is looking at an unusual lawsuit for the release of a female inmate's unborn baby from detention. The mother is in for killing a woman, but the baby didn't do anything. Interesting -- you can see the ramifications (baby = human life) -- but don't get excited. You know our current court system doesn't like babies.

Ban It ... Ban It All
Coast to coast, we're moving to bizarre bans. In California, a beach city plans to ban balloons from being released. You know ... to save the environment. And in Florida, a state bill proposes making it illegal for dogs to stick their heads out of the windows of moving cars. It's not that Florida is insane, too. The same rule was suggested by the American Humane Society back in June, 2022. America is insane.

Unexpected
Didn't see this coming. The Southern Baptist Convention expelled 6 churches from their denomination this week. One was for its handling of a sex abuse case and the rest were for installing women as pastors. One of them was Rick Warren's Saddleback church. Who'd have thought? A denomination trying to stand on biblical principles?? Go figure!

Seeing is Beelieving
Since Biden was in Ukraine anyway, Hunter Biden asked him to pick up his paycheck while he was there. Makes sense. In other news, a disturbing poll has revealed that 26% of Americans still trust the media. What's up with that?? And have you been following CNN's Don Lemon stuff? Lemon commented that Nikki Haley wasn't "in her prime," insisting that a woman is "in her prime in her 20s, 30s, 40s." CNN didn't let him back the next day. Now they're letting him come back as long as he stops referring to coworkers as "dusty old broads."

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

Work Out Your Salvation

St. Augustine once prayed, "God, command what You will and grant what You command." The prayer brought about the Pelagian controversy in 400 AD when Pelagius took the position that we have the natural ability to do what God commands. The Pelagian Heresy, as it was termed, was shot down at the Council of Carthage in 418 AD and again at the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD, but it still lives today, which is odd because it stands in stark contrast to what Scripture says.

Paul wrote the letter to the church at Galatia because they had a "works" problem. They were being told that we are saved by grace and works. They thought it was "another gospel" and he assured them it was anathema -- accursed (Gal 1:6-9). "You foolish Galatians," he wrote, "who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified? This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?" (Gal 3:1-3) And I'm pretty sure that a lot of Christians would be baffled by the question. "Well, yes, we do perfect it by our efforts, don't we?" No! That's Paul's point. We don't get saved by works and we don't live the Christian life as a function of works -- a function of our efforts. How, then? I mean, doesn't Paul himself say, "We are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them" (Eph 2:10)? So how does this operate if not by works? By the Spirit. Paul puts it most plainly in his letter to the church at Philippi. "It is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure" (Php 2:13). That, Paul says, is how you "work out your salvation with fear and trembling" (Php 2:12) -- God at work in you.

There is no doubt that the natural product of faith in Christ is works. If works do not follow faith, James calls that faith "dead" (James 2:17). But it is not we who produce those works. It is God at work in us. It is God who gives us the will to obey. It is God that gives us the power to do. Good works accompany genuine faith, but they are the fruit of God at work in the believer and not the product of the believer's hard work. Thus, biblically, God commands what He wills and supplies what He commands. Even if your current belief system disagrees.

Confused Conservation

Most people are aware of Southern California's beach cities and suburban sprawl all the way out to the ski resort towns. Some may not know that beyond the populated areas of Southern California there is a big, empty desert. The Mojave Desert is a large, almost entirely empty space populated primarily by coyotes, jack rabbits, and rattlesnakes. Recently I had to travel that route and was surprised at the new thing that was there. For miles and miles they were building solar arrays. Hundreds of acres of solar arrays. Makes sense. California is an environmentalist state dedicated to saving the planet. They've rejected fossil fuel and nuclear power sources and plan to move to more renewable energy -- primarily wind and solar. Add to that the pushing out of natural gas and the push for electric cars and you end up with an affluent state with a really, really high demand for electricity -- a demand they're having trouble meeting.

So they're planting solar fields. Sounds so environmentally friendly, but it's really not. They strip the land down to nothing but dirt and fence it off. Miles and miles of stripped, fenced land. When I was younger (and it continues today), a big ecological problem was the loss of habitat for wildlife. So California is stripping off enmasse large portions of the Mojave Desert in order to provide environmentally friendly power for the masses. They're destroying the environment to preserve the environment.

Where I live used to be the end of civilization. "Drive to the end of the road, turn left, and you're at my house." No more. A few years after we arrived they extended that road and built 600 houses a few miles north of us. But we still had 84 acres of pristine desert to walk through. Until a few years ago they took that, too. Oh, the neighbors were mad. Suddenly snakes and scorpions and coyotes were pushing through their living space. Pets were endangered. Children were at risk. Why? Because they eliminated 84 acres of habitat for the creatures and they had nowhere else to go. California has stripped off hundreds of acres of prime habitat and called it "for the environment." Like "We will exclude people because we're inclusive" or "We will not tolerate intolerance," they've managed again to contradict themselves while they pat themselves on the back for their efforts to save the planet. I'm not sure the planet can survive their efforts to save it.

Atheism

I wrote yesterday about atheists, as if it's cut and dried. It is, as it turns out, not so clear. The truth, as it turns out, is that most of us tend toward atheism in some form or another. We all know about the atheist who affirms boldly, "There is no god at all." We also know about that agnostic who takes the easier route. "I don't know if there is a god, but I'm betting we can't tell and there probably isn't." And, of course, both of these operate on a spectrum from absolute certainty to shrugs and questions. But they're not the only type of atheists out there.

Atheists live their lives without regard to God's commands or perspectives. They substitute themselves as the god of their own lives. As it turns out, most of us do the same to varying degrees. Self-styled "Christians" will claim to believe in God and then proceed to tell you that He is definitely not the God the Bible makes Him out to be. Wrath? No way. Justice? Don't be silly. But even Bible-believing Christians can do this. "Yes, I know it says that God works all things together for good, but it sure doesn't seem that way right now." "Sure, the Bible says He is the only Sovereign" (1 Tim 6:15) "but that doesn't mean He's the only Sovereign. He's given us sovereignty, too." And beyond all this theoretical and doctrinal stuff there is the practical issue. We might all agree there is a God, but we absolutely do not live that way. Every sin we commit (and we all do) is done in the face of God, not in agreement with Him. We all, at times, act as if there is no God to our own shame and detriment. There are philosophical atheists, but we are all, at times, practical atheists ourselves.

Atheism, then, takes many forms. There is the blatant "There is no God" declaration and a life that supports it. There is the "I believe in God" declaration with beliefs that deny it. And there is the "I believe in God" declaration with a life that sometimes doesn't reflect it. Which only goes to show we humans have a problem. Fortunately the God we deny either directly or indirectly has solutions to that problem -- unearned salvation or well-earned damnation. Which solution do you want?

