Dressing Up

Peter's first epistle is primarily about our "living hope" because of Christ's resurrection in the face of the certainty of trials. To me, that puts this text in a slightly different light.

Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for "God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble." Humble yourselves, therefore, under the mighty hand of God so that at the proper time he may exalt you, casting all your anxieties on him, because he cares for you. (1 Peter 5:5-7)

It's an interesting phrase -- "Clothe yourselves with humility." That should be your uniform, your outward garb at all times ... despite the fact that you'll be facing persecution (at least Jesus's version -- Matt 5:10-12). Humility is the clothing we believers are supposed to be known for.

How does this work? In the face of certain tribulation, how are we supposed to remain humble? We aren't bowing to the trials or those giving them. We are humbling ourselves "under the mighty hand of God." That's different. Earlier Peter told them to "Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution" (1 Peter 2:13). Did you note why we are supposed to do it? "For the Lord's sake," not for the sake of the institutions. It's the same here. Our humility is under the hand of God. He promises to exalt you at the proper time.

So we can cast on Him all our concerns and anxieties. All our trials and troubles, all our worries and questions, all our fears and hopes -- we can cast them all on Him. Why? Because He cares for you. And while it is wonderful to have other people care for you and expected that you will take care of yourself, how much better is it to have God caring for you? If that's not enough, I don't know what is.

News Weakly - 4/29/23

Safing Face
(No, that's not misspelled.) Biofire Tech is selling a new smart gun in the U.S. It is enabled by facial recognition. Only authorized users can fire it. I'm all for safety features like this, but let's just hope that it works better than, say, my phone's facial recognition when the owner absolutely needs it. (It will, for instance, be useless in another COVID-type outbreak with everyone wearing masks.)

Confusion
Oregon lawmakers are pushing forward a bill that would expand insurance coverage for gender affirming care to include cosmetic to critical (their phrase). In the ABC story, the spotlight is on a guy who identified as a transgender woman who was able to get some surgeries, but not things like permanent hair removal. "I still look in the mirror and I see that masculine person," he/she said. "It's stressful. It causes anxiety and PTSD when you're having to live in this body that you don’t feel like you should be in." The guy recognized that his body was male (sex) -- masculine (gender) -- and believed he shouldn't be in it. This, our current culture, calls "heroic" and seeing it as crazy is "hateful." I'm not sure who is more confused; this guy who believes and doesn't believe that gender is a social construct or the people who affirm that tragic nonsense.

Standing on Thin Air
Other major countries like the UK, Sweden, Finland, and France have all yanked their permission for kids to get transgender medical treatment because, according to them, the science just doesn't support it. Not the DOJ. They are actually suing Tennessee for being so pro-science that they have banned body mutilation for transgender youth. "If you can't cut 'em up when they're young, when can you?" they figure.

The New Politics
Well, I don't think anyone is surprised, but Biden announced he's running again in 2024 (even though Democrats aren't happy with him). And, of course, we already knew Trump was running again. It seems like we're no longer trying to get good leadership; it seems like the new politics is "vote against the other guy." And it doesn't seem to matter which side you're talking about. We used to hope for a good guy or a better guy, but now it's just "Not their guy."

Note
Sorry that it's a short news week. On my news feeds the other day I counted 10 articles on transgender issues of the first 25 items. Even on today's News Weakly you find 2 of them because it's just so big in the media today. Common sense is out. Rational thinking is out. Science is out. Common courtesy is out. So this is a short week for the news here.

News from Beeyond
With the departure of Tucker Carlson, millions of boomers are calling younger relatives trying to find out how to change the channel from Fox News. In an ominous threat to the nation, Joe Biden has promised to "finish the job" by running for reelection ... and America is scared. Locally, a wife called her husband to tell him their minivan had suffered a "rapid unscheduled disassembly" after she spilled her Starbucks in her lap while driving. (If you don't get that reference, check the link.)

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

Pastors

We know the term, "pastor." It refers to that guy in front of our church who leads the congregation. Interestingly, that is not quite what Scripture means by it. If you look through the New Testament, you'll find a variety of terms. Paul speaks of "pastor-teachers" in Ephesians 4:11. Now, in the NASB, "pastors" appears only once. In some translations it doesn't appear at all (like the ESV). If the "pastor," who is our primary leader, doesn't appear more than once in the New Testament, why are we leaning so hard on it in our churches? There are, then, other terms used. Paul wrote to Timothy (1 Tim 3:1-7) about selecting "overseers" (in modern translations; "bishops" in KJV). The word he used there could be translated "supervisor" as well. (Can you see, in English, how "overseer" and "supervisor" are the same thing?) But when Paul wrote to Titus about appointing people in Crete for the same role, he used a different term. That was "elder" (Titus 1:5-9) (and, interestingly, translated as "bishops" in the KJV there, too). The term simply refers to older men. (Paul gives further qualifications; "older" is not the only requirement.) (Side note: The term in 1 Timothy is our source for "Episcopalians" and the term in Titus is our source for "Presbyterian.") So these "overseers," these "elders" -- always a plurality -- are to make up the leadership of local churches.

