One of the singular differences between genuine Christianity and every other religion on the planet is this thing we call "the Gospel" -- saved by faith through Christ apart from works. Everyone else (including the likes of Roman Catholics and "near" Christians like LDS or the JWs who claim faith in Christ) denies "saved by faith apart from works" and are hard at work trying to arrive at "good enough." "So," people have said, "genuine Christianity doesn't really have an 'obedience factor', a 'works' requirement." Not for salvation; that's true. But Scripture is abundantly clear that, while works don't save us, we are saved for good works (e.g., Eph 2:8-10). Christians are called on to be obedient.
"Oh, great," I can hear some say, "so we're back to this complex system of obedience and works." Yes ... and no. Especially no. Why? According to Scripture repentance and faith, required for salvation, produce obedience and works. That's what we're saved for (Eph 2:10). James says faith that doesn't produce works is dead faith (James 2:17). Works, biblically, are not the cause of salvation, but they are "proof of life," spiritually speaking. You understand. We detect if someone is alive if they are breathing and have a heart beat. They don't cause them; they just are. Believers, too, have this same proof of life, not caused by them, but present nonetheless. So Paul tells his readers, "Work out your salvation with fear and trembling" (Php 2:12) and we say, "See? It's just the same as every other religion. 'Work hard or else.'" But Paul finishes that thought with "for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure" (Php 2:13). So this work we do is accomplished by His work in us. So, yes, we work, but not us -- Christ in us.
Besides having this motive force that gives us the will and the power to do what we must, the concept of Christian obedience actually boils down to two simple tasks and, in the end, one single word. We are to love God with all that we are and love one another in the same way we love ourselves. Jesus said, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets" (Matt 22:37-40). Simple. Love God and love those around you. Even simpler -- love. And ... not. Because the standard of "love" isn't the human standard -- "feel warmly." The standard is Christ, who gave Himself up for us. Peter put it this way. "Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth for a sincere brotherly love, love one another earnestly from a pure heart" (1 Peter 1:22). Love one another. Love earnestly. Love from a pure heart. That is fundamental Christian obedience, powered by God. Easy, right? Yes ... and no.
Friday, March 31, 2023
Thursday, March 30, 2023
Racial Identity
Nope. Not going there. Somewhere else.
We know there are a variety of races. For us, we've kind of separated them into "white" and "color," as if these are significant or meaningful. Scripture talks about a different race. In contrast to those who reject Christ,
I think you'll agree. On one hand this is no small honor while, on the other hand, these are not small tasks. Our world screams for us to indulge our passions, and we're not supposed to do it. And, look around you ... including in the mirror. How are we doing at keeping our conduct honorable among unbelievers? Do our good deeds cause them to glorify God? Jesus said they should (Matt 5:16). And what about you, Christian? Do you identify as a "white" or a "black" or some other race, or do you find your racial identity ... in Christ? That's a radically different identity with a radically different calling that is way beyond any meager "white supremacy" or "antiracism" that the world around us is messing around in right now. It's a big calling. I hope you're working on it.
We know there are a variety of races. For us, we've kind of separated them into "white" and "color," as if these are significant or meaningful. Scripture talks about a different race. In contrast to those who reject Christ,
You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for His own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light. (1 Peter 2:9)According to Peter, those who trust Christ are a "chosen race." Not by birth; not by merit (1 Peter 2:10). Imagine that! This race crosses our bland racial lines and includes people from all of our races. This race is not born; it is chosen. Chosen! We are massively privileged in this race without having any innate merit for being in it. It is a gift and bears its own assignment: "abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul" (1 Peter 2:11) and "Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation" (1 Peter 2:12).
I think you'll agree. On one hand this is no small honor while, on the other hand, these are not small tasks. Our world screams for us to indulge our passions, and we're not supposed to do it. And, look around you ... including in the mirror. How are we doing at keeping our conduct honorable among unbelievers? Do our good deeds cause them to glorify God? Jesus said they should (Matt 5:16). And what about you, Christian? Do you identify as a "white" or a "black" or some other race, or do you find your racial identity ... in Christ? That's a radically different identity with a radically different calling that is way beyond any meager "white supremacy" or "antiracism" that the world around us is messing around in right now. It's a big calling. I hope you're working on it.
Wednesday, March 29, 2023
Taken for Granted
When you're a kid, you tend to take things for granted. I mean, you just figure that the way your life is going is very likely just the way everyone else's is. It wasn't, for instance, until I visited some people in Mexico who lived in a mud hut with dirt floors and no furniture and no glass in their windows, but were perfectly happy where they were, that I realized that my lot was not the same as everyone else nor was it necessary that I had what others had or that others had what I had to be happy. You get the idea. In comparison, then, we discover that the way things are for us may not be what is true for everyone else.
Take my dad. I grew up taking my father for granted. He was a good enough dad. He didn't get mad much, didn't yell much, that kind of thing. He was kind enough while being sufficiently distant to avoid much emotional conflict. So it was ... okay. It was okay until I became an adult and started telling others -- randomly and in various circumstances -- about my life with my father. What I found ordinary they saw as astounding. Dad loved to travel, so one summer we took a month-long trip around the country, from the Pacific to the Atlantic, and from the South up into Canada. Years later we took a trip -- a caravan of vehicles and RVs -- for six weeks going up into Alaska. (The fact that my dad let me, at 17, drive the family motorhome was astounding enough on its own.) Because of his wanderlust, I've visited, I think, 45 of the 50 states as well as Mexico and Canada. Beyond that, he loved to fish, but he didn't like to do it alone. We went to many an opening day in California fishing, just Dad, my brother, and I. Or he would take us down to Ensenada for a weekend deep sea fishing excursion. Sometimes it was the whole family; sometimes it was more than that. But the truth was that when he took us, he spent most of his "fishing" time tending to our needs rather than his pole. Once he took my brother and I with him in a backpacking trip miles into the Sierras with some of his coworkers. Another time he had a friend fly us to a part of Baja California without paved road access to do some fishing on the Bay of California. Then there was the time he arranged with a friend of his to take us out on his sailboat so we could whale watch. Just fun stuff for his family and especially for his sons.
Beyond fun stuff, my father had a passion for the lost. He'd bring them home in need of a meal and the gospel. He took my brother and me to skid row in Los Angeles to help out at the Union Rescue Mission. He took the family on one vacation to deep dark Mexico to visit remote missionaries and minister to them. In the most recent times, he became passionate about the Good Samaritan story and made it his own mission to help out homeless people he came across, often taking them for a meal and the gospel. There are, today, many people off the streets because of his direct ministry and many people out of eternal danger because of his loving and sharing the gospel with them. At one point my mother told me he had spent $10,000 in 3 months on this venture. When I told him, "You know, Dad, you're being taken advantage of." He told me, "I know that, but if Jesus could give His life for them, I can surely surrender some of what He gave me for them if it might bring them to faith." How could I argue with that?
My father passed away on Monday. He was 93 years old. He went quietly in his sleep. He was a faithful follower of Christ, a self-sacrificing husband and father and fellow human being. He was the finest example of a Christian and a father that I have had in my life. And today he is fully healed and happy in the presence of His dear Savior. If "granted" is used to indicate "as a gift," I will continue to take my father for granted -- a wonderful gift from God. I will remember him fondly and thank God for him ... as a gift, granted by God.
Take my dad. I grew up taking my father for granted. He was a good enough dad. He didn't get mad much, didn't yell much, that kind of thing. He was kind enough while being sufficiently distant to avoid much emotional conflict. So it was ... okay. It was okay until I became an adult and started telling others -- randomly and in various circumstances -- about my life with my father. What I found ordinary they saw as astounding. Dad loved to travel, so one summer we took a month-long trip around the country, from the Pacific to the Atlantic, and from the South up into Canada. Years later we took a trip -- a caravan of vehicles and RVs -- for six weeks going up into Alaska. (The fact that my dad let me, at 17, drive the family motorhome was astounding enough on its own.) Because of his wanderlust, I've visited, I think, 45 of the 50 states as well as Mexico and Canada. Beyond that, he loved to fish, but he didn't like to do it alone. We went to many an opening day in California fishing, just Dad, my brother, and I. Or he would take us down to Ensenada for a weekend deep sea fishing excursion. Sometimes it was the whole family; sometimes it was more than that. But the truth was that when he took us, he spent most of his "fishing" time tending to our needs rather than his pole. Once he took my brother and I with him in a backpacking trip miles into the Sierras with some of his coworkers. Another time he had a friend fly us to a part of Baja California without paved road access to do some fishing on the Bay of California. Then there was the time he arranged with a friend of his to take us out on his sailboat so we could whale watch. Just fun stuff for his family and especially for his sons.
Beyond fun stuff, my father had a passion for the lost. He'd bring them home in need of a meal and the gospel. He took my brother and me to skid row in Los Angeles to help out at the Union Rescue Mission. He took the family on one vacation to deep dark Mexico to visit remote missionaries and minister to them. In the most recent times, he became passionate about the Good Samaritan story and made it his own mission to help out homeless people he came across, often taking them for a meal and the gospel. There are, today, many people off the streets because of his direct ministry and many people out of eternal danger because of his loving and sharing the gospel with them. At one point my mother told me he had spent $10,000 in 3 months on this venture. When I told him, "You know, Dad, you're being taken advantage of." He told me, "I know that, but if Jesus could give His life for them, I can surely surrender some of what He gave me for them if it might bring them to faith." How could I argue with that?
My father passed away on Monday. He was 93 years old. He went quietly in his sleep. He was a faithful follower of Christ, a self-sacrificing husband and father and fellow human being. He was the finest example of a Christian and a father that I have had in my life. And today he is fully healed and happy in the presence of His dear Savior. If "granted" is used to indicate "as a gift," I will continue to take my father for granted -- a wonderful gift from God. I will remember him fondly and thank God for him ... as a gift, granted by God.
Tuesday, March 28, 2023
Blessings and Curses
Deuteronomy is a reference to the "second law," a recap, if you will, of the law given to Moses earlier. Chapter 27 is a bit repetitious. It tells all the ways you can be cursed. Yes, cursed. You can be cursed for carving an image for worship (Deut 27:15), dishonoring parents (Deut 27:16), moving a landmark (Deut 27:17), misleading a blind man (Deut 27:18) ... on and on. In fact, the summary verse is, "Cursed be anyone who does not confirm the words of this law by doing them" (Deut 27:26). So ... any violation at all. And what does it mean to be cursed? Oh, it is not good. It's not like a voodoo curse or a bad word curse. Oh, no. Read through Deut 28:16-68 and see what Scripture says it means. It is, essentially, the loss of everything and a lowering to the most menial. It occurs at the hand of God and it is, in essence, the loss of any support from God. In Scripture, "blessed" means to have God's face turned toward you (Num 6:24-26). The "curse," then, is the opposite.
There are those who will tell you that sin just ain't that bad. They do so from a deceived heart ("Did God really say ...?"), an inflated ego, and a sense of superiority ... to what Scripture says about sin. The Bible indicates that sin puts us in the "cursed" category. And it is not a place you want to be. In Jeremiah God says (not just Jeremiah), "Cursed is the man who does not obey the words of this covenant" (Jer 11:3). And we ... don't. Not that covenant. Not any covenant with God. Sin is not a small thing. Sin makes us the enemy of God (Rom 5:10; Rom 8:7). No small thing.
This is why it is so stunning to read what Paul says about it in his letter to the Galatians. He points to Deuteronomy 27:26 -- "Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them" (Gal 3:10), and follows that with "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us" (Gal 3:13). Christ redeemed us. That word means "to buy out of the market." It was used in the slave trade where someone buys the slave off the market and they're no longer for sale. He bought us out of our slavery to sin. How? He became a curse for us. In this, then, we see two things. Christ paid the price, and sin is no small thing. It is, then, astounding that "The righteous shall live by faith" (Gal 3:11) apart from the law. By faith we find ourselves under God's blessings, not by not doing too many "bad things."
There are those who will tell you that sin just ain't that bad. They do so from a deceived heart ("Did God really say ...?"), an inflated ego, and a sense of superiority ... to what Scripture says about sin. The Bible indicates that sin puts us in the "cursed" category. And it is not a place you want to be. In Jeremiah God says (not just Jeremiah), "Cursed is the man who does not obey the words of this covenant" (Jer 11:3). And we ... don't. Not that covenant. Not any covenant with God. Sin is not a small thing. Sin makes us the enemy of God (Rom 5:10; Rom 8:7). No small thing.
This is why it is so stunning to read what Paul says about it in his letter to the Galatians. He points to Deuteronomy 27:26 -- "Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them" (Gal 3:10), and follows that with "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us" (Gal 3:13). Christ redeemed us. That word means "to buy out of the market." It was used in the slave trade where someone buys the slave off the market and they're no longer for sale. He bought us out of our slavery to sin. How? He became a curse for us. In this, then, we see two things. Christ paid the price, and sin is no small thing. It is, then, astounding that "The righteous shall live by faith" (Gal 3:11) apart from the law. By faith we find ourselves under God's blessings, not by not doing too many "bad things."
Monday, March 27, 2023
The Myth of Hell
There are a lot of myths in Christendom. There is, for instance, the myth that Joseph was old when he married Mary. That only exists because of two previous myths that 1) Mary was sinless and 2) she was a perpetual virgin. Neither of those exist in Scripture. Nor does Joseph's age. There are a lot of myths around the single topic of Hell. One is that it is Satan's kingdom. Not according to the Bible (Matt 25:41; Rev 20:10). That's the last place he wants to go and, apparently it will be. Another is that Satan and his demons will torment humans there. Not true. They will be tormented along with humans. And, of course, there are other myths about Hell.