Atheist

In the days of the Roman Empire, the emperor was cast as a deity. There were repurcussions if you didn't agree. And it wasn't too difficult for them because they had lots of deities, so one more wasn't much of a problem. Unless you were a Christian. Christians denied the existence of any other deity except the God of the Bible. So their society referred to them as atheists because they didn't believe in other gods. Of course, they believed in one, but it wasn't their gods, so they were atheists. Today's atheists are more ... atheistic. Atheist Ricky Gervais said, "You don't believe in 2,999 gods. I don't believe in just one more." Turns out the distance between 2,999 and 1 is much less than the distance between 1 and 0.

On one hand, 2,999 and 1 both agree that there is something beyond humans. They simply disagree on who (or how many). but the atheist -- zero gods -- has some huge leaps to make. He has to explain how this universe began. "He does," some will argue. "Evolution." Actually, no, that's not the answer. Evolution is "the origin of the species," but offers nothing on the origin of the universe. "The Big Bang Theory." Nope, that simply suggest how the current universe came to be. It requires that something existed prior to this one. No, how everything came from nothing is unexplainable in the "zero god" group. Then there's the whole "Just because it looks designed doesn't mean it is" problem. They want us to believe that all the order we see is a cosmic accident. It just happened. First there was nothing, then there was something, then there was everything. Somehow a pool of goo produced life. Somehow a single-celled organism (which, by the way, is the fittest life on the planet, so it should be the only) became multi-celled. These multi-celled magically mutated organs that had no purpose at all until other components mutated and then they merged and became complex multi-celled organisms. Eyes, a pulmonary system, the brain, all this and more ... just happened. Now that takes a lot of faith. Then they want to tell us we are wrong, evil, immoral for believing what we believe ... without a universal moral source. And more.

Atheists are incredible people of faith, ignoring logic and evidence to claim that there is actually no god. Despite the difficulty of proving a negative, they assure us that believing in a Designer is irrational, that subscribing to a Lawgiver is arbitrary, and that we are better off if we accept that there is no ultimate purpose to life. That's huge. That's a big difference between believing this god or those gods or this God exists and answers all those massive questions. The distance between one and zero in this case is a vast gap. And, if taken at face value, it is certainly good grounds for hopelessness.

According to Plan

Remember the story of Gideon (Judges 6-7)? The people were living in caves because the Midianites were oppressing them. They would wait until the Israelites planted and gathered and then they would come "like locusts for number" (Judg 6:3) and take everything because Israel was under God's judgment. So Gideon was threshing wheat in secret and God showed up and told him he was to go and deliver Israel from the Midianites. Summarizing, Gideon said something like, "Um ... I don't think ... how? ... I don't see ... okay." So Gideon gathered an army of some 32,000 and said, "Okay, God, I have an army. Let's go." And God said, "Hang on. You have too many." Too many? Against a horde like locusts? God said, "Let those who are scared go home." Imagine Gideon at this point. Who is NOT scared to go into battle? Apparently God knew. Less than a third of them remained. "Okay, God," Gideon said, "I've got 10,000 of the bravest men and we're ready to go." And God said, "Nope! Too many." Too many??? So God devised a test where Gideon took those who drank while kneeling and not those who drank laying on their faces. Odd test, and we don't need to figure out if there was any significance to it. The simple fact is that God left Gideon with an army ... of 300 men. Less than 1% of the mighty army he had amassed. But God had a purpose. He didn't want them to think they managed it on their own. He wanted them to KNOW that God did it. And, as it worked out, He did. So Gideon took some flash-bangs (okay, some torches in pitchers and some trumpets), surrounded the camp, broke the pitchers and blew the horns and terrified the enemy into killing each other. Magnificent! God won and Gideon took part.

It strikes me that we often find ourselves in similar situations. We're facing a problem. We might have a strategy or a plan or maybe a prayer, but it is rarely, "Lord, give me less to work with." No, we're wondering where God is. We're wondering why we're facing this with so little power and so little resources and where is God when it hurts so bad? And, as it turns out, God is at work. He's dealing with the problems in unexpected ways, using us in the process so we can be part, but making it abundantly clear that it's not us who are accomplishing the results, but Him.

Jesus said, "Apart from Me you can do nothing" (John 15:5), and that's not "a little something." From major efforts to your next breath, we accomplish what we accomplish by His work and His power. So when we take credit for it ("That's okay, God, I got this."), we are deceived and dishonor Him. And when we are surprised that He "isn't there" or that He came through, we are missing the point. The battle belongs to the Lord, whether it is brushing your teeth in the morning or surviving cancer. Something to give thanks for every day. It's all going according to plan -- His plan.

Maranatha

Most of us don't realize it, but the book that we call "Revelation" is not actually named that. It is, explicity, "The Revelation of Jesus Christ" (Rev 1:1). That means that He is the one doing the revealing and He is the one about Whom it is written. We associate it with John, the Apostle, but he was more like the secretary taking notes. He was told, "Write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after these things" (Rev 1:19). So, for instance, he records seven letters to seven churches from Jesus (Rev 2-3). At the end, then, it is Jesus "who testifies to these things" and says, "Yes, I am coming quickly" (Rev 22:20).

We have, then, from the mouth of Jesus, the Christ, the promise that He is coming and He is coming quickly -- without delay. Nothing will impede Him from coming suddenly and on time. That's quite a promise. We, bound by human timing, might get a little tired of God's version of "quickly," and we can discuss exactly what "quickly" means, but let's not lose sight of the absolute certainty that He is coming.

I talked to my father this week while he lay in his hospital bed. He is tired and feeble and fading. But he said, clearly, "I wish He would come now." That's something that all true believers can echo. We can agree with John. "Amen. Come, Lord Jesus" (Rev 22:20). Paul used the term, Maranatha (1 Cor 16:22). "Our Lord comes." Amen! Come!

News Weakly - 2/18/2023

Not My Sheep
Apparently Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was miffed that people would say "Jesus gets us" at the Super Bowl. Saying that Jesus cares about the hurt and marginalized makes "fascism look benign" and she was sure Jesus would never do that. To be fair, AOC was accusing those who agree with biblical morality on issues like sex outside of marriage or abortion of being fascists. Something tells me she doesn't know Jesus.