"Hang on," you (or I) might ask, "so what's with this 'pastor' thing?" I'm glad you (I) asked. In 1 Peter 5, Peter addresses the topic of how elders should lead.

So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly; not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock. (1 Peter 5:1-3)

Peter tells the elders to "shepherd the flock." Interesting. That word, "shepherd," poimainō, is the same basic word as poimēn. The former is what Peter wrote -- "shepherd" -- and the latter is what Paul wrote -- "pastor." That's because the two are the exact same concept. In fact, the ESV translates Paul's poimēn in Ephesians 4:11 as "shepherds." Same thing. You see, then, that there is, biblically, an equivalence between "elder" and "shepherd" or "pastor." Now, hold that thought. Note that Peter says that their job is "exercising oversight." Can you guess what word that is? That's the same basic word Paul used in his letter to Timothy for "overseer." So in a single sentence, here, Peter has linked "elder" with "pastor" with "overseer." Biblically, in terms of church leadership, the concepts are interchangeable. Before we leave this, look at the job of the "elder/shepherd/overseer." Not under compulsion, but willingly. Not for getting rich, but eagerly. Not for dominating others, but by example. (Consider how many church leaders give church a bad name by violating one or more of those.)

It is important to consider, then, the biblical version of "pastor." He's not a "good preacher" or a "good administrator." It certainly doesn't preclude them, but the focus in Scripture is being ... a good shepherd. The task of a shepherd is to tend, guide, feed, and guard a flock of sheep. When Jesus told His famous story of the shepherd with 100 sheep who lost one and went off to find it (Luke 15:4-7), He spoke of shepherd as intensely personal. It is an involvement in the lives of the members of the flock for feeding, disciplining, guiding, encouraging, and protecting. "A good preacher" is a good thing, but it is only one thing -- only a beginning. Nothing in there about "Bible college" or "seminary". In fact, the entire divide between "clergy" and "laity" isn't really found in Scripture. We made that one up ourselves. One final consideration. Peter wrote to various churches in that letter and specifically spoke to "the elders among you." The "flock," then, has its own task. Support the shepherds. Encourage them. You know what they're supposed to be doing; help them do it. "Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you" (Heb 13:17). We have a job, too.

My Apology

Apologetics is the field of Christian theology devoted to defending the faith. Strange word -- Apologetics. We think of an apology as an "I'm sorry; I was wrong." That's clearly not what's in view here. According to the dictionary, the first definition includes regret, but the second is "a defense, excuse, or justification." Rooted in the Greek apologia, the word referred to the defence's arguments in a prosecution. The word appears in our Bibles 7 times (if I counted correctly), but the term "Apologetics" as a defense of the faith comes primarily from 1 Peter 3:15.

but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,

There it is. "Make a defense to anyone who asks you." Apologetics. Except ... that's not really what it says. I mean, it's sort of there, but not quite. Notice, for instance, that in that quote above there is neither a capitalization at the beginning nor a period at the end. This verse is the middle of a sentence. The topic is "if you should suffer for righteousness' sake (1 Peter 3:14) and the aim is that you would have "a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame" (1 Peter 3:16). Note, also, that it does not say to be "prepared to make a defense" of the faith. That's not there. It is in Jude where we are commanded to "contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 1:3). So, yes, make that defense, but that's not in 1 Peter. What is Peter telling us to make a defense for? What is "the hope that is in you"? Well, he tells us early on.

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to His great mercy, He has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, who by God's power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. (1 Peter 1:3-5)

Peter wrote to a church expecting trials (1 Peter 1:6-7; 4:12-13; etc.), and he wanted to convey to them -- the "elect exiles" (1 Peter 1:1), the "sojourners and exiles" (1 Peter 2:11) -- that they were first and foremost born again to a living hope. He says the world will be surprised you don't join them in their "flood of debauchery" and they will malign you (1 Peter 4:4), so you need to be ready, in the midst of trials and hard times, to give a defense of that hope into which you were born again. That hope.