Perhaps the most popular myth about Hell is that it doesn't exist. There are those who are just as sure of that as they are that there is no God. There are self-proclaimed Christians that believe that, too. Some are pretty sure that Hell was an invention of the early church. They told stories of blasphemers hanging by their tongues over a lake of fire (from the noncanonical Apocalypse of Peter) and a fiery purgatory and such. They painted those pictures and made up stories like Dante's Inferno. Myth ... pure myth. Of course, there is a problem with that idea. The origin of all that flame and fire was not the early church; it was, in fact, Jesus. You remember Jesus, the friend of sinners? He's the one that gave us descriptions like "furnace of fire" (Matt 13:50), "where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched" (Mark 9:48), and, "It is better for you to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes, to be cast into hell fire" (Matt 18:9). It was Jesus who gave us the story of Lazarus and the rich man, where the rich man was "tormented in this flame" (Luke 16:24). In fact, Jesus spoke more of Hell than anyone else in Scripture and more than He spoke of Heaven. "But," they assure us, "He would never send anyone there." Well, you might think that, but it was Jesus who told those who claimed to know Him but didn't, "I never knew you; depart from Me, you workers of lawlessness" (Matt 7:23).
If you think that voice back there comforting you -- "You surely won't be sent to anyplace like that!" -- sounds reliable and safe, remember the words of the serpent in the garden: "You will not surely die!" (Gen 3:4). Sounds the same, doesn't it? It didn't turn out well for Eve then, and "I don't believe in Hell" won't make it go away now. Jesus spoke often of Hell because He often gave the remedy -- "Repent" (Matt 3:2; Matt 4:17; Luke 13:3-5). He is the remedy (John 3:16). But it requires compliance -- repent and believe. So you can believe the myth that there is no Hell with the fair certainty that you'll discover there really is (since it comes from the lips of Jesus), or you can repent and believe and avoid it entirely. Your call.
Perhaps the most popular myth about Hell is that it doesn't exist. There are those who are just as sure of that as they are that there is no God. There are self-proclaimed Christians that believe that, too. Some are pretty sure that Hell was an invention of the early church. They told stories of blasphemers hanging by their tongues over a lake of fire (from the noncanonical Apocalypse of Peter) and a fiery purgatory and such. They painted those pictures and made up stories like Dante's Inferno. Myth ... pure myth. Of course, there is a problem with that idea. The origin of all that flame and fire was not the early church; it was, in fact, Jesus. You remember Jesus, the friend of sinners? He's the one that gave us descriptions like "furnace of fire" (Matt 13:50), "where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched" (Mark 9:48), and, "It is better for you to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes, to be cast into hell fire" (Matt 18:9). It was Jesus who gave us the story of Lazarus and the rich man, where the rich man was "tormented in this flame" (Luke 16:24). In fact, Jesus spoke more of Hell than anyone else in Scripture and more than He spoke of Heaven. "But," they assure us, "He would never send anyone there." Well, you might think that, but it was Jesus who told those who claimed to know Him but didn't, "I never knew you; depart from Me, you workers of lawlessness" (Matt 7:23).
If you think that voice back there comforting you -- "You surely won't be sent to anyplace like that!" -- sounds reliable and safe, remember the words of the serpent in the garden: "You will not surely die!" (Gen 3:4). Sounds the same, doesn't it? It didn't turn out well for Eve then, and "I don't believe in Hell" won't make it go away now. Jesus spoke often of Hell because He often gave the remedy -- "Repent" (Matt 3:2; Matt 4:17; Luke 13:3-5). He is the remedy (John 3:16). But it requires compliance -- repent and believe. So you can believe the myth that there is no Hell with the fair certainty that you'll discover there really is (since it comes from the lips of Jesus), or you can repent and believe and avoid it entirely. Your call.
Sunday, March 26, 2023
The Problem of Glory
In the discussion of heaven and hell, skeptics will often argue, "What could you possibly do in a lifetime to deserve an eternity of hell?" The primary question there is correct. You see, for justice to occur, the punishment must fit the crime. But the fundamental basis for the question is flawed. Time is not a measure of just punishment. The question is the seriousness of the offense, not the amount of time it took. As we all know, murder is way up there on the list of worst crimes, but murder doesn't take much time, generally, so in this line of thinking -- punishment equated to time -- a murderer couldn't get more than a 5 minute sentence if he only took 5 minutes to do the crime. No, we all know that's wrong. We all know that murder is worst than theft which is worse than, say, jaywalking, so the seriousness of each determines the just punishment for each.
The question, then, that needs to be asked is not in terms of a lifetime, but in terms of the seriousness. What can we commit in this life that is serious enough to deserve an eternal punishment? As it turns out, Scripture tells us that answer. "All have sinned," Paul tells us, and then elucidates why that is problematic -- "and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom 3:23). "Really?" some will protest, "You consider violating the glory of God worthy of eternal punishment?" Well, I do if I concur with God. Adam and Eve in the garden weren't warned they would die for eating fruit; they were warned they would die because they violated God's glory. If the singular focus of the human creature is supposed to be the glory of God, then eating wrong is a violation (1 Cor 10:31). If the reason we are under God's wrath is not our sin, but our suppression of the truth about Him (Rom 1:18-21), it's about His glory, not "bad behavior." And violating the eternal glory of the Creator falls in that "most serious of crimes" category, the crime we commit in every sin we undertake.
Of course, most people won't see this as reasonable. That's because diminishing God's glory is routine for us. He's just like us (Psa 50:21), isn't He? God disagrees. And we're so immune to that idea that we can't see it when it's right in front of us (Psa 29), not realizing that we diminish His glory by questioning His judgment (Gen 2:16-17; Matt 8:11-12; Matt 13:41-42; Luke 13:1-5; etc.). And, in the face of that problem of ours, justice would be the last thing we ask for from God.
The question, then, that needs to be asked is not in terms of a lifetime, but in terms of the seriousness. What can we commit in this life that is serious enough to deserve an eternal punishment? As it turns out, Scripture tells us that answer. "All have sinned," Paul tells us, and then elucidates why that is problematic -- "and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom 3:23). "Really?" some will protest, "You consider violating the glory of God worthy of eternal punishment?" Well, I do if I concur with God. Adam and Eve in the garden weren't warned they would die for eating fruit; they were warned they would die because they violated God's glory. If the singular focus of the human creature is supposed to be the glory of God, then eating wrong is a violation (1 Cor 10:31). If the reason we are under God's wrath is not our sin, but our suppression of the truth about Him (Rom 1:18-21), it's about His glory, not "bad behavior." And violating the eternal glory of the Creator falls in that "most serious of crimes" category, the crime we commit in every sin we undertake.
Of course, most people won't see this as reasonable. That's because diminishing God's glory is routine for us. He's just like us (Psa 50:21), isn't He? God disagrees. And we're so immune to that idea that we can't see it when it's right in front of us (Psa 29), not realizing that we diminish His glory by questioning His judgment (Gen 2:16-17; Matt 8:11-12; Matt 13:41-42; Luke 13:1-5; etc.). And, in the face of that problem of ours, justice would be the last thing we ask for from God.
Saturday, March 25, 2023
News Weakly - 3/25/23
No Surprise Here
If a guy could sue his parents for having him circumcised at birth or for giving birth to him without his consent, it stands to reason that a de-transitioned teen might sue for a double mastectomy at 13. Somebody older, wiser, and more responsible should have been looking out for her. Kaiser wasn't. But, trust me, it's the girl who underwent the surgery who will be the "bad guy" because of her "hate" for "transgenders" in our current environment.
Out of California
So this is what San Francisco thinks is fair. San Francisco (where there were no black slaves) thinks that San Franciscans (who have no black slaves in their past) should each pay $600,000 to give those "who identify as black" (What does that even mean?) up to $5 million to recompense for the deeds of others in the long past. Good luck with that.
Not to be Outdone
Arizona has been "californicated" in the last decade, turning it purple if not blue. Thus, the new governor is implementing California-style nonsense with an executive order banning discrimination ... on the basis of hair. Mind you, "hair discrimination" is rare and essentially a subset of racial discrimination (which is already illegal nationwide), but we'll fix this problem by divine fiat ... in a state where less than 5% of the population is black. Can't we just enforce racial discrimination laws, recognizing "hair discrimination" as part of that? And are there not some cases in which school teams and the like might have a need to control hair? (I remember in my youth sports teams were required to cut their hair short for safety purposes.) This just feels like one of those "See? I did something" moments.
The Standard is Double with This One
Last month Scott Adams, creator of the comic strip, Dilbert, got himself canceled for saying, "Based on the current way things are going, the best advice I would give to white people is to get the hell away from Black people." Adams is gone. Dilbert is gone. End of discussion. Now Robin DiAngelo, author of the antiracist book, White Fragility, has suggested, "People of color need to get away from White people." No one is outraged. No one is protesting. No cancellations for this white woman. Does anyone else smell a double standard here? It's pretty stinky where I sit.
Shameless
Katy Perry is in trouble for "mom-shaming." A 25-year-old singer on American Idol said she had 3 kids and Katy told her she was "laying on the table too much." We've arrived at this point where, on one hand, we're not allowed to "shame" anyone ... at all ... for anything -- too fat, too thin, not good-looking, not smart, on and on -- while, at the same time, shaming anyone we feel has done it. Look, for the benefit of some people, they need to have some things pointed out. (I'm not referring to this mother; I don't know her circumstances.) While we all feel these days that shame has no place in our society, we all know instinctively that it does, so we do it ... mindlessly. Not good.
Just Over 1 in 3 Approve
Due to the national perception of what a good job he's doing, Biden's approval rating is at 38%. If these stunning numbers hold up, we can only hope he gets the nod for the Democratic nominee for president next year.
The Beat of a Different Drummer
I'll be honest. The Bee just wasn't up to snuff this week. I suspect it's a case of stupidity exhaustion. The Genesius Times ran a story about the DOJ arresting Trump in response to Biden's illegal business dealings with China. And there is the rumor that Elon Musk plans to buy Congress to release all the January 6 footage, but we know that will just get ignored, so ...? And, not the Bee or Genesius, I just got to wondering. Do you suppose California Governor Newsom will make Monopoly money legal tender in California to cover the massive reparations bill from giving $5 million to every black person in California? I'm thinking he'll have to.
Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
If a guy could sue his parents for having him circumcised at birth or for giving birth to him without his consent, it stands to reason that a de-transitioned teen might sue for a double mastectomy at 13. Somebody older, wiser, and more responsible should have been looking out for her. Kaiser wasn't. But, trust me, it's the girl who underwent the surgery who will be the "bad guy" because of her "hate" for "transgenders" in our current environment.
Out of California
So this is what San Francisco thinks is fair. San Francisco (where there were no black slaves) thinks that San Franciscans (who have no black slaves in their past) should each pay $600,000 to give those "who identify as black" (What does that even mean?) up to $5 million to recompense for the deeds of others in the long past. Good luck with that.
Not to be Outdone
Arizona has been "californicated" in the last decade, turning it purple if not blue. Thus, the new governor is implementing California-style nonsense with an executive order banning discrimination ... on the basis of hair. Mind you, "hair discrimination" is rare and essentially a subset of racial discrimination (which is already illegal nationwide), but we'll fix this problem by divine fiat ... in a state where less than 5% of the population is black. Can't we just enforce racial discrimination laws, recognizing "hair discrimination" as part of that? And are there not some cases in which school teams and the like might have a need to control hair? (I remember in my youth sports teams were required to cut their hair short for safety purposes.) This just feels like one of those "See? I did something" moments.
The Standard is Double with This One
Last month Scott Adams, creator of the comic strip, Dilbert, got himself canceled for saying, "Based on the current way things are going, the best advice I would give to white people is to get the hell away from Black people." Adams is gone. Dilbert is gone. End of discussion. Now Robin DiAngelo, author of the antiracist book, White Fragility, has suggested, "People of color need to get away from White people." No one is outraged. No one is protesting. No cancellations for this white woman. Does anyone else smell a double standard here? It's pretty stinky where I sit.
Shameless
Katy Perry is in trouble for "mom-shaming." A 25-year-old singer on American Idol said she had 3 kids and Katy told her she was "laying on the table too much." We've arrived at this point where, on one hand, we're not allowed to "shame" anyone ... at all ... for anything -- too fat, too thin, not good-looking, not smart, on and on -- while, at the same time, shaming anyone we feel has done it. Look, for the benefit of some people, they need to have some things pointed out. (I'm not referring to this mother; I don't know her circumstances.) While we all feel these days that shame has no place in our society, we all know instinctively that it does, so we do it ... mindlessly. Not good.
Just Over 1 in 3 Approve
Due to the national perception of what a good job he's doing, Biden's approval rating is at 38%. If these stunning numbers hold up, we can only hope he gets the nod for the Democratic nominee for president next year.
The Beat of a Different Drummer
I'll be honest. The Bee just wasn't up to snuff this week. I suspect it's a case of stupidity exhaustion. The Genesius Times ran a story about the DOJ arresting Trump in response to Biden's illegal business dealings with China. And there is the rumor that Elon Musk plans to buy Congress to release all the January 6 footage, but we know that will just get ignored, so ...? And, not the Bee or Genesius, I just got to wondering. Do you suppose California Governor Newsom will make Monopoly money legal tender in California to cover the massive reparations bill from giving $5 million to every black person in California? I'm thinking he'll have to.
Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
Friday, March 24, 2023
Crime and Punishment
The other day my wife and I went to a nice dinner with friends. At one point my wife informed me that I was eating my salad with the wrong fork ... so I would be taken out and hanged at dawn. Of course, that's nonsense. That's not justice. The punishment doesn't fit the crime. But there are those who argue that sin is just that; a social faux pas, a simple mistake, a vague missing of the mark. God doesn't punish sin like that. In the grand scheme of things, no sin deserves that level of punishment, and a forgiving God will just pat us on the head and say, "Have you learned your lesson?" and let it go at that. Is that so? Paul said, "The wages of sin is death" (Rom 6:23). Both John (1 John 2:1-2) and Paul (Rom 3:24-25) refer to Christ as "propitiation" through His blood. "Propitiation" means basically the appeasement of an angry God. Jesus said He came to "give His life a ransom for many" (Matt 20:28). Jesus gave His disciples a means of remembering His death on their behalf (Luke 22:17-20). John the Baptist saw Jesus and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!" (John 1:29). Scripture repeatedly refers to sin with much more intensity than our "simple mistake" view can support. So, who is right?
Look at a couple of biblical accounts of sin. In the garden, Eve listened to the serpent and opted to discard God's "You shall surely die" in favor of some fruit that looked pretty and tasty and would make her wise. And she wasn't mistaken. "The eyes of both of them were opened" (Gen 3:7). When God found out, He congratulated her on thinking this through herself and coming to the wiser conclusion. Oh, no, that's not what He did. He condemned them both to hard labor (Gen 3:16-19) and, finally, death. For that? Paul says that we stand under the righteous wrath of God. For what? Suppressing the truth (Rom 1:18-19). Really? That is worth wrath? That's what the Scriptures say.
Given Jesus's claim that He was dying for the sin of mankind and Scripture's view on the death penalty that sin earns, it would seem that the "simple mistake" view doesn't hold much water. It would seem that sin is an egregious error, an assault on God's glory (Rom 3:23), deserving eternal death. I would urge, then, those who claim that God just forgives sin because it's just not that bad stop calling themselves "Christians." When Christ says He died for sin and ransomed sinners and you argue that He didn't, that would qualify as the opposite of following Christ. And, further, I would urge you to repent from that because denying Christ has a very bad outcome (Matt 10:23).
Look at a couple of biblical accounts of sin. In the garden, Eve listened to the serpent and opted to discard God's "You shall surely die" in favor of some fruit that looked pretty and tasty and would make her wise. And she wasn't mistaken. "The eyes of both of them were opened" (Gen 3:7). When God found out, He congratulated her on thinking this through herself and coming to the wiser conclusion. Oh, no, that's not what He did. He condemned them both to hard labor (Gen 3:16-19) and, finally, death. For that? Paul says that we stand under the righteous wrath of God. For what? Suppressing the truth (Rom 1:18-19). Really? That is worth wrath? That's what the Scriptures say.
Given Jesus's claim that He was dying for the sin of mankind and Scripture's view on the death penalty that sin earns, it would seem that the "simple mistake" view doesn't hold much water. It would seem that sin is an egregious error, an assault on God's glory (Rom 3:23), deserving eternal death. I would urge, then, those who claim that God just forgives sin because it's just not that bad stop calling themselves "Christians." When Christ says He died for sin and ransomed sinners and you argue that He didn't, that would qualify as the opposite of following Christ. And, further, I would urge you to repent from that because denying Christ has a very bad outcome (Matt 10:23).
Thursday, March 23, 2023
From Glory to Glory
In his second letter to the church at Corinth, Paul wrote,
Paul says this is achieved "with unveiled face." Not looking away. Not covering our eyes. Looking without blinders or obstruction at the glory of the Lord. Paul says that looking fully at the glory of the Lord changes us. It transforms us. It transforms us into His glory.
I can't think of anything better than to be changed from me to Him. Yes, that's too simplistic, but you get the idea. And I can't think of anything simpler than getting changed by gazing at His glory ... or anything more difficult.
Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit. (2 Cor 3:17-18)We like that "there is freedom" phrase, and rightly so. True freedom is found only in the Lord. Think about that for a moment. The word chosen to express the means of freedom is "Lord". Genuine freedom is not the absence of external authority. Where, then, is freedom? In the transformation to the glory of the Lord.
Paul says this is achieved "with unveiled face." Not looking away. Not covering our eyes. Looking without blinders or obstruction at the glory of the Lord. Paul says that looking fully at the glory of the Lord changes us. It transforms us. It transforms us into His glory.
I can't think of anything better than to be changed from me to Him. Yes, that's too simplistic, but you get the idea. And I can't think of anything simpler than getting changed by gazing at His glory ... or anything more difficult.
Wednesday, March 22, 2023
Hearts and Minds
I saw a sign on our local Papa John's Pizza. They are hiring drivers. So far, so good. Below, it says on one side that it is a "Fully Phoenix-owned business." Then it says, "Earn up to $17-$25 per hour." And I am totally baffled.
First, the store is a "fully Phoenix-owned business" ... in Peoria, not Phoenix, let alone the strange suggestion that Phoenix owns this business. Odd. Second, this sign has been up for months. Really? Are there too few people who can drive that might consider "$17-$25 per hour" too little? And how expensive must these pizzas be if we're expected to pay these drivers that much money? But the real confusion in my mind is that phrase, "Earn up to $17-$25 per hour." First, "up to" is a limit. It is saying, in essence, "You can't earn more than this." If you went to work there and earned $10/hr, you'd have no room to complain because that meets the claim -- no more than. On the other hand, it might be conceivable that one could sue them for false advertising if they earned $27/hr because that is higher than the upper limit. But the real confusing part is this range thing. How can there be a range in "up to"? "Up to" is an upper limit and, apparently, it's a sliding limit. They didn't say, "You can earn $17-$25/hr." That would be understandable. It's a range. No, they put a range on a limit. How does that even make sense?
I know, I know, who cares? I don't. Not really. To me it's just another example of people not thinking. I suspect the sign was written "from the heart" with a complete removal of the mind. And that is a problem.
First, the store is a "fully Phoenix-owned business" ... in Peoria, not Phoenix, let alone the strange suggestion that Phoenix owns this business. Odd. Second, this sign has been up for months. Really? Are there too few people who can drive that might consider "$17-$25 per hour" too little? And how expensive must these pizzas be if we're expected to pay these drivers that much money? But the real confusion in my mind is that phrase, "Earn up to $17-$25 per hour." First, "up to" is a limit. It is saying, in essence, "You can't earn more than this." If you went to work there and earned $10/hr, you'd have no room to complain because that meets the claim -- no more than. On the other hand, it might be conceivable that one could sue them for false advertising if they earned $27/hr because that is higher than the upper limit. But the real confusing part is this range thing. How can there be a range in "up to"? "Up to" is an upper limit and, apparently, it's a sliding limit. They didn't say, "You can earn $17-$25/hr." That would be understandable. It's a range. No, they put a range on a limit. How does that even make sense?
I know, I know, who cares? I don't. Not really. To me it's just another example of people not thinking. I suspect the sign was written "from the heart" with a complete removal of the mind. And that is a problem.
Tuesday, March 21, 2023
The Grace In Which I Stand
In Romans 8 Paul tells us that wonderful thing he believes we already know.
"Now, hang on, Stan," someone might object, "he didn't say anything about 'the elect'." No. He talked about the "predestined." Most people connect "elect" with "predestined" (along with "chosen"). That would be a mistake, not because they aren't connected, but because "predestined" is so much more than who will be saved. For instance, God's predestination inluded Christ's death at the hands of Pilate and the Jews (Acts 4:27). What I think is more interesting is the preceding notion -- "foreknew." We think of that as having information in advance, but that's not the biblical sense. Remember when Jesus spoke of those who would come to Him telling Him of all they had done for Him and He would tell them, "I never knew you" (Matt 7:23)? That wasn't a data point. It wasn't information. Of course the Omniscient Son of God knew them. So what was He talking about? He was talking about intimacy. He was talking about knowing them in a biblical way. No, not sexually, but intimately. Jesus said that eternal life was in knowing God. Now, didn't Paul say that we all know God (Rom 1:19-21)? So this isn't knowing about someone; it is knowing them. Intimate, loving, connected. So that's when this "foreknew" gets interesting. Those whom He foreknew -- was intimate with in advance, loved before they were born (2 Tim 1:9) -- He predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son. Our names were written in the book of life before anything existed (Rev 17:8).
I've heard people complain about election, being chosen. "You think you're superior somehow?" Not in the least. God chooses for God's purposes those on whom He sets a special love in advance. If we were to grasp that, we'd find no room for boasting and nothing left but a complete awe of the sovereign grace of God that saves sinners while we're still His enemies (Rom 5:6-10). Amazing!
And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to His purpose. (Rom 8:28)It is a mistake to read that verse in a vacuum because the very next verse explains what that good is toward which He is working all things.
For those whom He foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, in order that He might be the firstborn among many brothers. (Rom 8:29)The good for which He is working all things is that the elect might be conformed to the image of His Son.
"Now, hang on, Stan," someone might object, "he didn't say anything about 'the elect'." No. He talked about the "predestined." Most people connect "elect" with "predestined" (along with "chosen"). That would be a mistake, not because they aren't connected, but because "predestined" is so much more than who will be saved. For instance, God's predestination inluded Christ's death at the hands of Pilate and the Jews (Acts 4:27). What I think is more interesting is the preceding notion -- "foreknew." We think of that as having information in advance, but that's not the biblical sense. Remember when Jesus spoke of those who would come to Him telling Him of all they had done for Him and He would tell them, "I never knew you" (Matt 7:23)? That wasn't a data point. It wasn't information. Of course the Omniscient Son of God knew them. So what was He talking about? He was talking about intimacy. He was talking about knowing them in a biblical way. No, not sexually, but intimately. Jesus said that eternal life was in knowing God. Now, didn't Paul say that we all know God (Rom 1:19-21)? So this isn't knowing about someone; it is knowing them. Intimate, loving, connected. So that's when this "foreknew" gets interesting. Those whom He foreknew -- was intimate with in advance, loved before they were born (2 Tim 1:9) -- He predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son. Our names were written in the book of life before anything existed (Rev 17:8).
I've heard people complain about election, being chosen. "You think you're superior somehow?" Not in the least. God chooses for God's purposes those on whom He sets a special love in advance. If we were to grasp that, we'd find no room for boasting and nothing left but a complete awe of the sovereign grace of God that saves sinners while we're still His enemies (Rom 5:6-10). Amazing!
Monday, March 20, 2023
Truth in Advertising
Back when Microsoft was releasing Windows 7, they ran this commercial about a father, mother, and son. The son asked for a dog, and mom and dad said no. So the boy went to his Windows 7 computer and put together a presentation on how beneficial it would be for the boy to have a dog. The parents, duly impressed, agreed. So the dad saw his opportunity. He put together a presentation on why he should be allowed to play golf on Saturdays. The wife shot him down. You see, then, the hierarchy. The wisest in the bunch was the boy because his presentation overcame the objection of either parent. The second place went to the wife who okayed the son's request but denied the husband's because he, after all, was in last place, both in wisdom and in authority.
We buy that today. Watch the movies. Watch the TV. Kids are the smart ones. Men are the stupid ones. In fact, consider that commercial from any other approach. The mom takes her opportunity to show why she should be allowed a shopping spree and the husband shoots it down. "Sexist!" Both agree that the son's presentation wasn't good enough. "That's just mean." There is no scenario where the husband comes out on top and everyone is happy.
I don't suppose it's an accident. We -- even we Christians -- are a race of children in rebellion against our Father. We know better. We know best. We are wiser. Oh, sometimes, if He does what we want, He's okay, but heaven help Him if He ever crosses us. And, oh, He will. We are rebels and our modern "Kids are the smartest people on earth" betrays our cosmic rebellion against the real Sovereign, the real All-Wise, the real Authority. And we find it amusing.
We buy that today. Watch the movies. Watch the TV. Kids are the smart ones. Men are the stupid ones. In fact, consider that commercial from any other approach. The mom takes her opportunity to show why she should be allowed a shopping spree and the husband shoots it down. "Sexist!" Both agree that the son's presentation wasn't good enough. "That's just mean." There is no scenario where the husband comes out on top and everyone is happy.
I don't suppose it's an accident. We -- even we Christians -- are a race of children in rebellion against our Father. We know better. We know best. We are wiser. Oh, sometimes, if He does what we want, He's okay, but heaven help Him if He ever crosses us. And, oh, He will. We are rebels and our modern "Kids are the smartest people on earth" betrays our cosmic rebellion against the real Sovereign, the real All-Wise, the real Authority. And we find it amusing.
Sunday, March 19, 2023
The Gospel of Repentance
When Jesus walked out of that desert after His temptation, He arrived with a word. The Scriptures say, "From that time Jesus began to preach and say, 'Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.'" (Matt 4:17). "Repent." Not a popular word these days. In fact, we're pretty sure we don't like it much at all. Too confrontational. Too judgy. You know ... can't we all just get along? Well, apparently Jesus thought it was important. When they came to Him worried about the people Pilate had killed, Jesus said, "I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish" (Luke 13:3). He told the Pharisees, "I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance" (Luke 5:32). When He sent out the 12 to preach, "They went out and preached that men should repent" (Mark 6:12). Apparently Jesus thought repentance was important.