Stand Black, Everyone
Part of the woke Super Bowl event included the singing of the black national anthem before the game. Apparently defeated governor candidate Kari Lake refused to stand for it. Why is that news? We don't even know what "black nation" the anthem is for. Since it is distinct from the American national anthem, it must be distinct from that nation. Since it's the black national anthem, it must not include any other races. So what nation is this? And why would someone expect those who don't know what nation is in view to stand? Isn't "silent and respectful" enough? At least she didn't kneel ...

Getting a Charge Out of it
Everyone knows that we all need to be driving electric cars. Soon. Tomorrow, if possible. So Biden wants 500,000 charging stations by 2030. And Tesla is planning 7,500. So ... who's picking up the next 492,500? Oh, yeah, probably you and me. "You'll buy and e-car and you'll drive an e-car and you'll pay through the nose for it ... if it kills you." I, for one, embrace our environmental overlords.

God on TikTok
This is interesting. An event is going viral -- a nonstop Kentucky prayer revival. A chapel meeting at a Christian college took off on its own with students lingering for the past 7 days straight, 24 hours a day, praying, repenting, calling on God. No lights or screens, special music or other modern conveniences. It is now on TikTok and Instagram, known as the "Asbury Revival," and millions are hearing that God is changing lives. We'll definitely want to keep an eye on this.

What's Fair is Fair
Back in the 19th century the family of a Virginia lawyer donated $25,000 to fund the University of Richmond's T.C. Williams School of Law. The family has regularly donated to continue funding the school. Now the university has prohibited the naming of any building, etc., for a person engaged in slavery, and back in T.C. Williams's day, everyone who was anyone was, so they deleted his name from the school. The family is asking for their $3.6 billion back. Seems fair enough. You don't want the name; you shouldn't keep the money. They plan to use it for charitable purposes since the school has decided to taint the name. Seems reasonable, but don't hold your breath for a settlement.

Bee Prepared
After her Twitter rant, AOC burst into a local Sunday School class to tell them that Jesus was a fascist. Closer to home, a man doesn't understand how a God who is infinitely wiser than him might have a different opinion than he does. I did have to laugh at the headline that God was hopeful that the millions spent on "He Gets Us" at the Super Bowl might finally get Him some exposure. And it is understandable that a scared child would ask his mother to check under the bed for Madonna. I get that.

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

Guilty Unless Proven Innocent

Our legal system hangs on "innocent until proven guilty." Now, not all do. Some assume the opposite, but most civilized countries go with this. Well, in theory. I say that because we've really moved on in practice, haven't we? "She" comes forward and says, "He sexually assaulted me" and before any trial, any examination, any dust gathers on the claim, "he" is out. He's lost his job, his reputation, his future hopes. It's over. Oh, yeah, I guess we should now examine the claim. Or, "He's white, so he's a racist." We can't be bothered with a "trial," with examining the facts and evidence, with testing the theory at all. We've arrived, in fact, at "He's black, but he's a tool of white supremacy merely by being a cop." Guilty almost without any possibility of being proven innocent. It's everywhere these days. Environmentalism, anti-rich, religion, on and on. Guilty until ... well, possibly forever. The standard for proof of innocence is pretty high.

We can't fix that, you and I. But we can address it in ourselves. And, you and I, are often guilty of it on a much more personal level. And that is problematic for us Christians. Jesus made it clear. "This is My commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you" (John 15:12). That's a pretty high standard from the one who gave Himself up, but it's the standard we must meet. Love one another to the point of giving up self. Now, we have a lengthy description of what that love looks like, including being patient and kind, not jealous or arrogant, not keeping account of wrongs, and not seeking its own. This love that we owe one another "bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things" (1 Cor 13:4-8). If our love for one another includes believing the best of one another, how does "guilty without being proven guilty" work for us? Doesn't the love we are commanded to give to one another demand we believe the best, even against much evidence?

The world will do what the world will do. It is, by nature, opposed to God. We are not. We are to be marked by love for one another (John 13:35). That should be our primary marching orders. Our society is known as a "cancel culture." We should not be part of that culture. We should be radical ... in love.

Fruit Inspectors

You know, it seems as if Jesus was really concerned about fruit. Why would I say that? Well, in the Gospels Jesus speaks of fruit 34 times. Not a small number. He tells us that we will know the wolves among the sheep by their fruits (Matt 7:16, 20). He goes on to assure us that good trees bear good fruit (Matt 7:17). You know the sort of "tree" it is by the fruit it bears (Matt 12:33). He cursed the tree for failing to produce fruit (Matt 21:19). In the parable of the sower, you recognized the good soil by the distinction that it bore fruit (Luke 8:14-15). Then there was His whole "I am the vine and you are the branches" lesson (John 15:1-8). In fact, Jesus told His disciples that they were appointed to go and bear fruit (John 15:16). That was their purpose. God is glorified in it (John 15:8).

What is this thing called "fruit"? First, we have to see that there is "good fruit" and "bad fruit." That's a clue. Clearly then, given Jesus's "good trees bear good fruit" concept, fruit would be the natural expression of the kind of "tree" we are. In line with this, we are told to "bear fruit in keeping with repentance" (Matt 3:8). Our actions ought to show that we have repented -- changed directions. Paul wrote, "Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death" (Rom 7:4-5). Given the "fruit" from being in the flesh -- sinful passions -- apparently the fruit of having died with Christ is not sinful passions. Instead "we serve in newness of the Spirit" (Rom 7:6). Ah! So this fruit would include serving. And, of course, who can forget the obvious? The deeds of the flesh are evident (Gal 5:19-21), "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law" (Gal 5:22-23).

And there it is. The explicit fruit we who are connected to the Vine should bear would be actions and attitudes that reflect those traits. Nine simple things. Is that you? Does your everyday existence reflect love? Would you classify yourself as "at peace" or "joyful"? Do people see you as patient and kind? Are you faithful? Gentle? Good? Oh, how about "self-control"? Jesus said we can tell the kind of "tree" we are by the fruit we bear. Bearing the right fruit is our purpose and glorifies God. Jesus gave no room "fruitless trees." As we can tell others by their fruit, are we examining our own? Jesus seemed to think it was important (Matt 7:19; John 15:6).