We are commanded to be "prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you" and to do it "with gentleness and respect." That hope is built on nothing less than Jesus's blood and righteousness (to borrow from the hymn). It is predicated on His resurrection and it is accomplished by God. It is "imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you." We are defended by God Himself. These are reasons for the hope within you. And you may be asked to give those reasons. You may be asked to defend those reasons. But the defense is of the hope they see in you when it would appear to be hopeless for you. Your life should reflect that hope, and you should work at being able to give a reason for it. That may include some defense of the faith, but it requires something different in your attitudes and actions if they're going to ask. It is your hope and not just your belief system that you are defending.

Membership Has Its Privileges

My call this week to join a church instead of merely attending one (or worse) produced some expected pushback. (I wonder if Glenn would reconsider if he knew that Dan agreed with him? Just sayin'.) "Church membership," they told me, "is a man-made institution. It's not biblical." Mind you, "membership" wasn't at issue there so much as a call to involve yourself in a local body rather than merely attending one. And it is true that there is no "Thou shalt join a local church" command in Scripture. So, let's review what we do know from Scripture. 1) Believers are expected to attend church (Heb 10:25). Easy one (for most). 2) Believers are commanded to involve themselves with other believers (see all those "one anothers"). 3) Believers are told to submit to their church leaders whose job it is to guard their souls (Heb 13:17). 4) Believers are expected to commit themselves to the local body (because, after all, do you really want a "liver" that only works occasionally) (1 Cor 12:12-25). Church membership, then, is the human institution (rules instituted by humans) that allows the local church leadership to insure you do those things, without which they have no means to accomplish that.

"I can do all of that," they will still tell me, "without any man-made church membership." Perhaps. But let's consider another venue. Marriage is a biblical institution, instituted by God (Gen 2:24; Matt 19:4-6; Eph 5:31-32). Funny thing, though. Nowhere do we see a command to "go down to the courthouse and get a marriage license" or any example of a wedding. You won't find vows like "until death do us part" in the pages of Scripture. Yet, we still do it. Even believers. We do it legally and through the church, neither of which are contained in the pages of God's Word. Why? Well, there are a few reasons. First, we are commanded to "be subject to the governing authorities" (Rom 13:1). Why? "For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God." Oh, so obeying the governing authorities in this is obeying God. Beyond that, we do it as a demonstration of commitment. We do it as a deeper connection. We do it as a level of accountability. Look, if you cheat on a girlfriend, it's not good, but it's not so big that you require legal action. If you have sex with someone other than your fiance, it's sexual immorality, but it's not adultery (in our times). There are no legal proceedings required to break that engagement. It is that single legal, biblical union called "marriage" that places that relationship in its unique position. Church membership is like that, moving from "I show up and help out" to "I am committed and submitted and deeply involved."

It turns out, then, that church membership is biblical. Consider. Peter wrote, "Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution" (1 Peter 2:13). He went on to give examples -- government (1 Peter 2:13-17), servants (1 Peter 2:18-25), marriage (1 Peter 3:1-7) -- but the principle was simple. "Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution." God uses man-made rules. Yes, church membership is a human institution. It is instituted by church leadership to aid in the requirements for all believers as part of (rather than merely attending) a church. It gives a level of commitment beyond mere attending. It gives a path for the deeper involvement to which we are commanded. It gives a level of accountability (required by Christ) (Matt 18:15-20). It gives a point of submission by the believer to the leadership. From that aspect, if your local body has membership, instituted by the leadership of that church, and you don't submit to it, is that not a violation of Scripture?

Keeping Things Straight

There is an inordinate number of news stories these days on "transgender" issues. Pew Research last year reported that about 5% of young adults say their gender is different from their "sex assigned at birth." So, 1) why are there so many stories about this massive minority, and 2) what is "sex assigned at birth"? Let's settle the last first. Sex is not "assigned at birth." Sex is a biological fact, a measurable reality ... starting with XX or XY chromosomes which cannot be changed. No amount of surgery or hormone therapy or "I feel" will ever change that biological reality. Sex is binary -- male and female. Nothing else. The doctors don't flip a coin and say, "Heads! This is a girl!" (According to the NIH, the true prevalence of intersex births is about 0.018%, although higher estimates have placed it as high as 1.7%, so when an obstetrician (or any other observer) simply looks at the newborn, they can declare with a minimum of 98% accuracy what the sex of this baby is.) It is not "assigned."