Repentance in Scripture is not merely "feeling bad for my sins." That may be a start, but actual, biblical repentance is feeling bad enough to turn. It is seeing your sin for what it is in the eyes of God and despising it enough to walk away from it. Actual repentance is changing direction. John the Baptist told his listeners, "Bear fruit in keeping with repentance" (Matt 3:8). Because repentance is not just feeling sorry; it is about a change. When Peter preached his first sermon at Pentecost, they asked him what they had to do. His first instruction was "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38). Change directions and receive forgiveness. And here's a little tidbit you may not have realized. Paul, instructing Timothy on what he needed to do in Ephesus, told him to correct his opponents with gentleness because, "God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth" (2 Tim 2:25). Do you see that? It is a grant, a gift from God. And it isn't certain -- God may grant it.
Nobody likes the "sin" topic these days. Let's not talk about that. Oh, maybe your sin, but not all of ours. Too religious. Too pointed. And, so, no one really wants to hear about being so convicted of sin that they realize they need to change direction. The problem, of course, is that the less we talk about repentance, the less people are going to hear about their need for it. And without repentance, salvation is not possible. Do we really want to "play nice" and assist people to an easy trip to Hell?
Repentance in Scripture is not merely "feeling bad for my sins." That may be a start, but actual, biblical repentance is feeling bad enough to turn. It is seeing your sin for what it is in the eyes of God and despising it enough to walk away from it. Actual repentance is changing direction. John the Baptist told his listeners, "Bear fruit in keeping with repentance" (Matt 3:8). Because repentance is not just feeling sorry; it is about a change. When Peter preached his first sermon at Pentecost, they asked him what they had to do. His first instruction was "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38). Change directions and receive forgiveness. And here's a little tidbit you may not have realized. Paul, instructing Timothy on what he needed to do in Ephesus, told him to correct his opponents with gentleness because, "God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth" (2 Tim 2:25). Do you see that? It is a grant, a gift from God. And it isn't certain -- God may grant it.
Nobody likes the "sin" topic these days. Let's not talk about that. Oh, maybe your sin, but not all of ours. Too religious. Too pointed. And, so, no one really wants to hear about being so convicted of sin that they realize they need to change direction. The problem, of course, is that the less we talk about repentance, the less people are going to hear about their need for it. And without repentance, salvation is not possible. Do we really want to "play nice" and assist people to an easy trip to Hell?
Saturday, March 18, 2023
News Weakly - 3/18/23
Yawn
The big news from last Saturday through Monday was the Oscars. Who was nominated, who attended and with whom, who was wearing what, who wasn't allowed in, who won, who flopped, and "Did someone slap someone?". For the first time in my "News Weakly" entries I will provide no links to those stories. You can find them yourself. That's because I think it's a shame that actors and movies should garner such extreme attention in comparison to so many newsworthy things going on while providing so little value in a world so sensitive you can here a microaggression drop. To me, the Oscar news is a yawn.
A President Who Cares
Gas prices continue to rise, so, in order "to deliver on the most aggressive climate agenda in American history," President Biden blocked oil drilling on millions of acres of federal land in and around Alaska -- land set aside by Congress for that purpose -- while demanding that Big Oil produce more. Get used to rising prices; he's not planning to change that. He's a president who cares ... just not about you. Seriously, Mr. Biden, whose side are you on?
The Wrong Side of History
We're still getting "outrageous" stories of bans on transgender care for minors in this country. One has to wonder, however. In Norway, the law allows a minor to change genders without a doctor's agreement or intervention, but they are banning "gender-affirming care" because it is not "evidence-based." Finland, Sweden, and the U.K. have already done the same. Will the U.S. end up on the wrong side of history by clinging to their anti-science approach?
In Classic Contradictory Style
It had to happen. With all this "Women are women even if they're men" and "I am the gender I identify as" stuff, it had to happen. Now, throwing out all reason, students at all-female Wellesley College (Hillary Clinton's alma mater) are demanding that trans-male students be allowed to attend. Mind you, the "trans-male" is a biological female that now identifies as male. They will now demand that biological women be identified as women and that trans-men will also be identified as women because that makes sense in this nonsensical world we've built.
Seeing is Beelieving
In Bee news, the Biden administration has promised to tax Silicon Valley billionaires on the money the federal government just gave them. In other news, Biden is calling on banks not to collapse. There ... that ought to fix it. And it was worth noting that this year's Oscars ratings soared as the nation watched hoping to see someone slap Jimmy Kimmel.
Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
The big news from last Saturday through Monday was the Oscars. Who was nominated, who attended and with whom, who was wearing what, who wasn't allowed in, who won, who flopped, and "Did someone slap someone?". For the first time in my "News Weakly" entries I will provide no links to those stories. You can find them yourself. That's because I think it's a shame that actors and movies should garner such extreme attention in comparison to so many newsworthy things going on while providing so little value in a world so sensitive you can here a microaggression drop. To me, the Oscar news is a yawn.
A President Who Cares
Gas prices continue to rise, so, in order "to deliver on the most aggressive climate agenda in American history," President Biden blocked oil drilling on millions of acres of federal land in and around Alaska -- land set aside by Congress for that purpose -- while demanding that Big Oil produce more. Get used to rising prices; he's not planning to change that. He's a president who cares ... just not about you. Seriously, Mr. Biden, whose side are you on?
The Wrong Side of History
We're still getting "outrageous" stories of bans on transgender care for minors in this country. One has to wonder, however. In Norway, the law allows a minor to change genders without a doctor's agreement or intervention, but they are banning "gender-affirming care" because it is not "evidence-based." Finland, Sweden, and the U.K. have already done the same. Will the U.S. end up on the wrong side of history by clinging to their anti-science approach?
In Classic Contradictory Style
It had to happen. With all this "Women are women even if they're men" and "I am the gender I identify as" stuff, it had to happen. Now, throwing out all reason, students at all-female Wellesley College (Hillary Clinton's alma mater) are demanding that trans-male students be allowed to attend. Mind you, the "trans-male" is a biological female that now identifies as male. They will now demand that biological women be identified as women and that trans-men will also be identified as women because that makes sense in this nonsensical world we've built.
Seeing is Beelieving
In Bee news, the Biden administration has promised to tax Silicon Valley billionaires on the money the federal government just gave them. In other news, Biden is calling on banks not to collapse. There ... that ought to fix it. And it was worth noting that this year's Oscars ratings soared as the nation watched hoping to see someone slap Jimmy Kimmel.
Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
Friday, March 17, 2023
What About My Sin?
It's interesting to me. Throughout the centuries -- throughout time, in fact -- people who were in good standing with God have been concerned or even convinced that they were not. I think of Isaiah -- not a minor prophet, but a major mouthpiece for God -- who saw the Lord and concluded, "I am undone!" (Isa 6:1-5). "That's Old Testament," some will tell me. "They had a different standing." Well, maybe, so how about Paul? Paul, the prime purveyor of the Gospel, who cried, "Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death?" (Rom 7:24). And so through history. Famous author and preacher, John Bunyan (of Pilgrim's Progress fame), was sure that he had committed the unpardonable sin and was damned forever for a long time. Godly people have concluded over and over that they are beyond redemption.
Why is that? Well, first there is the Scripture. John wrote, "No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God" (1 John 3:9). And don't we all have these kinds of sins? Don't we all have what I will call "besetting sins" -- those recurring failings that just seem to keep cropping up? Of course, the other reason is illustrated in Isaiah. The closer we get to God, the brighter the light and the clearer we can see our genuine sin problem.
So, is it so? Should we conclude that if we sin repeatedly we are not "born of God" -- not saved? No. Scripture is clear that we never arrive at sinless perfection in this life (1 John 1:8-2:2). Instead, we rely, as from the beginning to the end, on the propitiation of Christ (1 John 2:1-2). We agree that we have sin (1 John 1:8, 10) and, in so doing, confess and receive forgiveness "from all unrighteousness" (1 John 1:9). Our salvation is not predicated or completed on our sinlessness; it is predicated on "Him who knew no sin" and, yet, became sin for us (2 Cor 5:21). We are saved not by our own burgeoning righteousness, but by His applied righteousness. In fact, if you are deeply concerned about your sin, it might certainly be evidence that you are born of God since those who are not are enemies of God.
Why is that? Well, first there is the Scripture. John wrote, "No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God" (1 John 3:9). And don't we all have these kinds of sins? Don't we all have what I will call "besetting sins" -- those recurring failings that just seem to keep cropping up? Of course, the other reason is illustrated in Isaiah. The closer we get to God, the brighter the light and the clearer we can see our genuine sin problem.
So, is it so? Should we conclude that if we sin repeatedly we are not "born of God" -- not saved? No. Scripture is clear that we never arrive at sinless perfection in this life (1 John 1:8-2:2). Instead, we rely, as from the beginning to the end, on the propitiation of Christ (1 John 2:1-2). We agree that we have sin (1 John 1:8, 10) and, in so doing, confess and receive forgiveness "from all unrighteousness" (1 John 1:9). Our salvation is not predicated or completed on our sinlessness; it is predicated on "Him who knew no sin" and, yet, became sin for us (2 Cor 5:21). We are saved not by our own burgeoning righteousness, but by His applied righteousness. In fact, if you are deeply concerned about your sin, it might certainly be evidence that you are born of God since those who are not are enemies of God.
Thursday, March 16, 2023
Birds of the Air
You may have noticed that the address of this blog is "birdsoftheair.blogspot.com" while the name of the blog is "Winging It." That's because when I started the blog in 2006 I really wanted to write about birds, so I called it "Birds of the Air." But it took a matter of days to realize that it would be an extremely limited and short-lived blog if that was all I did, so I renamed it "Winging It." I have 22 entries labeled "Birds" to date. Why? I like birds. I think they are elegant and interesting, amazing and impressive. From wingtip to wingtip, from beak to tail, from bones to feathers, from California Condor to hummingbird, they are truly astounding. Beyond interesting, birds scream "Creator!" They defy Evolution and demand a Designer with their elegance and complexity. They are living and breathing irreducible complexity. When the Pharisees told Jesus to silence the cheering crowds, Jesus told His detractors, "If these should be silent, the stones will cry out" (Luke 19:40). And, I would add, the birds.
"Birds of the air" was a phrase that Jesus used, too, except Jesus wasn't pointing out how God created it all. He said, "Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they?" (Matt 6:26). What did Jesus want us to learn from the birds (at that moment)? You are of value to the Father. He said, "Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? And not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. But even the hairs of your head are all numbered" (Matt 10:29-30). What did Jesus want them to learn from birds? "Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble" (Matt 6:34). "Fear not, therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows. So everyone who acknowledges Me before men, I also will acknowledge before My Father who is in heaven, but whoever denies Me before men, I also will deny before My Father who is in heaven" (Matt 10:31-33).
We're human. Part of being human is the survival instinct, let alone the "get ahead" drive. So we face fears, real or imagined. We deal with pandemics and cancers, accidents and mayhem, mistakes and attacks, a whole gamut of dangers and crises. And Jesus's words to us are, "Fear not; you are of more value than the birds, and look how well I pay attention to and take care of them." When should we fear? We should be afraid when we deny Him. We ought to be afraid when we tell Him "No" or refuse Him. We need to be afraid when that denial is lifelong and permanent. On the other hand, the remedy for all fear is simply to agree with Him, to acknowledge Him. The word, in fact, is "confess" -- to "say the same word." Agree with Him, and fear not. A message from the birds.
"Birds of the air" was a phrase that Jesus used, too, except Jesus wasn't pointing out how God created it all. He said, "Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they?" (Matt 6:26). What did Jesus want us to learn from the birds (at that moment)? You are of value to the Father. He said, "Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? And not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. But even the hairs of your head are all numbered" (Matt 10:29-30). What did Jesus want them to learn from birds? "Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble" (Matt 6:34). "Fear not, therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows. So everyone who acknowledges Me before men, I also will acknowledge before My Father who is in heaven, but whoever denies Me before men, I also will deny before My Father who is in heaven" (Matt 10:31-33).
We're human. Part of being human is the survival instinct, let alone the "get ahead" drive. So we face fears, real or imagined. We deal with pandemics and cancers, accidents and mayhem, mistakes and attacks, a whole gamut of dangers and crises. And Jesus's words to us are, "Fear not; you are of more value than the birds, and look how well I pay attention to and take care of them." When should we fear? We should be afraid when we deny Him. We ought to be afraid when we tell Him "No" or refuse Him. We need to be afraid when that denial is lifelong and permanent. On the other hand, the remedy for all fear is simply to agree with Him, to acknowledge Him. The word, in fact, is "confess" -- to "say the same word." Agree with Him, and fear not. A message from the birds.
Wednesday, March 15, 2023
Questions
One of the common modes of communication among humans is the question. We ask questions for a variety of reasons. There is the obvious -- I want information I don't have. There is the common rhetorical question, a question asked that need not be answered. "Is the pope Catholic?" is a question offered in response to a question because everyone knows the answer and "that's your answer." But I suspect that most of our questions are not in these two categories. Most are for a different purpose. Most are to nudge thinking. Teachers do it by asking questions in class. They know the answers and they want an answer; they simply want the students to participate. They want to engage their brains and get them to think down the paths that the teacher is wanting them to think. Very common.
In the garden, the serpent famously asked of Eve, "Did God say ...?" Why did he ask? It wasn't for information; he knew what God said. It wasn't rhetorical; he wanted her to answer. No, it was that third category. Get her answer so he could lead her to where he wanted her to go or, more accurately, how he wanted her to think: God is not reliable and needs to be questioned. So she "saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and the tree was desirable to make one wise. And she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave to her husband with her, and he ate" (Gen 3:6). Eve, the mother of all, handed that fruit -- "Did God say ...?" -- to Adam and to the rest of her offspring forever on the basis of the serpent's question, "Did God say ...?".