Foundational

I started this blog back in 2006. That's nearly 17 years of blogging here. I've averaged one blog a day. That's a lot of entries -- more than 6100 entries. And I've had my fair share of comments and commenters -- more than 22,000 comments. I even had Brian McLaren of the Emerging Church movement tell me I was wrong. In all that time, I've had one rule -- keep it friendly. In all that time, I've only had to ban two ... count 'em, two ... commenters. I've never banned anyone for disagreeing. In fact, I've had some very friendly disagreements with disagreers. (That may not be a word.) Disagreement was not the criteria. No, it was hostility, foul language, things I didn't need my mother to see when she read my blog. Only two. Of those, one still comments (although, for the life of me, I can't begin to fathom why). The other commented for awhile after I banned him but he (wisely) gave up ... until recently. In the last 2 weeks or so, however, he has fired back up the comment mill. I've had maybe 20 or more comments, rapid fire, from him ... on one, single entry. What has angered him so much that he continues to rant while I continue to ignore? It was that Biblically Biblical post where I contended that the Bible, as the Word of God, has the authority of God. Oh, no, that will never do.

I feel like the psalmist who wrote,

Why are the nations in an uproar and the peoples devising a vain thing? The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers take counsel together against the LORD and against His Anointed, saying, "Let us tear their fetters apart and cast away their cords from us!" (Psa 2:1-3)

And I think it's the very same reason. You see, we are a people of the written tradition. It wasn't always so. They used to be of the oral tradition. In earlier times history and information passed by mouth. Since it was the only means of passing such information, they were very careful. They memorized and repeated it word for word. I read about a test done in the Middle East. You know that old "Telephone Game" where a person whispers something to the person next to him and that person passes it on until we all laugh at the end where the last person says what they heard and it is SO FAR off? They tried that in the Middle East where the oral tradition is largely prevalent ... and it didn't work at all. So fixed were they on correctly transmitting what was said that they didn't alter it at all. Well, no longer. We're all about writing. We don't even have to remember it; just look it up. And that's fine. So here we have this document, God-breathed (2 Tim 3:16), written by men moved by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:21), an authoritative and sufficient (2 Tim 3:17) document that God passed down for us. And that's a problem. It's in writing. Look it up. Now what? How do you refute it? How do you contradict it? What can you say? So the Bible for all of Church history has been under attack because if we have this irrefutable document on which to rely and consult for what is and isn't true -- what is and isn't God's thoughts on doctrine and matters of faith -- then the naysayers are done. They'll have to rely on "Did God really say ...?" (to which we can always reply, "Yes, here it is ... read it for yourself").

From the beginning God has been opposed, first by Satan in the form of the serpent in the garden and then by his followers. It will ever be thus until God brings it to an end ... which is a fixed time and closer every day. Satan tried back then and has tried, as has his followers, ever since to undermine the reliability of God, so it is no surprise that they continue to do so today. Jesus called them wolves in sheep's clothing (Matt 7:15) because they often appear to be on our side. They cloak it in "science" and "philosophy" and erudite, even religious learning, but it's all the same thing. Undercut the written document we have in our hands from God, and they can undercut God. Then all we have to stand on is our opinion ... or theirs. They'd much rather you stand on theirs. Yours is so ... godly. Don't be confused by the battle as if it is new. Be confident in the God who gave us His Word. It is, as He is, a firm foundation.

Love Day

Valentine's Day. It has its roots in the Roman festival of Lupercalia which celebrated the coming of spring and featured fertility rites. The day includes the name of a 3rd century saint -- Saint Valentine -- who ministered to persecuted Christians and became associated with courtly love -- love that emphasized nobility and chivalry. Legend has it that when the Emperor Claudius II banned marriage for a time, Valentine secretly performed marriages for young couples. Oh, and he was martyred for it. Ah, sweet romance! (Legend has it he sent a letter from prison to a young woman with whom he had fallen in love and signed it, "Your Valentine." There ya go!)

Since then, of course, we've moved "love" from "die for each other" and "always seeking the best for the other," from "patient and kind," "does not take into account wrongs suffered," and "bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things" (1 Cor 13:4-8) to "Hey, baby, I think you're really hot." We've moved from self-sacrifice to self-satisfaction. Now it's a warm feeling, chemistry, a pretty face. Oh, and hopefully, some sex.

Jesus said that His disciples would be known by their love for one another (John 13:35). That's not merely their "warm affection" for one another. It is Jesus's sacrificial love (Gal 2:20; Eph 5:2). Let the world play with their emotional version. It's not horrible. But you, brothers and sisters, should also give Jesus's version a try. It is, after all, what we're here for.

Obsessed

People, unbelievers and believers alike, often view Christians as obsessed with sex. Oh, not like unbelievers are. No, unbelievers are obsessed with revelling in it. But believers seem to be obsessed with opposing it. I mean, we know there are "evils" everywhere. There is gun violence and murder, rape and hate. There is poverty and injustice and a whole list of evils. It feels, though, as if the main thrust of the Christian world is opposition to sexual sin to the exclusion of all others. Why is that?

There are a variety of answers to that question. On one hand, it is abundantly clear that most of us consider that list of evils that I just gave you above are ... evil. We are not divided on that. They say murder is evil; we say murder is evil. We agree! So why beat that drum? We might differ on the source of the problem or the solution to the problem, but we do not differ in identifying murder and rape (for instance) as evils. Not so with sexual sin. In our day our society has determined to label almost nothing as "sexual sin." Oh, there are still a few corners -- incest, polygamy, pedophilia, bestiality, and the like -- but our current standard of determining right and wrong -- "love is love" -- along with the modern link of "love" with "sex" means that it will be impossible to continue the notion that any sex that two (or more) people choose to engage in will be considered evil. So we act as the red light on the dash board that tells you your oil is low. "You don't know it, but you are currently embracing a very dangerous behavior and we need to warn you."

Which leads to the other primary point. Sin, by its very nature, is bad. No, I don't mean merely "naughty" bad. I mean harmful. The repeated warning in Scripture is that those who surround themselves with sin will not inherit the kingdom. And, interestingly, in the lists of sin that disqualify people for the kingdom, sexual sins always ranks near the very top. That is, Scripture seems to rank sex outside of marriage in whatever form that takes as a real problem that needs to be addressed ... often. Since our world has come to accept sex outside of marriage (God's version in particular) as normal and healthy, we're talking now about a blind population that is, in essence, taking poison and enjoying it.

Jesus told us to love each other as He loved us -- sacrificially. We are to seek the best for those around us. So it isn't a quest for power or some archaic morality that is our concern. It is the well-being of the people around us who are completely oblivious to the dangerous ground on which they are standing. To say nothing would not be an option if we are to be loving people. So, despite the fact that they don't want to hear it, we need to point to the truth of their perilous condition. It's what people who love other people do.