In the title of that Pew Research report, they used the phrase "their gender" over against "their sex." We generally use the two interchangeably, so what's up with that? Well, sex is biological -- male and female. Gender is the expression of that biology -- masculinity and femininity. Today most appear to have bought the line that gender is "a social construct." That is, society has just made it up. Is that true? No ... and yes. First, the "yes." Some of masculinity and femininity is indeed a construct of the local society. In Africa, for instance, masculinity is expressed when their sons go out, kill an animal, and eat its heart. Not here. Here we have pink for girls and blue for boys. Some of that is absolutely made up out of tradition and thin air. Some, not all. On the "no" side, then, there is actual biology. Males and females are biologically different. Men, for instance, don't endure PMS. Biology. Males can't get pregnant; females can't inseminate. Biology. Male and female brains are wired differently and work differently. Biology. (And they keep finding more differences.) Male eyes are more attuned to movement while female eyes are more attuned to detail and color. Biology. (Do you see anything "gender" related there?) And on and on it goes. Watch this video when you have a half hour. They aren't going to politics, philosophy, social studies, or religion; they're going to biology and how it explains a lot of gender and how we perceive masculinity and femininity as a function of biology.

Well, this is getting long, so I'll stop here. Let's review. Sex refers to the male or female biology. It is scientific, measurable, and unchangeable. It is not "assigned at birth" (except by God). Gender is the expression of male and female sexes - masculinity and femininity. Some of that is mere social construct -- we just made it up -- but the majority is biological. To allow "I feel" to define gender and then back to sex is not just "immoral." It's scientifically wrong. It's unreasonable, irrational, and the opposite of reality. If "truth" is "that which accords with reality," then transgenderism is not true, and we're ignoring it these days and encouraging it these days. Now ... from a Christian perspective, who do we recognize as "the father of lies"? Which will be your answer for our first question at the beginning.

Sometimes The Crazies Are Right

The Bible has more than a couple of crazy people. Think Noah building a boat for 100 years. Think a prophet talking to a donkey. Think Peter who actually climbed out of the boat in a storm. Crazy. Of course, most just dismiss them. But not us. We're believers. We're followers of Christ. We are the faithful. So we understand those "crazy" people to be quite sane in doing what God requires despite what it might look like. We trust our Bibles. Well, mostly. There is one point that we're not convinced of regardless of what we say. Peter, Paul, James ... they all said crazy things about how we ought to rejoice in trials. Nuts! They all said that trials were a good thing. Insane! No, no, we're believers, so we agree ... as long as you don't look at what we actually do when we encounter trials. If what we do tells us what we believe, it looks a lot like we don't believe that trials are for our benefit, because we don't really rejoice much over them, do we?

Look at Job. The man lost it all -- wealth and family -- and said at the end, "The LORD gave, and the LORD has taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD" (Job 1:21). Really? Notice that it was at the start. He didn't spend time thinking about it or praying over it or reminding himself of the truth. It was just ... there. Even after the final indignity -- the loss of his health -- as he sat there on that ash heap scraping boils with shards of pottery, he said, "Shall we receive good from God, and shall we not receive evil?" (Job 2:10). Job had two basic thoughts here, both of which confound us. First, while we're all pretty good with "The Lord gives," we don't really agree much with "The Lord takes away." We'll either deny that He does (while questioning why He didn't do something about it) or we'll agree that He does and be angry about it. Not Job. The second thing was "Blessed be the name of the Lord." Job believed God both gave and took away -- that God was ultimately responsible for both the pleasant things that happen to us as well as the unpleasant -- and that He was good for doing so.

Even we believers have a hard time with that. Have you lost income, a job, a house, health, friends? Did you think, "Blessed be the name of the Lord"? Have you lost a loved one -- perhaps a spouse or a child -- and thought, "Blessed be the name of the Lord"? Do you think, when the bad things happen (and they will) that 1) God is ultimately responsible for it and 2) He is good for doing so? Mind you, Job still suffered. He still scraped off boils. I'm not suggesting we should claim that trials aren't unpleasant, painful, difficult. If we did, it wouldn't be a trial, would it? But is our bottom line, "Blessed be the name of the Lord"? Or are we miffed at God (or worse)? Sometimes those crazy people in Scripture who actually trust God and obey Him are right. Are you one of those? Am I?

Why Join A Church?

I've heard this question often and even recently. "I go; why join?" Are there biblical reasons that we should join a church (instead of just attend ... you know ... at least most of the time)? Yes, I think there are.