Today, of course, the question remains. For the unbeliever the answer is easy. "Nope! I don't believe it." For those who fancy themselves believers, it might be more cagey. "Sure, I believe it; I just don't believe you" or "Sure, the Bible contains God's word, but it isn't all God's word." It remains the question the serpent asked: "Did God say ...?" And we continue to answer it Eve's way. "I'll look at it for myself and, using my own perceptions and intellect, I'll evaluate it and come to the correct conclusion." Only, she didn't. Only, we don't. We use our own "eyes" as the plumb bob of truth without realizing we're already crooked (Jer 17:9). The fruit we see as desirable is in fact deadly. And we ignore the patently obvious God-breathed (2 Tim 3:16-17) truth (John 17:17) in front of us as a wonderfully clear means of finding out where our understanding and thinking and feelings and perspectives are mistaken. We answer the question wrong. "No, He didn't say that. He was wrong." With disastrous results.
In the garden, the serpent famously asked of Eve, "Did God say ...?" Why did he ask? It wasn't for information; he knew what God said. It wasn't rhetorical; he wanted her to answer. No, it was that third category. Get her answer so he could lead her to where he wanted her to go or, more accurately, how he wanted her to think: God is not reliable and needs to be questioned. So she "saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and the tree was desirable to make one wise. And she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave to her husband with her, and he ate" (Gen 3:6). Eve, the mother of all, handed that fruit -- "Did God say ...?" -- to Adam and to the rest of her offspring forever on the basis of the serpent's question, "Did God say ...?".
Today, of course, the question remains. For the unbeliever the answer is easy. "Nope! I don't believe it." For those who fancy themselves believers, it might be more cagey. "Sure, I believe it; I just don't believe you" or "Sure, the Bible contains God's word, but it isn't all God's word." It remains the question the serpent asked: "Did God say ...?" And we continue to answer it Eve's way. "I'll look at it for myself and, using my own perceptions and intellect, I'll evaluate it and come to the correct conclusion." Only, she didn't. Only, we don't. We use our own "eyes" as the plumb bob of truth without realizing we're already crooked (Jer 17:9). The fruit we see as desirable is in fact deadly. And we ignore the patently obvious God-breathed (2 Tim 3:16-17) truth (John 17:17) in front of us as a wonderfully clear means of finding out where our understanding and thinking and feelings and perspectives are mistaken. We answer the question wrong. "No, He didn't say that. He was wrong." With disastrous results.
Tuesday, March 14, 2023
Intentionality
Yesterday the wife of one of a distant younger relatives gave birth to their first child together. Announcements were made. Names were chosen. The father thanked God. All very nice. The only thing was that this baby was conceived before the couple married and done so intentionally. So the father, a professed Christian, thanked God while poking Him in the eye. "I did it my way." There are two common tendencies here. One would be rejection. "I'm not happy about this baby because I'm not happy about the sin." The other would be compromise. "I've always thought that fornication was sin, but if it produces a lovely child (especially from someone I know and love), well, then, maybe it's not." Both responses would be wrong.
Consider. This child, through no fault of her own, is the product of fornication, but she could not have even been conceived if the Maker of all didn't approve it. The miracle of conception and birth is not really a miracle -- a supernatural interference in natural law to demonstrate God -- but it is miraculous. If it is true that "Because of Him, and through Him, and to Him are all things" (Rom 11:36), then this baby born out of sin is also a baby born out of God's design.
Once again, then, we circle around to one of my favorite themes: "You intended evil, but God intended good" (Gen 50:20). I live on that theme. I thrive on it. I don't have to say, "Their fornication was a good thing." Nor do I have to say, "Their daughter, as a product of their fornication, is a bad thing." I can call sin sin and call the results of sin that which God works together for good, so she is a blessing, a result of God's good intentions. And I rejoice that God can make use of our sin to produce good, that He can make use of this child to glorify Himself. I hope I get to see how.
Consider. This child, through no fault of her own, is the product of fornication, but she could not have even been conceived if the Maker of all didn't approve it. The miracle of conception and birth is not really a miracle -- a supernatural interference in natural law to demonstrate God -- but it is miraculous. If it is true that "Because of Him, and through Him, and to Him are all things" (Rom 11:36), then this baby born out of sin is also a baby born out of God's design.
Once again, then, we circle around to one of my favorite themes: "You intended evil, but God intended good" (Gen 50:20). I live on that theme. I thrive on it. I don't have to say, "Their fornication was a good thing." Nor do I have to say, "Their daughter, as a product of their fornication, is a bad thing." I can call sin sin and call the results of sin that which God works together for good, so she is a blessing, a result of God's good intentions. And I rejoice that God can make use of our sin to produce good, that He can make use of this child to glorify Himself. I hope I get to see how.
Monday, March 13, 2023
Greed
In 2 Peter 2, Peter writes about false prophets and teachers. He says what we already know -- they will be "among you" (2 Peter 2:1). Not "out there." Not "somewhere else." It was these to whom Jesus referred when He spoke of wolves in sheep's clothing (Matt 7:15). One key trait Peter included was greed -- "They have hearts trained in greed." (2 Peter 2:14) -- and Jesus referred to them as "ravenous" (Matt 7:15). I don't know about you, but I'm thinking that "greed" is a bad thing.
When we think of greed we think of people that want more stuff, but we all know that's not the limit, right? You can be greedy for all sorts of things -- fame, power, wealth, adoration, just about anything. The critical component is selfishness. It's interesting, then, that Scripture says that greed "amounts to idolatry" (Col 3:5). Huh ... idolatry, you say. The word in Greek is the same idea as ours. It means simply "one who wants more." Other versions call it "covetousness" -- "one who wants more." And which of us cannot be described with this term? We want more. Maybe we're really holy and it's not "stuff" or money or fame. We're better than that. More comfort. More ease. More friends. More love. This idolatry is characterized as "selfish," where our desire for more is specifically "more for me." Where, then, is the idol in this idolatry? Me. Like it says elsewhere, we worship and serve the creature rather than the Creator (Rom 1:25). As simple as "I deserve better."
Now, of course, unbelievers are okay with that. Believers must not be. But we are, aren't we? That's because we're Americans who are taught to get all you can. That's because we're humans that are wired for selfishness. And that's because we either don't recognize it or don't believe it is idolatry. "It's not idolatry; it's just the normal desire for more." So, who are you going to believe? Yourself, or God's Word? Your answer might have larger ramifications than you'd like to think.
When we think of greed we think of people that want more stuff, but we all know that's not the limit, right? You can be greedy for all sorts of things -- fame, power, wealth, adoration, just about anything. The critical component is selfishness. It's interesting, then, that Scripture says that greed "amounts to idolatry" (Col 3:5). Huh ... idolatry, you say. The word in Greek is the same idea as ours. It means simply "one who wants more." Other versions call it "covetousness" -- "one who wants more." And which of us cannot be described with this term? We want more. Maybe we're really holy and it's not "stuff" or money or fame. We're better than that. More comfort. More ease. More friends. More love. This idolatry is characterized as "selfish," where our desire for more is specifically "more for me." Where, then, is the idol in this idolatry? Me. Like it says elsewhere, we worship and serve the creature rather than the Creator (Rom 1:25). As simple as "I deserve better."
Now, of course, unbelievers are okay with that. Believers must not be. But we are, aren't we? That's because we're Americans who are taught to get all you can. That's because we're humans that are wired for selfishness. And that's because we either don't recognize it or don't believe it is idolatry. "It's not idolatry; it's just the normal desire for more." So, who are you going to believe? Yourself, or God's Word? Your answer might have larger ramifications than you'd like to think.
Sunday, March 12, 2023
Damning Lies
In his epistle to the Romans on the gospel, Paul first lays out the primary human problem -- sin. From Romans 1:18 all the way through Romans 3:20 he tells the depths of Man's depravity. In the culmination in chapter 3, he says things like, "No one seeks for God" and "no one does good" and "no fear of God before their eyes" (Rom 3:10-18). These are startling, but there is one section that appears to get missed often in this discussion. "Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive. The venom of asps is under their lips" (Rom 3:13). Now that's a bit vague, isn't it? In what sense is "the venom of asps" under their lips? In what sense are their throats "an open grave"?
David wrote, "The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth, speaking lies" (Psa 58:3). It's a very clear representation of when the problem starts ("from the womb") and a shattering claim that there are no "innocent children." But is it true? Well, if we believe that Scripture is from the Holy Spirit (2 Tim 3:15-17; 2 Peter 1:21), then it is. In what sense, then, is it true? Well, obviously, the first lie is to self. We lie to ourselves all the time. We tell ourselves, "I'm the important one. I deserve better." The natural self-centeredness of even the youngest child is a lie because "I am not the center." And that lie produces other sins. It is, in fact, at the core of all other sins. Lying, then, is at the center of sin and sin is fatal (Rom 6:23).
Lying is a fundamental component of our sin nature, the first expression at birth to the last. It was Satan's approach in the garden (Gen 3:1-6). It remains the primary problem. John wrote, "Whoever says 'I know Him' but does not keep His commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him" (1 John 2:4) If our faith is a dead faith (James 2:17) and we do not change externally from our faith, that, too, is a lie, the outcome of which is eternal death. Now, that would be worse than "the venom of asps."
David wrote, "The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth, speaking lies" (Psa 58:3). It's a very clear representation of when the problem starts ("from the womb") and a shattering claim that there are no "innocent children." But is it true? Well, if we believe that Scripture is from the Holy Spirit (2 Tim 3:15-17; 2 Peter 1:21), then it is. In what sense, then, is it true? Well, obviously, the first lie is to self. We lie to ourselves all the time. We tell ourselves, "I'm the important one. I deserve better." The natural self-centeredness of even the youngest child is a lie because "I am not the center." And that lie produces other sins. It is, in fact, at the core of all other sins. Lying, then, is at the center of sin and sin is fatal (Rom 6:23).
Lying is a fundamental component of our sin nature, the first expression at birth to the last. It was Satan's approach in the garden (Gen 3:1-6). It remains the primary problem. John wrote, "Whoever says 'I know Him' but does not keep His commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him" (1 John 2:4) If our faith is a dead faith (James 2:17) and we do not change externally from our faith, that, too, is a lie, the outcome of which is eternal death. Now, that would be worse than "the venom of asps."
Saturday, March 11, 2023
News Weakly - 3/11/23
Low Hanging Fruit
Miami-Dade County has named a street after Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. Me, personally ... I wouldn't want to live there. I mean, that's a lot to write over and over on every "Address" line you have to fill out. And I'm pretty sure there are no known women on that street ...
California ... Again
California has cut ties with Walgreens after they refused to sell abortion pills in 21 states. Walgreens stopped sales in those states where abortion is banned under threat of legal action. Michael Moore is certain that all those women who oppose abortion because it kills a human being are actually "angry white American men" who need to "give up their power." All those kindly white guys hold, "If black women want to kill their babies at a horrifyingly disproportionate rate, we need to let them."
No End in Sight
UN Secretary General António Guterres sounded the alarm that gender equality is still 300 years away. He pointed to the Middle East where women are erased from public life and to places where women are not allowed to kill their babies on a whim. (In terms of "gender equality," is there a place where men are allowed to kill their babies when they want?) Most humorously to me, the Washington Post story pointed out "He did not specify how the [300 year] figure was reached." I'd think that would be harder to predict than, say, weather.
Filed Under "What Could Go Wrong?"
Remember New York City? They were the ones pushing mask and vaccine mandates with a passion. Now NYC Mayor Eric Adams is urging stores to ask people to remove masks ... to prevent robberies. (Ironically, the picture of him giving this presentation has someone standing behind him with a mask.) I remember how odd it was to suddenly not be allowed in my bank (for instance) without a mask and thinking, "What could go wrong?" Interesting that a New York City mayor sees it, too.
Here in "Opposite Land"
I read it and I still don't get it. Five women are suing Texas for the state's abortion ban. They say it puts their lives and their fetuses at risk. So ... just how does preventing the killing of a fetus put the fetus at risk? Kind of the opposite, isn't it?
Of Course They Did
Michigan, a big-time union state, has taken its first solid steps toward repealing their right-to-work law. "No," they will tell workers, "you do not have the right to work here. You will submit to your union masters (especially by paying dues and fees)." Repealing freedom is the message that unions and Democrats would like to broadcast, it seems.
Lies and More Lies
First was the news that Tennessee was banning drag shows. They weren't. They were putting shows with the fundamental precept of men dressed as women in the category of "adult entertainment" which would require that they don't make it available for children ... like any other adult entertainment. Doesn't matter. That font of wisdom, RuPaul, is mad and wants them all out of office. So, let me see. The lawmakers want to limit adult entertainment to adults and it's evil. RuPaul wants to eliminate lawmakers that disagree with his view and that's good. Got it.
Lesson Learned
The prosecutor in the Virginia case of a 6-year-old who shot his teacher (twice) says the child won't be charged. Lesson learned, young man. You can can get away with murder. Or, at least, attempted murder. Life without consequences. Thanks for the graphic lesson. But I think that's what most parents are teaching most kids these days, so it's not really novel.