Unfinished Business

Last November my father turned 93. We learned this week that he was being assigned to hospice care. End of life stuff. It is, indeed, sad for the family. But not devastating. He has loved the Lord for longer than most of us have lived both in word and in deed and he'll be going home when he leaves us. So we sent out word to the family that time is shorter than we realized and, in the process, a term kept surfacing -- "unfinished business." On one hand, in our family conversations it was, without exception, "I have no unfinished business with Dad." And that speaks well, I think, of both my father and the family. But you get the idea. Often there are things left unsaid, issues left unsettled, and so on at the end of someone's life.

I get why that is for most of the world, but why would it be so for believers? Biblical instructions aren't vague. Take, for instance, Jesus's instructions in the Sermon on the Mount. "If you are presenting your offering at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your offering there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering" (Matt 5:23-24). Now, I think a lot of us read that backward. We think it refers to when you remember you have something against someone else you. That's not what it says. If you remember that someone else has something against you, go immediately and "be reconciled." Before your next interaction with God. Now! No unfinished business. So what if you have something against someone else? That's even simpler. "For if you forgive others for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions" (Matt 6:14-15). Forgive. No unfinished business.

We have one basic command for all our interpersonal relationships: "This is My commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you" (John 15:12). That ought to cover it, shouldn't it? If we are to be known by our love for one another (John 13:35), we shouldn't have unfinished business. We ought to be speaking the truth to each other in love (Eph 4:15). We should be demonstrating love to each other. We should be loving sacrificially ... as Christ has loved us. No unfinished business. And I'm confident that a clean slate like that at all times would make our lives much more comfortable.

News Weakly - 2/11/2023

Solving the Problem
The U.S. Deparment of Transportation called highway deaths a "crisis" that has killed more than 40,000 people in a year. Since that is almost 4 times the number of people that have died from gun-related incidents, the government is focusing on ... urging people to be responsible and not banning cars ... the exact opposite of their plan on gun control.

Global Something
Mount Washington in New Hampshire recorded the lowest temperature ever recorded in U.S. history -- -108°F. Couple that with that freeze as far south as Texas and, I'm telling you, if this global warming keeps up we're all going to freeze to death.

Modern Sin
The Church of England continues to explore a new "Christianity" for their own use. This time they're considering making God gender-neutral. No more "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit," for instance. Because our world has gone radically insane, being gendered is considered noninclusive. They're perfectly willing to correct Jesus's error when He taught His disciples to pray, "Our Father ..." You have to give them their due. Takes some sort of courage to "follow" Christ and tell Him He was quite mistaken.

Stunning Turn
Then, on the heels of that last story, instead of holding fast on same-sex marriage like they "tried to" last week, the Church of England decided to go ahead and bless same-sex couples. Shouldn't be a surprise, since they are primarily a state church and essentially disconnected from what we might call "Christianity" as demonstrated by blessing what God called an "abomination."

Name Dropping
For a long, long time we've used terms connected to Native Americans in things like sports teams and mascots. It's easy to understand why. We see them as fighters, as strong, as real warriors ... just like we want our teams to be. Well, since the Kansas City Chiefs are in the Super Bowl, (some) Native Americans are protesting again. "Drop the name. Drop the mascot." They will fight to assure us that the respect we've had for their strength and tenacity is misplaced and they will not tolerate it ... oh ... wait ... tell me again what's wrong here?

What Could the SOTU Bee?
The big news this week, of course, was the State of the Union address. The Bee reported that everyone was surprised to see that the Republicans thought Biden did a terrible job, but Democrats loved it. There was a Silver Alert out about a lost old man yelling on the Capitol grounds. And, as expected, this State of the Union was sponsored by Pfizer. Finally, I hate to mention it, but when did feminists start criticizing a woman for interrupting a man? Strange times.

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

Redefining Marriage

When I speak of redefining marriage, you, my faithful readers, will automatically leap to "He's talking about same-sex marriage." Sometimes. Not this time. You see, the process of redefining marriage did not start with the LGBT alphabet soup. We've been at it a long time. My wife received a piece of official mail yesterday and I noticed the address. It gave her the title of "Ms." And I caught it, right there. Redefining marriage has been in the works for decades -- most intensely from the 1960's. That's when they yanked "love" from its moorings of seeking the best for others and dragged it into "sex," as in "making love." That phrase originally meant doing things that inspired a connection, close feelings, likely aiming at a permanent relationship that we called (back then) "marriage." Today's version, oddly enough, doesn't even need to include warm feelings. Two people in today's world can "make love" without feeling warmly toward each other -- friends with benefits or maybe a one-night stand.

Enter the '70's. Having hacked down the root of marriage -- genuine love -- and replaced it primarily with sex, we went to work on the permanence of marriage. "No fault divorce" took the country by storm. Not only should we be allowed to divorce for cause; we should be allowed to dismember this "two become one" for no cause except "irreconcilable difference" (read "whatever I want it to mean"). Feminists kicked in with vigor, demanding to no longer be called "Mrs" but now be just "Ms" because marital status was irrelevant. "We will not be defined by our marital status." So "two become one" shifted into oblivion. I had someone ask me (15 years ago, now) "My fiance wants to keep our money separate. Is that okay?" How do you practice "two become one" by keeping your lives separate? But that wasn't an outlandish question; it was normal. And, of course, that other pesky problem had to be addressed -- reproduction. In 1958 we hit a peak 3.6 births per woman. In 1979 we bottomed out at 1.8 births per woman. Marriage and procreation had been untied. In 1970 roughly 8 million children lived in single-parent families. In 2022 that number was 19 million.

The biblical definition of marriage is the union for life of a man and a woman for the purposes of procreation and mutual support. God thought so (Gen 2:24). So did Jesus (Matt 19:4-5). So did Paul (Eph 5:31). So when, in 2008, the Supreme Court of California knowingly rejected the "longstanding, traditional definition of marriage" and instituted something we term "same-sex marriage," it was clearly a redefinition. But it wasn't the first. More to the point, it was more like the last. The last vestiges of God's version of marriage were brought down. We took it down, piece by piece, over decades. It was so subtle and so gradual that Christians often miss it. Christians operate under this new un-definition of marriage. Is it any wonder then that divorce rates have jumped dramatically since the 1950's while "marriage" rates (in quotes since "marriage" is no longer clearly defined) are way down and single-parent children are way up? Is it really a surprise that, given the fact that the foundational concept of family as "married with children" is now a punchline from a TV show, our society is devolving? Why would we expect better values, better morality, better kids, better lives? But I want to point out that, in fact, the redefinition of marriage was not the actual target here. The actual target was God and His values and His plans. Marriage was designed to represent the relationship of Christ and His bride (Eph 5:31-32). This is a larger coup attempt than merely taking down marriage. As such, expect it to have a larger effect than is readily apparent.