First, Scripture is not obscure. Scripture is full of "one anothers," things we are commanded to do with "one another." Obviously that can't be done apart from ... others. When God's Word says not to neglect meeting together (Heb 10:25), it is quite clear that we need to "assemble" -- to get together. But there is more. According to Paul, the purpose of church is "for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ" (Eph 4:12-13). Try that without commitment or involvement. Try that by attending without really participating. Paul describes us as a body, each as a different body part, doing what our part does for the whole (1 Cor 12:12-25). (The length of that reference ought to clue you in to the importance.) Each of us has a role to play in the local gathering of believers and when we don't, it costs the body -- the body of Christ. Beyond that, Peter describes us as "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). Do you think you do that alone? Do you wish to avoid the other royals, to skip out on your nation, to ignore the people of His possession? Isn't that a bit arrogant? And then there is the notion of protection. The author of Hebrews says we should obey our church leadership "for they are keeping watch over your souls" (Heb 13:17). Without being part of a local body, you're like a lone gazelle, just waiting to be hunted down by a pack of predators.

Why don't we become members of our local body of believers? Maybe we've been hurt, and as we all know, because one person does something wrong, the only wise thing to do is to avoid all people everywhere, right? Of course not. But we might try. Perhaps it's because there are so many bad churches out there. But it was Jesus who said, "I will build My church," so unless you have a weak Jesus, it stands to reason there will likely be a living local body somewhere ... or perhaps you need to make it so. In clubs and social gatherings, membership is optional. In the body of Christ, membership in a local body is the only way to obey the "one another" commands, the only way to serve your fellow believers, the only way to receive the protection the body offers. When you boil it all down, the only reason not to join is a simple refusal to obey. And that can't be a good stance for a serious Christian.

News Weakly - 4/22/23

Stand ... for Something
At a pro-baby-murder rally, our fine vice president stood up and urged women to "stand up and fight." Which, I suppose, makes sense. "Stand up and fight for your right to kill." I guess. No ... not really. But I think our current administration has made it clear that the most defenseless human beings are not their concern.

The New Catholicism?
A Canadian teen suspended from a Caholic high school is filing a human rights complaint for religious discrimination. Yes. And it only gets weirder from there. He was suspended because he argued that God created two genders (Gen 1:27) and the Catholic school suspended him for opposing transgender ideology. His classmates verbally assaulted him when he made the audacious claim that men have penises and women have vaginas. I'm sorry ... what kind of "Catholic" school is this? "We will not tolerate either biblical or scientific truth in this school! We're a Catholic school!"

Crazy Government
An AZ House of Representatives member (GOP), Liz Harris, was expelled recently by the primarily GOP house ... for letting a witness make accusations of bribery. Bad enough. Looks like covering their rears. But the state GOP is now recommending Liz Harris (yes, the same Liz Harris) to fill the vacancy (along with 2 other possiblities). Crazy. All the way around.

Double Standards
The Supreme Court is revisiting Groff v DeJoy that allows employers to deny religious accomodations if they cause "undue hardship." Mind you, I don't need permission from my government to follow my religious convictions, nor do I require my employer to cowtow to my beliefs -- I'm just not one of those kind -- but I'm baffled by this societal double standard. The case is about a postal employee that couldn't work on Sunday because of his religious beliefs, so he was forced to quit. On the other hand, we're pressing for a higher and higher "living wage" and demanding all sorts of accomodations on racial and sexual orientation (read "LGBTetc") bases, but won't allow religious convictions ... especially Christian. Seems like unequal treatment to me.

Indoctrination
Since Congress isn't cooperating, Emperor Biden signed an executive order calling for free preschool and affordable care for children. And why not? We've already handed our kids over to the government for a mandatory 13 years with an option for more where they can fill their skulls full of the world's drivel. (Used to be "education" -- reading, writing, arithmetic. No longer.) We might as well give them a couple of earlier years as well. But, mind you, don't be surprised at what they are taught outside of your purview.

In Memoriam
As I'm sure you've heard by now, Charles Stanley died this week. He was 90. For 50 of those years he was the pastor of First Baptist Atlanta. He founded In Touch Ministries, wrote more than 70 books, and influenced many lives. He was dedicated to preaching the Word, in season and out. Charles Stanley has gone home to be with the Lord, and he will be missed.

I Don't Even ...?
New Zealand has a pest problem; it's cats. So they organized a children's cat-hunting competition for kids 14 and under to hunt feral cats. Top prize was $250NZ ($155US). It has now been canceled due to backlash. "We should be teaching [them] empathy towards animals," a spokesman for an animal welfare charity said. "But we will not teach them empathy for the youngest human beings." (Okay, I added that last "quote," but ...) New Zealand is supposed to be some sort of paradise, but this would suggest otherwise.