Ignore the Science
The media always refers to it as a "transgender ban" because the phrase is inflammatory and because it suits their purposes. It is not a transgender ban. West Virginia is asking the Supreme Court to allow their "transgender ban" ... in women's sports. No one cares if a female that considers herself a male plays in male sports. No harm, no foul. No unfair advantage. If they can compete, let 'em. The same is not true in males who identify as females, but no one is willing to acknowledge that they are biological males, so they're unable to admit the plain, scientific fact that biological males tend to have physical advantages over biological females. They say that gender is a social construct. It's not, but if it were, it's still certain that biology is not. So it looks a lot like males who identify as females are trying to erase females in sports.
UnBEElievable
It looks like someone over at the Bee got a bee under their bonnet over women. First was the almost understandable story of the man who regretted transitioning to being a woman once he saw the lines for the restroom. Then the almost understandable one about the guy who invited company over to trick his wife into cleaning the house. Then it just got mean. One was a story of a female pilot who caused a panic when she announced "Everything is fine" followed closely by the female pilot who just figured that "check engine" light would go out eventually. Not cool, Bee. Well, I chuckled, but it was a guilty chuckle. Not cool.
Miami-Dade County has named a street after Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. Me, personally ... I wouldn't want to live there. I mean, that's a lot to write over and over on every "Address" line you have to fill out. And I'm pretty sure there are no known women on that street ...
California ... Again
California has cut ties with Walgreens after they refused to sell abortion pills in 21 states. Walgreens stopped sales in those states where abortion is banned under threat of legal action. Michael Moore is certain that all those women who oppose abortion because it kills a human being are actually "angry white American men" who need to "give up their power." All those kindly white guys hold, "If black women want to kill their babies at a horrifyingly disproportionate rate, we need to let them."
No End in Sight
UN Secretary General António Guterres sounded the alarm that gender equality is still 300 years away. He pointed to the Middle East where women are erased from public life and to places where women are not allowed to kill their babies on a whim. (In terms of "gender equality," is there a place where men are allowed to kill their babies when they want?) Most humorously to me, the Washington Post story pointed out "He did not specify how the [300 year] figure was reached." I'd think that would be harder to predict than, say, weather.
Filed Under "What Could Go Wrong?"
Remember New York City? They were the ones pushing mask and vaccine mandates with a passion. Now NYC Mayor Eric Adams is urging stores to ask people to remove masks ... to prevent robberies. (Ironically, the picture of him giving this presentation has someone standing behind him with a mask.) I remember how odd it was to suddenly not be allowed in my bank (for instance) without a mask and thinking, "What could go wrong?" Interesting that a New York City mayor sees it, too.
Here in "Opposite Land"
I read it and I still don't get it. Five women are suing Texas for the state's abortion ban. They say it puts their lives and their fetuses at risk. So ... just how does preventing the killing of a fetus put the fetus at risk? Kind of the opposite, isn't it?
Of Course They Did
Michigan, a big-time union state, has taken its first solid steps toward repealing their right-to-work law. "No," they will tell workers, "you do not have the right to work here. You will submit to your union masters (especially by paying dues and fees)." Repealing freedom is the message that unions and Democrats would like to broadcast, it seems.
Lies and More Lies
First was the news that Tennessee was banning drag shows. They weren't. They were putting shows with the fundamental precept of men dressed as women in the category of "adult entertainment" which would require that they don't make it available for children ... like any other adult entertainment. Doesn't matter. That font of wisdom, RuPaul, is mad and wants them all out of office. So, let me see. The lawmakers want to limit adult entertainment to adults and it's evil. RuPaul wants to eliminate lawmakers that disagree with his view and that's good. Got it.
Lesson Learned
The prosecutor in the Virginia case of a 6-year-old who shot his teacher (twice) says the child won't be charged. Lesson learned, young man. You can can get away with murder. Or, at least, attempted murder. Life without consequences. Thanks for the graphic lesson. But I think that's what most parents are teaching most kids these days, so it's not really novel.
Ignore the Science
The media always refers to it as a "transgender ban" because the phrase is inflammatory and because it suits their purposes. It is not a transgender ban. West Virginia is asking the Supreme Court to allow their "transgender ban" ... in women's sports. No one cares if a female that considers herself a male plays in male sports. No harm, no foul. No unfair advantage. If they can compete, let 'em. The same is not true in males who identify as females, but no one is willing to acknowledge that they are biological males, so they're unable to admit the plain, scientific fact that biological males tend to have physical advantages over biological females. They say that gender is a social construct. It's not, but if it were, it's still certain that biology is not. So it looks a lot like males who identify as females are trying to erase females in sports.
UnBEElievable
It looks like someone over at the Bee got a bee under their bonnet over women. First was the almost understandable story of the man who regretted transitioning to being a woman once he saw the lines for the restroom. Then the almost understandable one about the guy who invited company over to trick his wife into cleaning the house. Then it just got mean. One was a story of a female pilot who caused a panic when she announced "Everything is fine" followed closely by the female pilot who just figured that "check engine" light would go out eventually. Not cool, Bee. Well, I chuckled, but it was a guilty chuckle. Not cool.
Friday, March 10, 2023
Submitting Ideas
You have heard (if you only because you read my News Weakly) that the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) kicked out 5 churches last month for having female pastors. And, of course, that spawns all sorts of debate. So, first, according to the standard SBC Baptist Faith and Message, their ruling document, "While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture." So, yes, the SBC holds that position. And, of course, it is popularly disputed, even among genuine, conservative, Bible-believing Christians. (Especially women.) It is, nevertheless, biblical (2 Tim 2:9-14).
It is no longer fashionable to hold to that part of Scripture. For instance, if you were to posit that wives are to submit to their husbands (Eph 5:22-24), you would hear loud denials. One of the most popular denials tries to take a biblical approach. "No! We are supposed to be 'submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ'." (Eph 5:21) Well, let's look at that. First, "No, wives don't have to submit to their husbands" makes no sense if your position is "We're all supposed to submit to each other." Rather than "Wives don't have to submit to their husbands," the position would need to be "Husbands also need to submit to their wives." Second, the text is explicit. How are wives supposed to submit to their husbands? "As to the Lord" (Eph 5:22). It goes on to say, "As the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything" (Eph 5:24). If you want to hold that Christ submits to the church in the same way that the church submits to Christ, you're going to have to do some fancy dancing to make sense of that. Wives don't submit to the Lord in a mutual sense. It's not like, "Sometimes I submit to Him when He's right and sometimes He submits to me when I'm right." Doesn't happen.
Then what's going on here? It is clearly a command to mutual submission (Eph 5:21) followed immediately by a unilateral submission (Wives submit to their husbands as to the Lord). Paul is simply explaining his "submitting to one another." Wives do so in this way and husbands do so in that. They both submit, even though it's not in the same way. Husbands submit by giving up self (Eph 5:25) (which, I would contend, is much bigger than giving up authority). Husbands submit by loving their wives to a complete sacrifice of themselves and by taking responsibility for their well-being, especially spiritually. Big stuff. But in the end, the question comes down to something other than male/female relations. The question comes down to "Is my Bible right, reliable, and authoritative, or do I have a better idea?" That is the actual question being debated here, because there is no question on what Scripture teaches regarding headship in a family or in a church, like it or not.
It is no longer fashionable to hold to that part of Scripture. For instance, if you were to posit that wives are to submit to their husbands (Eph 5:22-24), you would hear loud denials. One of the most popular denials tries to take a biblical approach. "No! We are supposed to be 'submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ'." (Eph 5:21) Well, let's look at that. First, "No, wives don't have to submit to their husbands" makes no sense if your position is "We're all supposed to submit to each other." Rather than "Wives don't have to submit to their husbands," the position would need to be "Husbands also need to submit to their wives." Second, the text is explicit. How are wives supposed to submit to their husbands? "As to the Lord" (Eph 5:22). It goes on to say, "As the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything" (Eph 5:24). If you want to hold that Christ submits to the church in the same way that the church submits to Christ, you're going to have to do some fancy dancing to make sense of that. Wives don't submit to the Lord in a mutual sense. It's not like, "Sometimes I submit to Him when He's right and sometimes He submits to me when I'm right." Doesn't happen.
Then what's going on here? It is clearly a command to mutual submission (Eph 5:21) followed immediately by a unilateral submission (Wives submit to their husbands as to the Lord). Paul is simply explaining his "submitting to one another." Wives do so in this way and husbands do so in that. They both submit, even though it's not in the same way. Husbands submit by giving up self (Eph 5:25) (which, I would contend, is much bigger than giving up authority). Husbands submit by loving their wives to a complete sacrifice of themselves and by taking responsibility for their well-being, especially spiritually. Big stuff. But in the end, the question comes down to something other than male/female relations. The question comes down to "Is my Bible right, reliable, and authoritative, or do I have a better idea?" That is the actual question being debated here, because there is no question on what Scripture teaches regarding headship in a family or in a church, like it or not.
Thursday, March 09, 2023
End Times?
So, I received this very odd notification from Blogger, the platform I use for this blog. They told me that one of my posts "was put behind a warning for readers because it contains sensitive content." "Hmm," I thought, "what did I write that contained 'sensitive content'?" Maybe it was in some of those places where I said that the Bible calls homosexual sex sin. Maybe it was one of those places where I said that transgender is biologically nonsense. You know, in some of that satirical stuff in my News Weakly entries someone might have taken offense. Who knows? So I looked further. The email I received told me it was my post on "Did David Rape Bathsheba?. What? Really??
According to the notice it "was flagged to us for review." How? Did a reader complain? Did some software find some "sensitive content"? I don't know. What sensitive content? I don't know. How can I fix this? Well, if I edit it to change the "sensitive content," they'll review my edit and release it if it meets their standards. What sensitive content? So I won't be editing it. I don't know what was offensive. I said that the text offers no indication that David raped Bathsheba. Hebrew has a word for "rape" and it wasn't used anywhere in the story of David and Bathsheba. That is, when God's list of accusations against David was read, there was murder and there was adultery, but there was no rape. So I concluded we couldn't call it rape if God didn't. Sensitive content?
It's not like this is a surprise. I already suggested some of what I have written that could be listed as "sensitive content" in this oversensitized, redefining world of ours. It won't be long before the Bible will be chided for its "hate speech" when it clearly states that homosexual behavior is sin, for instance. After all, those of us who hold to the Bible already are accused of hate speech for it. What I'm wondering, then, is if it is time for me to say goodbye to blogging. I'm at almost 17 years of blogging with over 6100 posts and counting. It is almost unthinkable to believe I could get away with maintaining a biblical worldview on an open platform like this and still be allowed to continue. Maybe it's time to consider ending it? Or maybe you, my readers, have other suggestions? I'm not interested in making it a fight, but maybe you know of other options or ideas? I'll have to pray and think about this.
According to the notice it "was flagged to us for review." How? Did a reader complain? Did some software find some "sensitive content"? I don't know. What sensitive content? I don't know. How can I fix this? Well, if I edit it to change the "sensitive content," they'll review my edit and release it if it meets their standards. What sensitive content? So I won't be editing it. I don't know what was offensive. I said that the text offers no indication that David raped Bathsheba. Hebrew has a word for "rape" and it wasn't used anywhere in the story of David and Bathsheba. That is, when God's list of accusations against David was read, there was murder and there was adultery, but there was no rape. So I concluded we couldn't call it rape if God didn't. Sensitive content?
It's not like this is a surprise. I already suggested some of what I have written that could be listed as "sensitive content" in this oversensitized, redefining world of ours. It won't be long before the Bible will be chided for its "hate speech" when it clearly states that homosexual behavior is sin, for instance. After all, those of us who hold to the Bible already are accused of hate speech for it. What I'm wondering, then, is if it is time for me to say goodbye to blogging. I'm at almost 17 years of blogging with over 6100 posts and counting. It is almost unthinkable to believe I could get away with maintaining a biblical worldview on an open platform like this and still be allowed to continue. Maybe it's time to consider ending it? Or maybe you, my readers, have other suggestions? I'm not interested in making it a fight, but maybe you know of other options or ideas? I'll have to pray and think about this.
Wednesday, March 08, 2023
That's Me in the Middle
Humans as a race have this fundamental problem -- sin. One and only one person in the entire history of the world has lived a life without it. Jesus "knew no sin" (2 Cor 5:21). He was "tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin" (Heb 4:15). The only one. A universal problem would seem to need a universal cause. What would that be? Well, for us English speakers, the hint is in the word. What, in English, is at the center of "sin"? "I," of course. And there you have it.
Humans are naturally anthropocentric. That means that our center is "man" (human, not male). More precisely, it is "this human" -- "me." It has been said that we are idol factories. We turn them out at an amazing rate, from sun, moon, and every natural thing to ideas (e.g., science) or ideology (e.g., LGBTx). We got a million of 'em. But in the end they all rotate around "me." Which, as it turns out, is the actual opposite of what God intended.
Look, this isn't a great mystery. What did Jesus consider the two commandments? Love God and love your neighbor (Matt 22:36-40). "On these two commandments," He concluded, "depend the whole Law and the Prophets" (Matt 22:40). Notice the trajectory of these two -- outward. Not inward. Not "me." They consist of "God" and "the rest of you," but not "me." There is no command to love myself. So the fundamental issue in sin -- "missing the mark" -- is all of our inward facing lives. It is in this trajectory that we constantly fall short of the glory of God (Rom 3:23). It is "me." It is "self." It is whenever I get ... selfish. Something to consider.