Prayer

When I was growing up, it seemed like we were in church a lot. We had Sunday service and Sunday school on Sunday morning, but there was a Sunday evening service, too. We had a youth group gathering on one evening of the week and, of course, the ubiquitous "Wednesday night prayer meeting." It wasn't unique; it was everywhere. No more. We've grown up. We've adjusted. We've compensated. We've compromised. If you'll show up once a week, we'll be happy. Twice is really godly. And that Wednesday night prayer meeting? That's a fossil from a previous era, hardly even a memory.

It's odd, too, if you think about it. Jesus didn't recommend prayer; He urged it. He commanded it. He taught His disciples to pray (Matt 6:5-15). He commanded them to "Ask" (Matt 7:7-11). He called His house "a house of prayer" (Matt 21:13). He taught His disciples to pray and not lose heart (Luke 18:1-14). Prayer, to Jesus, was not ancillary, not peripheral, not even optional. Paul took that up, too, urging us to "pray without ceasing" (1 Thess 5:17). He called us to pray for all people (1 Tim 2:1-3) and to pray about everything that concerned us (Php 4:6-7). And neither Jesus nor Paul were alone in it. The Bible is full of prayers and praying people.

Modern American churches these days have figured out that we're just not interested. When Paul wrote, "God loves a cheerful giver" (2 Cor 9:7), we use that to say, "See? I don't have to give" rather than "I need to learn to be cheerful about giving." And when American Christians said, "Thanks but no thanks" to gathering for prayer, churches understood that to mean, "We don't need to pray" rather than "We are failing to teach our people to pray." Since so much is promised in Scripture for people who pray, and we tend not to be people who pray, I suppose it's not particularly surprising that we are weaker and less blessed than we should be, is it? We ought to be people of prayer, a people on their knees, as it were. We ought to start with, "Lord, teach us to pray!" (Luke 11:1) I think we'd see an entirely different body of Christ if we did.

Mt Sinai

I was revisiting the 20th chapter of Exodus -- the giving of the 10 Commandments. If you recall, there was a big run-up to the event, with consecrations and purifications and rules about touching the border of the mountain and such. God was coming. So everyone gathered and the mountain was covered with smoke and there was thunder and the ground quaked and God Himself spoke to the people of Israel gathered to hear. So chapter 20 begins, "Then God spoke all these words, saying ..." and they got the famous 10 commandments straight from the mouth of God. When He finished, the people told Moses, "Speak to us yourself and we will listen; but let not God speak to us, or we will die" (Exo 20:19).

You and I have never been there. You and I have never stood in the presence of God in that form -- terrible and awful and so scary we couldn't tolerate it. All we have is this kind of thing -- the texts that tell us of it. So we are likely a little less clear than the people were who were too scared to let it continue. In fact, we're quite cavalier about coming into the presence of God.

Interestingly, while the people were too terrified to let it continue, Moses later asked for more (Exo 33:18). While the people of Israel retreated, Moses advanced. Because, as terrifying as the very real presence of God might be, actually being there is the place we were designed to be. So we -- modern believers -- might think that being in the presence of God is "cool" or "fun" or "a really great place to be," it is my suspicion that we, in fact, are inaccurate at either end. We neither comprehend the terror of the presence of God nor the rapture of the presence of God. Now, what did Jesus call that? Oh, yeah ... lukewarm. May it never be!

Confused

Someone here is confused. It's either me ... or the pope. Or, perhaps, both. Yesterday the pope declared (to a reporter) that criminalizing homosexuality is a sin. Do you get that? It is a sin to criminalize what the pope regards as a sin. So I'm confused because it seems as if the pope is confused.

Without defending or opposing the criminalization of a sexual behavior (I oppose the use of the term "homosexuality" as it is exercised today as a "born this way" condition, an identity by birth, a condition without choices), let's think through the pope's position: It is a sin to criminalize sins. Now, we routinely criminalize acts such as murder, theft, rape ... all sorts of sins. The pope apparently doesn't object. But his logic is, "Persons with homosexual tendencies are children of God. God loves them." Now, Mr. Pope, you and I agree (to a point) on this. I don't go full-on "children" since Scripture describes a special class of "children" -- the adopted -- who are not in the same category as "children" -- the created. But God loved the world in this way -- He sent His only Son so that whoever believed on Him would not perish. In that sense, God loves them. Beyond that, we all agree (or, at least, we all should agree) that God loves sinners (Rom 5:8). The pope and I agree to that point. Does that mean, then, that we cannot criminalize the behavior of those whom God loves? That doesn't make any sense at all since God Himself did it. (See, for instance, Exo 20:1-17.) Since God criminalizes sinful behavior, can we humans classify that as sin? There are reasons to criminalize some moral issues and not others, just as there is a need to criminalize some purely practical things (like speeding laws) and not others. But "God loves them" is not a reason not to pass laws on a sin issue.

It is, of course, the product of confusion. We get confused by the term "homosexuality" thinking that is an innate condition over which we have no choice in our actions and any such choices are, therefore, good. God disagrees. We get confused by the term "love" thinking that it cannot include rules or judgment. God disagrees. We get confused by the concept of "law" thinking that it is a human endeavor aimed at making better people. God disagrees (Rom 3:20). And Scripture is abundantly clear that "antichrists" (1 John 2:18) will come "out from us" (1 John 2:19) as a demonstration that "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). So let's not allow ourselves to be deceived ... as is our tendency (Jer 17:9).

The Root of the Problem

I once read that the most offensive verse in Scripture is "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Gen 1:1). I think that is very likely the truth. Scripture says that "the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God" (Rom 8:7). Scripture says that God's wrath "is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness" (Rom 1:18) because "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). So it would stand to reason that the whole problem is centered on God's claim to Creation and, therefore, authority and supremacy.

Once we've established the root problem -- rebellion against the Most High -- we can see why so many things become so much of an issue. If we have rejected God, why would we honor His Word? If we have denied His authority, why would we submit to it? If we will not allow Him to be our Master, why should we care what He says or honor Him in any way? So we kick Him out of every door we can find. He is no longer Creator; we have Science for that. He is no longer the Lawgiver; we have "common sense" for that. He is no longer our Master; we have ... ourselves for that. And, having tossed God off the throne of most aspects of our lives, we can pretty much do what we want and celebrate it. Like Scripture says (Rom 1:18-32).