The Bee: Fake News You Can Trust
A report is out that Disney World will be forced to close in Florida because an elementary school was built within 1,000 feet. (Think about it.) Elsewhere, Walgreens is asking customers if they'd be willing to round up to help pay for all the stolen merchandise. SNL added a non-binary cast member who, as it turns out, came out as not-funny last week. Then (modifying the Bee), the Supreme Court extended the availability of the abortion pill too late and now there's this adorable baby. Finally, one of my own. ARTEMIS is a new soccer-playing robot, currently hoping that Biden's new Title IX proposal allowing transgenders to play regardless of their gender goes through so it can play, too.

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

Spiritual Gifts

A well-known but largely ignored topic in Christianity is the topic of spiritual gifts. It is mentioned in multiple places in the Bible (e.g., Rom 12:3-8; 1 Cor 12:4-31; 1 Peter 4:10-11), so it's not obscure, but, for reasons I don't quite understand, most of us don't much care. One might think, "Well, it doesn't pertain to me because I don't have one," but Paul says, "To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good" (1 Cor 12:7) and Peter says, "As each has received a gift, use it to serve one another, as good stewards of God's varied grace" (1 Peter 4:10). That is, every believer has at least one spiritual gift. No excuses.

These gifts are not talents. They're not inborn, natural capabilities. They're special abilities provided by God "to serve one another" as Peter said or "for the common good" as Paul said. That is, they're not for you; they're for the body of Christ. In Peter's discussion of the topic (1 Peter 4:10-11), he groups them into two categories -- speaking and serving -- and indicates that they are powered by God for one another "in order that in everything God may be glorified through Jesus Christ" (1 Peter 4:11). For God's glory.

So, let's see. You have at least one spiritual gift. It's not for you, nor is it from you. It's not powered by you. So you have this special gift of God given to you to edify your fellow believers and glorify God. (Remember, love for the brethren is a key mark of a believer (John 13:35).) So are you using your gift(s) for other believers? Are you employing God's power for God's glory by edifying your brothers and sisters? You can see, I think, that this isn't small. Why is it so difficult for some of us to even care, let alone act on it?

A Christian View of Suffering

Peter's first epistle spoke a lot about Christians and trials. "Beloved," he wrote in one place, "do not be surprised at the fiery trial when it comes upon you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you" (1 Peter 4:12). "Don't be surprised." We, of course, are. Any kind of "fiery trial" surprises us. We shouldn't have trials. We shouldn't have anything unpleasant happen to us at all. So whether we're losing our business because we won't make a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding or someone said something mean to us because we're sincere believers, we will not stand for it.

It's odd, then, that Peter goes on to say, "But rejoice insofar as you share Christ's sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when His glory is revealed" (1 Peter 4:13). "Wait," we will almost universally respond, "rejoice in fiery trials?" Yes. In fact, Peter gives two reasons. One was "It comes upon you to test you." Trials, according to James, builds perseverance and perseverance, when it is done, completes us (James 1:2-4). (Clearly the two of them were writing from the same playbook.) The other reason we should rejoice is that in it His glory is revealed. And that is nothing but good.

Those are unusual and interesting things. Expect trials. Rejoice. They are for your best interest and God's glory. But Peter says (more than once) another interesting thing about our suffering. He says God wills it (1 Peter 3:17; 4:19). It is God's plan that we should suffer and be blessed (1 Peter 3:14) "so that the tested genuineness of your faith ... may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ" (1 Peter 1:6-7). So what about you? Will you take trials from the hand of a loving God for your best and His glory? Or will you be angry about it?

Increase-Decrease

John the Baptist is famous for declaring about Jesus, "He must increase, but I must decrease" (John 3:30). Think about that for a moment. Notice that "increase" and "decrease" are not places. They aren't standards. "Get to this line." No, they are directions. "Increase" is getting bigger and "decrease" is getting smaller, but both are movement, not static.

Scripture repeatedly drives us to the cross, first for salvation and then ... for living. Paul lived his life crucified (Gal 2:20). Jesus said we needed to take up our cross and follow Him (Matt 16:24). In fact, the quote was, "If anyone would come after Me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow Me" (Matt 16:24). So apparently "deny self" is what He meant by taking up our cross. Paul said that "We were buried therefore with Him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life" (Rom 6:4). New life requires, first, death to the old life. It seems, then, we need to die to sin (Rom 6:11; 1 Peter 2:24), die to self (Gal 5:24; Eph 4:22), to die to the world (Gal 6:14).

All of this sounds a lot like John the Baptist. Less of me; more of Him. It's not a place; it's a process, a direction, an aim. We are to be constantly dying to self -- laying aside our own desires in favor of Christ's desires. It is a lifelong process that is not actually completed this side of heaven. But Christ's followers will find it not unreasonable nor unbearable, but the right thing to do. The proper direction. "He must increase, but I must decrease." Which is, interestingly, precisely the opposite of the world's view.