Humans are naturally anthropocentric. That means that our center is "man" (human, not male). More precisely, it is "this human" -- "me." It has been said that we are idol factories. We turn them out at an amazing rate, from sun, moon, and every natural thing to ideas (e.g., science) or ideology (e.g., LGBTx). We got a million of 'em. But in the end they all rotate around "me." Which, as it turns out, is the actual opposite of what God intended.
Look, this isn't a great mystery. What did Jesus consider the two commandments? Love God and love your neighbor (Matt 22:36-40). "On these two commandments," He concluded, "depend the whole Law and the Prophets" (Matt 22:40). Notice the trajectory of these two -- outward. Not inward. Not "me." They consist of "God" and "the rest of you," but not "me." There is no command to love myself. So the fundamental issue in sin -- "missing the mark" -- is all of our inward facing lives. It is in this trajectory that we constantly fall short of the glory of God (Rom 3:23). It is "me." It is "self." It is whenever I get ... selfish. Something to consider.
Tuesday, March 07, 2023
Power System
Jesus said, "Apart from Me you can do nothing" (John 15:5). Nothing? Really?? Was Jesus engaging in hyperbole? Are we just misintepreting it? What's up with this?
Commentators are quick to point out that the text is referring to producing spiritual fruit. I mean, the actual statement here is
Paul told the Philippians to "work out your salvation with fear and trembling" (Php 2:12). Now, that's quite a command to give to forgiven sinners. How does it work? Well, Paul asked the Galatians, "Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?" (with the clearly implied, "No!") (Gal 3:3). Thus, instead of doing it ourselves, we work out our salvation by means of God being at work in us to both will and do His good pleasure (Php 2:13). So, yes, Jesus was referring to fruit ... and any spiritual good. But if all things consist in Him and all power and authority reside in Him, He actually is the one providing (or withdrawing) the operating force required to do anything. Something to consider when you ... oh, I don't know ... get out of bed tomorrow or whatever.
Commentators are quick to point out that the text is referring to producing spiritual fruit. I mean, the actual statement here is
Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me. I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing. (John 15:4-5)Clearly, fruit is in view here. Spiritual fruit. So is that all He's talking about? My clear and concise answer would be "Yes ... and no." John makes it clear that "All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being" (John 1:3). He is the origin of the species ... the origin of everything that exists. But beyond being the origin, Scripture says things like, "From Him and through Him and to Him are all things" (Rom 11:36) and "in Him all things hold together" (Col 1:17). In fact, we all know that God is "omnipotent," which means God possesses all power ... including yours.
Paul told the Philippians to "work out your salvation with fear and trembling" (Php 2:12). Now, that's quite a command to give to forgiven sinners. How does it work? Well, Paul asked the Galatians, "Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?" (with the clearly implied, "No!") (Gal 3:3). Thus, instead of doing it ourselves, we work out our salvation by means of God being at work in us to both will and do His good pleasure (Php 2:13). So, yes, Jesus was referring to fruit ... and any spiritual good. But if all things consist in Him and all power and authority reside in Him, He actually is the one providing (or withdrawing) the operating force required to do anything. Something to consider when you ... oh, I don't know ... get out of bed tomorrow or whatever.
Monday, March 06, 2023
Even Me
I caught the Jesus Revolution movie last week, the true story of a stodgy old pastor (Chuck Smith) who learned from a genuine hippy (Lonnie Frisbee) that hippies need Jesus, too, and started a movement that swept the country. I won't be reviewing that movie. I looked up Lonnie afterwards and discovered that they left a lot out. Lonnie eventually parted ways with Chuck (in the movie) and went on to John Wimber's Vineyard church where he is credited with igniting a charismatic fire. He was later dismissed from Vineyard when it came to light that he was a closet homosexual. His wife left him for his multiple affairs with men and he ultimately died of HIV. "There," some voices in Christianity will say, "proof that it was all not of God." Really?
I remember the story of some malicious brothers who intended to kill their younger brother but ended up selling him off as a slave. There he became perfectly positioned to save his family, the nation that his family would become, and ultimately all who trust in Christ (because He came from that family). He told his brothers, "You meant evil against me, but God meant it for good" (Gen 50:20). I remember the story of a prophet who went off to curse God's people but was stopped ... by his donkey (technically, his ass). Balaam's ass talked to him and turned him around and Balaam did not curse Israel as planned (Num 22). I remember a story of a judge in Israel who was ruled by his passions -- his temper and his lust -- but ultimately brought down the house ... literally (Judg 16:28-30). It seems to me that Scripture is full of "losers" that God uses to accomplish amazing things.
If God can use murderous men to save a nation, if God can use an Israelite playboy to save His people, if God can use Balaam's ass to accomplish His will, then why not a cranky old pastor and a crazy homosexual hippy to create revival? You see, it's not about the shiny, perfect tools that God uses. It's about God. Always. He doesn't do it to show off His excellent tools; He does it to the praise of His glory. It's why Paul could say, "We know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God" (Rom 8:28). I think "you meant it for evil but God meant it for good" is the everyday norm of human living rather than the exception. If God can use so many "losers" -- sinners to their deaths -- to accomplish His good will, then clearly He can use you. And, startlingly, even me.
I remember the story of some malicious brothers who intended to kill their younger brother but ended up selling him off as a slave. There he became perfectly positioned to save his family, the nation that his family would become, and ultimately all who trust in Christ (because He came from that family). He told his brothers, "You meant evil against me, but God meant it for good" (Gen 50:20). I remember the story of a prophet who went off to curse God's people but was stopped ... by his donkey (technically, his ass). Balaam's ass talked to him and turned him around and Balaam did not curse Israel as planned (Num 22). I remember a story of a judge in Israel who was ruled by his passions -- his temper and his lust -- but ultimately brought down the house ... literally (Judg 16:28-30). It seems to me that Scripture is full of "losers" that God uses to accomplish amazing things.
If God can use murderous men to save a nation, if God can use an Israelite playboy to save His people, if God can use Balaam's ass to accomplish His will, then why not a cranky old pastor and a crazy homosexual hippy to create revival? You see, it's not about the shiny, perfect tools that God uses. It's about God. Always. He doesn't do it to show off His excellent tools; He does it to the praise of His glory. It's why Paul could say, "We know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God" (Rom 8:28). I think "you meant it for evil but God meant it for good" is the everyday norm of human living rather than the exception. If God can use so many "losers" -- sinners to their deaths -- to accomplish His good will, then clearly He can use you. And, startlingly, even me.
Sunday, March 05, 2023
If God is Not Just
"If God is not just what?" English is tough, isn't it? We use "just" for "merely" or for "righteous, equitable, full of justice." So what if God is not a just God? "Not a just God? Who would ever say that?" It's more common than you might think. Justice is "what is right." It is the balancing of the books. If Bob steals from Bill, Bob owes Bill what he stole ... and a little bit more for pain and suffering. That's justice. That's balancing the books. But there are those who claim that God doesn't do that. God just ... forgives. "God," they say, "is a God of grace and mercy," two concepts that stand in opposition to justice. Grace is favor you don't deserve and mercy is not receiving the punishment you deserve. God, then, to this way of thinking is not just; He's much nicer than that. So what if God is not just?
If God is not just, there are some serious ramifications. We all know, for instance, that the God of the Old Testament routinely struck down people for sin -- 3,000 here (Exo 34:2) and 70,000 there (2 Sam 24:15) and ... well, you get it. That's wrath. That's justice. We all know (incorrectly) that the God of the New Testament is a kinder, gentler God and doesn't care about sin anymore. But if that is true, then the requirement is that the God of the New Testament finally figured out that His prior behavior was wrong and He has reformed. So the God who declared "I do not change" (Mal 3:6) changes and the God of righteousness has not always been righteous. Which takes us to a second problem. If He does change, our Bibles are useless because they lie. If He does change we can't be sure of His promises. If He does change we can't be sure of much at all. If all this is true, then it turns out that Jesus is equally unreliable. Why did His gospel start with "repent" (Matt 4:17) if sin was not going to be dealt with (justice)? Why did He come to "give His life as a ransom" if no ransom (justice) was required? These are the kinds of inconsistencies, I suppose, you would expect if we can't actually trust our Bibles. There are more ramifications, but the final casualty, of course, is morality. Human morality only makes sense in a world where there is ultimate justice. If God is actually just, then we can be sure that, no matter what happens here, everyone will ultimately pay for their crimes, so to speak. But if that never happens because God is not a wrathful God and wouldn't be so mean, then why be good? In fact, how foolish would it be to not steal, not take what you can, not get away with what you can to benefit yourself if there are no consequences? Human morality requires a just God in order to make any sense or have any teeth.
Let's bring this down to earth, so to speak. God is said -- both Old and New Testament -- to be just and to be angry at sin. If that is true -- if God will always and ultimately balance the books -- what does that mean ... to me? It means that I can forgive. It means that I don't have to sweat it. It means that I can let injustice toward me go since I know that God won't. He will balance the books. He will make it right. And it means that my errors, my violations, my sins will not be overlooked, so I can be exceedingly grateful that Christ did come to give His life as a ransom. It is good news to me that "All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all" (Isa 53:6). It means that Christ did indeed bring good news of peace with a genuinely and rightly angry God. Without that, we will be in serious trouble ... if God is not actually just.
If God is not just, there are some serious ramifications. We all know, for instance, that the God of the Old Testament routinely struck down people for sin -- 3,000 here (Exo 34:2) and 70,000 there (2 Sam 24:15) and ... well, you get it. That's wrath. That's justice. We all know (incorrectly) that the God of the New Testament is a kinder, gentler God and doesn't care about sin anymore. But if that is true, then the requirement is that the God of the New Testament finally figured out that His prior behavior was wrong and He has reformed. So the God who declared "I do not change" (Mal 3:6) changes and the God of righteousness has not always been righteous. Which takes us to a second problem. If He does change, our Bibles are useless because they lie. If He does change we can't be sure of His promises. If He does change we can't be sure of much at all. If all this is true, then it turns out that Jesus is equally unreliable. Why did His gospel start with "repent" (Matt 4:17) if sin was not going to be dealt with (justice)? Why did He come to "give His life as a ransom" if no ransom (justice) was required? These are the kinds of inconsistencies, I suppose, you would expect if we can't actually trust our Bibles. There are more ramifications, but the final casualty, of course, is morality. Human morality only makes sense in a world where there is ultimate justice. If God is actually just, then we can be sure that, no matter what happens here, everyone will ultimately pay for their crimes, so to speak. But if that never happens because God is not a wrathful God and wouldn't be so mean, then why be good? In fact, how foolish would it be to not steal, not take what you can, not get away with what you can to benefit yourself if there are no consequences? Human morality requires a just God in order to make any sense or have any teeth.
Let's bring this down to earth, so to speak. God is said -- both Old and New Testament -- to be just and to be angry at sin. If that is true -- if God will always and ultimately balance the books -- what does that mean ... to me? It means that I can forgive. It means that I don't have to sweat it. It means that I can let injustice toward me go since I know that God won't. He will balance the books. He will make it right. And it means that my errors, my violations, my sins will not be overlooked, so I can be exceedingly grateful that Christ did come to give His life as a ransom. It is good news to me that "All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all" (Isa 53:6). It means that Christ did indeed bring good news of peace with a genuinely and rightly angry God. Without that, we will be in serious trouble ... if God is not actually just.
Saturday, March 04, 2023
News Weakly - 3/24/23
And ... There It Is
You may have heard of the "Asbury revival," an impromptu, unplanned, and originally quite private moment when people repented and prayed. Well, word got out and people started coming from almost literally everywhere to experience it, so the university had to throttle it back simply because of the crowds. Now, something like this can't be good in a world that hates God, so Insider is reporting that the event probably spread measles. Mind you, it is one case, but the anti-Christian LGBT folks labeled it a "superspreader." If they can cast some aspersions on something like this, they will.
The Trick of Pointing Fingers
Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot lost her bid for reelection in the latest election. She blames it on racist and sexist voters ... the only possible explanation. Or ... perhaps Chicago voters just don't like rising crime and ineffective mayors? Maybe?
Make Up Your Mind
Greta Thunberg can't seem to make up her mind. She is strongly, decisively, derisively against fossil fuels and for renewable energy, but she was detained by police in Norwary protesting ... wind turbines. So which is it, Greta?
Frozen Sunshine
Flagstaff, AZ has experienced the 2nd snowiest winter on record (11.6'). I'm telling you, if this global warming keeps up, we will all freeze to death. (Side note: These "News Weakly" entries are intended to be taken lightly. If you take offense at that, stop reading it.)
My Will Be Done
An Arizona school board member wearing green hair and cat ears at the meeting urged the school board not to allow hiring of teachers from the local Christian university. Her primary concern was that the university advertised that they are "committed to Jesus Christ, accomplishing his will and advancements on earth as in Heaven." As everyone knows, only "bilingual, disabled, neurodivergent Queer Black Latina" folk are allowed to accomplish their will on earth. She said, "I full-heartedly believe in the religious freedom and people being able to practice whatever faith that they have" unless, of course, its in opposition to her will.
Exclusive Inclusivity
Raquel Saraswati was the chief equity, inclusion, and culture officer of social justice organization American Friends Service Committee. She left her post when it turned out that, although she identified as a woman of color, she was not (a la Rachel Dolezal). I will seriously never understand how someone can identify as the opposite sex and we defend and embrace it but they cannot identify as a different race and this is "reasonable" and "fair" and "inclusive." Why the media and the rest refer to one as "transgender" and the other as "lying" completely baffles me.
What Has BEEn Going On?