Of course, we won't do all this out in the open. For one, there is something in all of us (Rom 1:19) that tells us we're lying to ourselves. And, besides, there is a modicum of comfort in deceiving ourselves into thinking we're for God while we work in opposition to God. We will hold to a form of "godliness" while we deny its power (2 Tim 3:5). And we will hide ourselves amongst the sheep to give ourselves an appearance of religiosity (1 John 2:18-19). Ultimately, we will reject everything I'm writing here because, after all, we know better ... and God does not. "I will make myself like the Most High" (Isa 14:14). That's the root of the problem.

A Cake Walk in a Storm

It is fairly common knowledge that Jesus walked on water. Even unbelievers know the story. They use "walk on water" as a metaphor for the perfect person. What a lot of people don't realize is that Jesus was not the only one in that story to do it. If you recall, the disciples were in a boat in a storm when Jesus came strolling along. They were, understandably, terrified. But Jesus said, "Take courage, it is I; do not be afraid" (Matt 14:27). So brazen Peter called out, "Lord, if it is You, command me to come to You on the water" (Matt 14:28), and He did. So, the text says, "Peter got out of the boat, and walked on the water and came toward Jesus" (Matt 14:29). Amazing! Startling! Actually, very cool! So why isn't Peter thought of in the phrase "walk on water"? Well, because the very next thing he did was look away from the Master and look at the wind and waves ... and he began to sink (Matt 14:30).

We live in turbulent times. Sin is rampant, even applauded and encouraged. The undercurrent in our society is more and more anti-Christian. There is death and destruction, diseases and disasters, conspiracies and confusion -- lots and lots of reasons to be concerned. So what do we do? Let us not do what Peter did. Let's not set our eyes on the storm, but look, instead, at the Savior who called us to be here.

Now, I'm sure, in theory, you can see the wisdom of such a course of action. You know, "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). Or how about "Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things" (Php 4:8)? That kind of thing. So how do we do that when we spend so much time on the news, current events, Facebook/Instagram/etc., the Internet ... all things aimed at churning the waters and getting our eyes on the storm and not Christ? Maybe ... just maybe we would do well to reconsider the inordinate amount of time we seem to spend on the storm and look to the Savior instead. We, too, can walk on water.

News Weakly -- 2/4/2023

"But ... I Identify!"
A 29-year-old woman in New Jersey produced a fake birth certificate to enroll in the local high school. They caught her 4 days later. She's being charged with posing as a teenager. Now, I know no small number of adults who could be charged with that. And, hey, if "he" can identify as a "she," why can't this 20-something identify as a teen? (For you nitpickers, no, she wasn't charged with pretending to be a teen. She was charged with presenting false paperwork. It was the CNN story that said otherwise.)

Believe the Science
Not. Surgeon General Murthy told CNN that 13-year-olds are too young to join social media. Science has been warning about this for a long time. But, hey, if the kid wants it, what good parent won't let them have it, right? "Here, daughter. Here's the hand grenade you asked for. A good parent satisfies the wishes of their children." What could go wrong?

Surprise, Surprise
The story says that seven of nine Seattle council members are quitting because their constituents won't tolerate their "ultra-liberal" policies ... like defund the police. Homelessness and crime increased, and 160 businesses (like Amazon) left because of Seattle's "hostile environment." We're surprised by this, I'm sure. I mean, how could "turn over downtown to violent protesters" and "defund the police" and such go wrong?

Avoiding Conspiracy Theories
The Agricultural Adjustment Act was a federal law that paid farmers not to farm in order to keep the prices of farm products higher. That program ended, but this week, as the price of eggs is skyrocketing, 100,000 chickens died in a fire in Connecticut. Now, I'm sure that's not a government-subsidied plan to keep us paying more for eggs ... right?

Business as Usual
The president has made it clear that, while he may talk to House Speaker McCarthy, he will certainly not negotiate with him, at least as far as the debt ceiling is concerned. Those pesky Republicans think that cutting big government spending is the right thing to do, but Biden believes that debt ceilings are made to be broken, so just raise it (or eliminate it?) and let's get on with the business of taking our people's money.

No Limit
We already know that we've reached the debt limit and we already know that something is going to have to change and we already know that the Democrats in charge will not change their spending habits as exemplified in another $2 billion plus to supply Ukraine with weapons. Is there no point at which we might say, "Enough!" I suppose not, as long as we keep voting in the high spenders. But since we do, I suppose we have no standing to complain.

Where Babies Go to Die
Minnesota's governor signed into law a sweeping abortion bill this week. Some crusty district court judge last summer upheld laws like 24-hour waiting period and a requirement for parental notification for minors, but the state now has essentially no restrictions on abortion. Minnesota is proving itself to be a very cold state when it comes to the lives of the most vulnerable humans. Things just got more dangerous for babies in Minnesota.

Another One Filed Under "What Could Go Wrong?"
Meet Isla Bryson, 31 -- previously known as Adam Graham. Adam was convicted of raping two women, but prior to his trial, he decided he was a woman, so when he was convicted and sentenced, he/she was going to Scotland's only all-female prison. Makes sense. What could go wrong? I guess Scotland's First Minister decided something could go wrong. Haters are everywhere.

Harder to Beelieve Than Not To
It's the stuff of miracles! The White House will announce the end of COVID in May (real news), which means that Biden has managed to end COVID three times (Bee news). Quite a feat! Egg prices have shot up 60% in a year (real news), so a Payday Loan Center opened up shop in the egg aisle at the local market (Bee news). Probably a good idea. After reports of a Chinese spy balloon floating across the northwestern U.S. (real news), Biden promised to shoot it down just as soon as it's done spying (Bee news). And this week Punxsutawney Phil emerged from his burrow and reported there were some classified documents down there.

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

My Most Authentic Self

We have arrived at a new mantra these days. Far from the old "Children should be seen and not heard," we've moved to "I can only be fully satisfied if I am my most authentic self." You know. "Follow your heart." "You can be whatever you want to be." "Don't let anyone tell you you can't." No one seems to notice how dangerous these things can be because, I suspect, we believe that all people -- especially kids -- are basically good, so "my most authentic self" and "whatever I want to be" will likely be good. In the words of Bugs Bunny, "He don't know me very well, do he?"

In Proverbs we read, "Train up a child in the way he should go, Even when he is old he will not depart from it" (Prov 22:6). Some people see that as a promise. It's not; it's a proverb. It is proverbial -- common knowledge, stereotypical, generally true. But it's interesting, too, that some are suggesting that the word "should" is a bit mistaken. It might be better translated "would." The most literal translation of the Hebrew here is "in his own way." The Amplified Bible includes the phrase, "in keeping with his individual gift or bent." If that is accurate, the idea would be that if you train up a child in they way he (or she) would naturally tend to go, it will become nearly impossible to change them later in life. A warning rather than a promise.