Cross Walk

In his letter to the churches of Galatia Paul addresses the problem of legalism -- of getting right with God by our effort. He calls it "a different gospel" which is not another gospel (Gal 1:6-7). He asks them, "Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?" (Gal 3:3). No, of course not. Having begun by the Spirit, we will be perfected by the Spirit. So he says, "Walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh" (Gal 5:16) and "If we live by the Spirit, let us also keep in step with the Spirit" (Gal 5:25).

Interesting, isn't it? He says we're not under law and we aren't saved by works but are saved by the Spirit and, walking by the Spirit, will not gratify the desires of the flesh. "Wait a minute, Paul, didn't you just say we aren't saved by works?" Yes, indeed. But walking by the Spirt produces good works. In fact, these good works are a direct product of the fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22-23). These internal changes produce external results. If we live by the Spirit, we will keep in step with the Spirit.

How does that work? Paul said it earlier. "I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me" (Gal 2:20). He says it again in the 5th chapter. As a function of the fruit of the Spirit, "Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires" (Gal 5:24). The Christian walk, then, is a walk with the Spirit. That walk is what produces those things that we think of as Christian virtues. And that walk is accomplished by putting self to death, by identifying with Christ on the cross. A cross-walk, as it were.

Crazy Times

We are quite familiar with two Greek words simply because we've borrowed them for English today. One is "hetero." If you look in the dictionary, the word means "heterosexual." In fact, the Greek word means "the other (of two), different, second." You can guess the other Greek word you know but didn't know -- "homo." In Latin, the word refers to "man," as in "Homo Sapiens," but in Greek it means "same." Thus, "homosexual" means "sexually attracted to the same sex" while "heterosexual" means "sexually attracted to the opposite sex." These two terms -- "same" and "opposite" -- comprise the basis for the L, G, and B of LGBT. "L's" are females who are attracted to females, "G's" are males who are attracted to males, and "B's" are "Bisexual" -- attracted to both sexes.

There is, of course, a problem. We have determined in our infinite cultural wisdom that "T" is a thing. We have decided that gender is a social construct and people live on a spectrum rather than a binary gender. For reasons that elude me, this new "fact" should be the end of LGB, but no one seems to notice. I mean, obviously, if there is no "binary gender" there can be no bisexual. If gender is on a spectrum, what is the opposite? I mean, think of "black" what is the opposite of black? Well, "white," of course. But that's because they are two ends of a spectrum. What, then, is the opposite of, say, "red"? No such thing since there is no opposite within the spectrum. And the whole "homo" and "hetero" and "bi" thing goes away. Here, think this through. Robert is attracted to the female gender. We would classify Robert as "heterosexual." But what if Robert now identifies as Roberta? Still attracted to females. Is Roberta heterosexual or homosexual? Both or neither? What if Roberta is "genderfluid"? How could you possibly classify this person? All the lines are not merely blurred; they're banned.

Imagine that there was a spike in Napoleon sightings in a region. Bobby comes home and says, "Mom, my teacher tells me I can identify as Napoleon, so I will. You need to treat me as Napoleon." And Suzy comes home and says, "Mom, my girlfriends are all identifying as Napoleon, so I will, too." So the parents arise and go to their kids' schools and say, "My child now identifies as Napoleon. Their pronouns will be 'your highness' or 'emperor' and you will accord them all the rights due their standing." They will post on Facebook how proud they are that their little Bobby or Suzy has come out as Napoleon and will support them in all their imperialistic endeavors. And we would all label as "Napoleon-phobic" anyone who disagreed. Will that happen? No, of course not. Those parents will run for help. "There's something wrong with my child. Clearly Napoleon is dead, so it is scientifically impossible for them to be Napoleon. What can you do for them to set them straight?" Isn't it ironic that "straight" is the word they would use? And isn't it odd that we can so clearly see both the nonsense of "I am Napoleon" and how a loving parent would be wrong to encourage it, but we can't seem to grasp the same of "I am some other sex than science says I am"? It is equally odd that the LGB crowd sees no threat to their existence by embracing the end of "homo" and "hetero." It's a strange world we're living in.

Today's the Day

This is the day that YHWH has made; let us rejoice and be glad in it. (Psa 118:24)

Scripture refers to the first day of the week -- Sunday -- as "the Lord's day." Good name. Beyond that, this is the day that God has made, and we are urged to "rejoice and be glad in it." Last Sunday was the annual remembrance of His resurrection, but every Sunday we celebrate, again, that event. It's a good practice. It's also a good practice to remember all His goodness, to "taste and see that YHWH is good" (Psa 34:8). So good.