According to the Bee, Lori Lightfoot blamed her loss on rampant murderphobia. (I guess you'd have to know about murder statistics in Chicago to get that joke.) Then there was the story about Southern California being covered in 6 feet of global warming after that massive snow storm. And an honorable mention for Genesius Times for their story on scientists warning that Earth could run out of conspiracy theories by 2025 if they keep coming true at the current rate.
Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
You may have heard of the "Asbury revival," an impromptu, unplanned, and originally quite private moment when people repented and prayed. Well, word got out and people started coming from almost literally everywhere to experience it, so the university had to throttle it back simply because of the crowds. Now, something like this can't be good in a world that hates God, so Insider is reporting that the event probably spread measles. Mind you, it is one case, but the anti-Christian LGBT folks labeled it a "superspreader." If they can cast some aspersions on something like this, they will.
The Trick of Pointing Fingers
Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot lost her bid for reelection in the latest election. She blames it on racist and sexist voters ... the only possible explanation. Or ... perhaps Chicago voters just don't like rising crime and ineffective mayors? Maybe?
Make Up Your Mind
Greta Thunberg can't seem to make up her mind. She is strongly, decisively, derisively against fossil fuels and for renewable energy, but she was detained by police in Norwary protesting ... wind turbines. So which is it, Greta?
Frozen Sunshine
Flagstaff, AZ has experienced the 2nd snowiest winter on record (11.6'). I'm telling you, if this global warming keeps up, we will all freeze to death. (Side note: These "News Weakly" entries are intended to be taken lightly. If you take offense at that, stop reading it.)
My Will Be Done
An Arizona school board member wearing green hair and cat ears at the meeting urged the school board not to allow hiring of teachers from the local Christian university. Her primary concern was that the university advertised that they are "committed to Jesus Christ, accomplishing his will and advancements on earth as in Heaven." As everyone knows, only "bilingual, disabled, neurodivergent Queer Black Latina" folk are allowed to accomplish their will on earth. She said, "I full-heartedly believe in the religious freedom and people being able to practice whatever faith that they have" unless, of course, its in opposition to her will.
Exclusive Inclusivity
Raquel Saraswati was the chief equity, inclusion, and culture officer of social justice organization American Friends Service Committee. She left her post when it turned out that, although she identified as a woman of color, she was not (a la Rachel Dolezal). I will seriously never understand how someone can identify as the opposite sex and we defend and embrace it but they cannot identify as a different race and this is "reasonable" and "fair" and "inclusive." Why the media and the rest refer to one as "transgender" and the other as "lying" completely baffles me.
What Has BEEn Going On?
According to the Bee, Lori Lightfoot blamed her loss on rampant murderphobia. (I guess you'd have to know about murder statistics in Chicago to get that joke.) Then there was the story about Southern California being covered in 6 feet of global warming after that massive snow storm. And an honorable mention for Genesius Times for their story on scientists warning that Earth could run out of conspiracy theories by 2025 if they keep coming true at the current rate.
Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
Friday, March 03, 2023
Captivated
It is not uncommon in this blog or in my life for people to try to set me straight. Sometimes it's in details and sometimes it's as big as worldviews. In theory that's all well and good. We are human, aren't we? To err is human, isn't it? None of us are infallible. I get it. In fact, I am aware that I am often wrong and need and find correction. So I get it. But here's the thing. My worldview -- the big picture -- is predicated on lots of data, information, facts, reasons, logic, and even history. So when you decide I need to change my worldview, you should consider what you're demanding of me.
I have not always been a Christian. I have not always believed what I believe now. I have not always been sure about the reliability or authority of Scripture, the truthfulness of genuine Christianity, or the whole "saved by grace apart from works" thing (and all that goes with it). I have become convinced of it over time. And, over time, it has become more and more certain ... not less. It fits. It is coherent. It makes sense. Unlike so many other views that sound reasonable for a moment ... until you put them alongside other components of the same views. Until you look at the bigger picture and just say, "Wait, that just doesn't hold up." So when you tell me, for instance, "You can't rely on the Bible as a source of inerrant and infallible information or authority in matters of faith and practice," you might as well tell me, "You can't really know anything in this existence because all that makes perfect sense to you is wrong and all that makes perfect sense to me is right and you need to change ... essentially everything you believe." The offer, then, is to eliminate any foundation, any footing, any reasoning, anything that I can know at all and to do so without substitute. No other worldview suffices based on all the information I have, and urging me to eliminate the only one that makes sense is not a minor issue.
I am, as Luther expressed it, "captive to the Word of God." Unless convinced by Scripture and evident reason, I can do no other. So, while I can certainly do with correction in a lot of areas and, in fact, can even appreciate it, I cannot see my way through to undercutting my entire worldview to satisfy those of you who say otherwise. For you, then, I have one simple request. Tolerance is defined as the willingness to tolerate the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with. Tolerance is not agreeing to those things, but allowing them to go on. My request is that you would show me some of that simple tolerance you tout but don't seem to want to practice. Thanks.
I have not always been a Christian. I have not always believed what I believe now. I have not always been sure about the reliability or authority of Scripture, the truthfulness of genuine Christianity, or the whole "saved by grace apart from works" thing (and all that goes with it). I have become convinced of it over time. And, over time, it has become more and more certain ... not less. It fits. It is coherent. It makes sense. Unlike so many other views that sound reasonable for a moment ... until you put them alongside other components of the same views. Until you look at the bigger picture and just say, "Wait, that just doesn't hold up." So when you tell me, for instance, "You can't rely on the Bible as a source of inerrant and infallible information or authority in matters of faith and practice," you might as well tell me, "You can't really know anything in this existence because all that makes perfect sense to you is wrong and all that makes perfect sense to me is right and you need to change ... essentially everything you believe." The offer, then, is to eliminate any foundation, any footing, any reasoning, anything that I can know at all and to do so without substitute. No other worldview suffices based on all the information I have, and urging me to eliminate the only one that makes sense is not a minor issue.
I am, as Luther expressed it, "captive to the Word of God." Unless convinced by Scripture and evident reason, I can do no other. So, while I can certainly do with correction in a lot of areas and, in fact, can even appreciate it, I cannot see my way through to undercutting my entire worldview to satisfy those of you who say otherwise. For you, then, I have one simple request. Tolerance is defined as the willingness to tolerate the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with. Tolerance is not agreeing to those things, but allowing them to go on. My request is that you would show me some of that simple tolerance you tout but don't seem to want to practice. Thanks.
Thursday, March 02, 2023
Appreciation
Let's talk appreciation. Most Americans know that if you buy property, it's a good investment because ... what? ... because it appreciates. Now, I don't really have to explain the term to you, but I will because it's important to this discussion. To "appreciate" means to increase in value. It is the opposite of "depreciate." If you buy a new car, the moment you drive that car off the lot, it depreciates -- it drops in value. When I was in high school, my parents bought a nice 4-bedroom home in a nice community in Pasadena for around $36,000. That wasn't cheap back then. But after I grew up and moved out and Dad retired, they sold it. Not for $36,000. No, they sold it for $265,000. A few years ago my dad complained, "I should have kept that house." Now it's worth around $3 million. Appreciation.
But, of course, we use that same term in another application. I might say, "I appreciate you" or "I appreciate what you've done." What's the connection to real estate? None, of course, but the principle is the same. To appreciate something in this sense means to value it, to consider it of worth. Note that in both the real estate and the personal appreciation the value is applied and not necessarily actual. Dad didn't do anything to that house to make it worth more than 7 times what he paid for it. No, it was the market or, more precisely, the buyers who assigned the worth. In the same sense, when we appreciate something, we assign worth to it. When I retired they threw me a retirement party which included gifts, and, of course, I got a final paycheck. Now, the paycheck was much more money than the gifts were worth, but I appreciated the gifts more than the paycheck because I earned that paycheck, but the gifts were above and beyond. Perhaps, then, you can see the connection of "appreciate" to "grateful." We are grateful for the things to which we assign value and not so much for the things that we expect we are due.
Scripture says we humans have a conflict with God. Although He made everything and put us in it and made it clear to us He did that, we "did not honor Him as God or give thanks to Him" (Rom 1:21). We didn't appreciate Him. Why? Well, we figured it was our just due. We figured we were so important that we had it coming. Like a kid who has seen 12 Christmases come and go and, therefore, expects mom and dad to give him what he wants, we do not appreciate God. You can tell this is true because when some good we expect does not occur, we question God. "Why would a good God allow that??" Because we expect good and don't appreciate -- apply value to -- it. We have overinflated egos and think God owes us because, after all, we are so very important and so very loveable. And we're not. Which is why we are under God's wrath (Rom 1:18). Which is why we need redemption. Which is why we need Jesus. And when that entitlement creeps back in, it's why we fail to appreciate the grace and mercy we've received. "Ungrateful" is an unpleasant word that applies to most of us at times. And it's a problem of failing to appreciate -- apply value to -- God and His kindness.
But, of course, we use that same term in another application. I might say, "I appreciate you" or "I appreciate what you've done." What's the connection to real estate? None, of course, but the principle is the same. To appreciate something in this sense means to value it, to consider it of worth. Note that in both the real estate and the personal appreciation the value is applied and not necessarily actual. Dad didn't do anything to that house to make it worth more than 7 times what he paid for it. No, it was the market or, more precisely, the buyers who assigned the worth. In the same sense, when we appreciate something, we assign worth to it. When I retired they threw me a retirement party which included gifts, and, of course, I got a final paycheck. Now, the paycheck was much more money than the gifts were worth, but I appreciated the gifts more than the paycheck because I earned that paycheck, but the gifts were above and beyond. Perhaps, then, you can see the connection of "appreciate" to "grateful." We are grateful for the things to which we assign value and not so much for the things that we expect we are due.
Scripture says we humans have a conflict with God. Although He made everything and put us in it and made it clear to us He did that, we "did not honor Him as God or give thanks to Him" (Rom 1:21). We didn't appreciate Him. Why? Well, we figured it was our just due. We figured we were so important that we had it coming. Like a kid who has seen 12 Christmases come and go and, therefore, expects mom and dad to give him what he wants, we do not appreciate God. You can tell this is true because when some good we expect does not occur, we question God. "Why would a good God allow that??" Because we expect good and don't appreciate -- apply value to -- it. We have overinflated egos and think God owes us because, after all, we are so very important and so very loveable. And we're not. Which is why we are under God's wrath (Rom 1:18). Which is why we need redemption. Which is why we need Jesus. And when that entitlement creeps back in, it's why we fail to appreciate the grace and mercy we've received. "Ungrateful" is an unpleasant word that applies to most of us at times. And it's a problem of failing to appreciate -- apply value to -- God and His kindness.
Wednesday, March 01, 2023
The Benefits of Grace
In Romans 5 Paul lists some of the benefits of "saved by faith apart from works." He says that "we have peace with God" (Rom 5:1) and he says that we have "obtained access" (Rom 5:2) and, a little farther down, he says we "rejoice in God" (Rom 5:11). Those are good things, but do they fill you with gratitude to know it or is your response, "Oh, yes, that's nice"? If that doesn't get you really excited, perhaps you don't realize the magnitude of these benefits.
According to Paul, God isn't a kindly, dottering old man who is ready to embrace us all. The portrayal at the start of Romans is that we have managed to earn the wrath of God (Rom 1:18). The righteous wrath of God. We have sinned and we have fallen short of His glory (Rom 3:23) and there is not one of us who is good -- not even one (Rom 3:12). Beyond that, there is nothing we can do in ourselves to fix it. So to learn that by faith in Christ we can have peace with God ought to be awe-inspiring. It ought to incite relief and celebration. And we moderns have become so used to a government "by the people" that the idea of "access" is almost meaningless. "Access? To the king?? Why not? What's the big deal?" But if He is "holy, holy, holy" (Isa 6:3; Rev 4:8) and we are not, if He is the only Sovereign (1 Tim 6:15) and we are not, if He alone is the righteous judge (2 Tim 4:8) and we are not righteous at all, access is not a given. It is a surprise. It's only not a surprise to those arrogant enough to think more highly of themselves than they ought.
Paul says, on the basis of the love God has shown to His enemies (us), "we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation" (Rom 5:11). On the basis of our reconciliation. Through our Lord Jesus Christ. If that doesn't bring you great joy, I guess you just aren't paying attention, because peace with God and access to God are two things that would never make sense if we rightly grasped our own natural place.
According to Paul, God isn't a kindly, dottering old man who is ready to embrace us all. The portrayal at the start of Romans is that we have managed to earn the wrath of God (Rom 1:18). The righteous wrath of God. We have sinned and we have fallen short of His glory (Rom 3:23) and there is not one of us who is good -- not even one (Rom 3:12). Beyond that, there is nothing we can do in ourselves to fix it. So to learn that by faith in Christ we can have peace with God ought to be awe-inspiring. It ought to incite relief and celebration. And we moderns have become so used to a government "by the people" that the idea of "access" is almost meaningless. "Access? To the king?? Why not? What's the big deal?" But if He is "holy, holy, holy" (Isa 6:3; Rev 4:8) and we are not, if He is the only Sovereign (1 Tim 6:15) and we are not, if He alone is the righteous judge (2 Tim 4:8) and we are not righteous at all, access is not a given. It is a surprise. It's only not a surprise to those arrogant enough to think more highly of themselves than they ought.
Paul says, on the basis of the love God has shown to His enemies (us), "we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation" (Rom 5:11). On the basis of our reconciliation. Through our Lord Jesus Christ. If that doesn't bring you great joy, I guess you just aren't paying attention, because peace with God and access to God are two things that would never make sense if we rightly grasped our own natural place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)