If we are to take a biblical worldview, human beings all have deceitful, desperately wicked hearts (Jer 17:9). "No one does good; not even one" (Rom 3:12). So "follow your heart" is a recipe for disaster. What's needed is a corrective, a reliable source to apply to guide the heart, the self, to what it should be rather than where it would naturally go. If "my most authentic self" is a sinner, aiming for that is a bad idea. Appealing to the "heart-Maker" -- the One that promises a new heart (Ezek 36:26), a new self (Eph 4:24; Col 3:10) -- would seem the best approach. As obvious as that might be, it appears our current society sees no reason to be concerned with "you do you" mentality.

Biblically Biblical

Dan complains that no one has answered his question about where we get this silly idea that the Bible is our authority on matters of faith and practice. I don't know why he complains so since I've answered it multiple times, but I'm willing to lay it out again once more, if only to give you readers who do get it the facts and thinking that drives us to the doctrine of sola scriptura.

First, we need to understand that when, say, Jesus referred to "the Scriptures" in the Gospels, He was referring to what we call the "Old Testament." The word, "Scriptures", is, in general, a reference to "the writings", but in practice it refers specifically to what we would call "the sacred writings" -- those things written down from God for His people. All Jesus had in His day was the Old Testament. But we also know that the New Testament writers understood that the New Testament was also Scripture. This is absolutely clear when, for instance, Peter refers to Paul's writings as part of the Scriptures (2 Peter 3:14-16). So, since our Bibles recognize both Old and New Testament as "the Scriptures" -- sacred writings -- then so should we.

As we all know, the clearest statement on the significance of the Scriptures is found in 2 Timothy.

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)

This statement gives us the two most important claims regarding Scripture. First, we have its origin. Second, we have its efficacy. "All Scripture," it begins, "is breathed out by God." Older versions have "inspired," but that's not the idea of this word. It isn't "breathed in." God ... exhaled it. The origin of Scripture is not a bunch of old men making stuff up. It is God. The authority of Scripture, then, is God. In older times when a king would write a decree, the decree had authority not because of the paper or the words, but because of the origin -- the king. The origin of Scripture is God, so Scripture has the authority of God. And how effective is this Scripture? The text says that it is "profitable" -- it actually serves the purpose of -- teaching, reproof, and training "so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." Clearly, this text says that the Scriptures are perfectly sufficient to accomplish what God in His speaking intended to accomplish -- sufficiency for His people to be what He wanted them to be.

The logic is irrefutable. The source of Scripture is God, giving it God's authority, and the purpose of Scripture is to give us all we need to be what we're supposed to be. Still, the skeptic will skepticize. "God's Word means more than Scripture." Scripture disagrees; it says it is sufficient for all. "God uses other means, too." Scripture disagrees. Oh, God does use other means, but all under the umbrella of Scripture, since Scripture is sufficient. "It's just your interpretation." Well, sort of. Peter, writing about "prophecy", said, "But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God" (2 Peter 1:20-21). Now, don't get confused here. The job of every prophet was to be the mouthpiece of God. It didn't require "telling the future." "Prophecy" is the biblical term for speaking God's words -- "Thus saith the Lord." Scripture, then, is "prophecy" in that sense -- God's words. Thus, the stuff that God says in the Scriptures is not a matter of one's own interpretation. Those guys who wrote it down didn't interpret it themselves and spit out a mistaken opinion. It was not an act of human will. Men, moved by the Holy Spirit, spoke from God. And since we believe God to be the origin and God to be infallible and God to be the superintendent of the Scriptures, we would logically assume it is authoritative, accurate, and infallible. So, to the extent that we agree with what was intended, guided by the Holy Spirit, we, too, are speaking from God. That's not a matter of arrogance; that's the role of a good servant. Correcting the Master where He might be mistaken is not.

I hope those of you who are not prone to simply be contrary can now see why we say that the Scriptures are our sole authority on matters of faith and practice. It is based on Scripture, supported by Jesus (John 17:17), founded on God as our authority and Scripture as sufficient. Which leaves us as a final thought from Paul.

If anyone advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain. (1 Tim 6:3-5)

I didn't say that; Scripture did.

Biblical Slavery

There aren't too many words in the English language that cause the same gut reaction as that word, "slavery." We react with a collective, historical revulsion to the idea of being kidnapped and carried off and sold into slavery. It's wrong ... just wrong. So it is with that same gut reaction that we often receive this kind of stuff in Scripture. Paul called himself a "bond-slave of Christ" (Rom 1:1, Gal 1:10; Titus 1:1), as did James (James 1:1), Peter (2 Peter 1:1), Jude (Jude 1:1), and John (Rev 1:1). All those writers of the New Testament didn't bat an eye at the term. But Paul really threw down hard on the concept.

Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness? But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed, and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness. (Rom 6:16-18)

To many, the whole concept is unacceptable, but let's look at it a moment. Maybe we're simply applying a version of "slavery" that is not in view here. According to Dictionary.com, a slave is 1) a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another and forced to provide unpaid labor, or 2) a person entirely under the domination of some influence or person. If you look for a moment at this text, I think you'll see it's not that version of "slave." Note, first, that it is based on a heart condition -- "you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed." It is not involuntary. It is not even ownership. It is "from the heart." We are slaves, according to this text, based on that to which we subject ourselves. You choose. Do you submit yourself to sin or do you submit yourself to righteousness? Note, also, that there are no other options. "I reject slavery" in this context is simply a self-delusion. Autonomy is a lie. You have to serve somebody. Either it's your sin or it's God. The notion of being free from slavery, understood in the terms used here, is a myth.

Biblical slavery, then, is a matter of choice. You choose to submit yourself to sin or righteousness. Obviously those who are not in Christ don't have both options. The mind set on the flesh is hostile to God (Rom 8:7), so submitting to God is out of the question. But we choose who will be our master by choosing obedience. In order to choose God, you have to become obedient from the heart, which requires a divine heart-change. Those who have received that change can obey their own desires or we can submit ourselves to pursuing obedience to God. Now, to be perfectly honest, that first definition above has some truth here. It says a slave doesn't get paid. In this passage, slaves of righteousness don't get paid. Only slaves of sin get paid. Choosing to obey sin earns you freedom from righteousness and, ultimately, death (Rom 6:20-21). Submitting yourself to God will provide sanctification and eternal life (Rom 6:22), but the difference is that the death of sin is earned, but eternal life is a gift (Rom 6:23). Those who choose slavery to God don't get what is earned; they get unearned benefits. That's biblical slavery.