We are rightly amazed at God's grace, that undeserved, unearned favor He shows us for reasons we can't quite comprehend, He has opted to be kind to us when we were His enemies and good to us when we were sinners. Truly amazing. We are also aware of, and should be equally stunned by, His mercy. We, who have made it our lifelong project to merit His wrath, have, instead, had that righteous anger laid on His perfect Son. We will not be getting our just desserts. Jesus took that. At the cross. Instead, we will be getting new life, just like Christ demonstrated at His resurrection.

There are, in fact, countless blessings. His constant providence, giving us just what we need. His gifts of family and friends and the fellowship found in them. Even carefully prepared trials to hone us and prove us and purify us. Today, we should be exulting in the glories of His grace and marvelling at His wondrous mercy. We should be thanking Him ... well ... in everything (1 Thess 5:18). Today's the day for that. So is tomorrow. The next day would be good, too ...

News Weakly - 4/15/23

Let me just say that I was traveling this week, so there will be less content in this week's entry. I apologize, but it was for a good cause.

Equal Treatment
Just a sampling of stories over the last week or so. A "non-binary birthgiver" claims not to be a mother or a woman. A supposed professor has claimed that there is no such thing as biological gender. Anheuser-Busch lost billions in market value over their partnership with Dylan Mulvaney (a TikTok personality known for gender transition). Insider reports that a "non-binary TikToker" who writes songs for kids holds back for fear of anti-trans backlash. Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. Seems like this kind of stuff gets way too much coverage ... especially when there are break-ups, gossip, and "who said what to who" to report on. Don't we have something better to report?

Overbearing
Speaking of ridiculous, apparently Disneyland (California) is closing down their Splash Mountain ride next month because ... wait for it ... there is some connection to Song of the South which has been banned because it depicted a happy post-Civil-War ex-slave telling stories to his ex-owner's son. Since they had a song from that movie on the ride, it is definitely out. They'll replace it with something without racial connotations, like the black The Princess and the Frog ride. Hunting down racism wherever we can find it ... and even where we can't.

Getting Rid of Little People
The DOJ and Biden administration are asking the Supreme Court to reverse the ruling that would suspend mifepristone's approval by the FDA. The drug is an abortion pill. Unlike other "abortion pills," mifepristone blocks progesterone needed to sustain pregnancy. That is, it is an abortifacient -- it induces abortion. And if there is anything this current administration (and women everywhere) want, it's a method to quickly and easily counteract their poor choices, moral shortcomings, or inconveniences by killing babies. (You'll notice that Biden was sniffing girls' hair, but not kissing babies. That ought to tell you something.)

A Few from Bee
NPR is quitting Twitter after being labeled "state-affiliated media" on Twitter. They consider it slanderous to be considered either "national" or "public." Others on the Left are deeply concerned about the rise on Twitter of people they hate having free speech. And, of course, you've all heard (I assume) of the latest Clarence Thomas accusastions. Outraged Senate Democrats are calling for an investigation into a black man who went on vacations without their permission.

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

The Starting Line

The story is told of a runner in a marathon. He was at the back of the pack at the starting line, and he happened to turn around ... and see the finish line. It was a 26-mile circle they were running that would end up where they started. So, he turned around. "Hey, man," the runner next to him said, "the race is this way. What are you doing?" "Look," he answered, "the finish line is right there, and I'm even closest to it. I can finish this race; I can even win it." "No," his associate told him, "it's a 26-mile race." "Oh, don't be ridiculous," he retorted, "that's a crazy distance -- unrealistic, irrational, and unnecessary. I'll do it this way and come out fine in the end." He was, of course, disqualified, but here's the point. If you don't have the right starting line, you will not finish the race.

None of us are that stupid, of course ... or are we? Ask anyone. "When you die, where will you go?" If it's not "Nowhere; I'll be worm food," it will almost always be "Heaven." Why? "Well, I'm not so bad. I surely don't deserve Hell. That standard of perfection is crazy, unrealistic, irrational, and unnecessary A good God would see I'm not so bad and I'd be fine." Except ... that's not what the Bible says. The Bible says that "the wages of sin is death" (Rom 6:23). Paul explains in Romans 1 that the righteous wrath of God is revealed against our suppression of the truth about Him in our ungodliness and our unrighteousness (Rom 1:18). So our "starting line" is not "not that bad." It is "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" (Rom 9:22). The natural human being is all fitted out for destruction under the righteous and deserving wrath of God. The distance from that to God's Heaven is much greater than 26 miles. It is infinite.

Most of us take Heaven for granted. Sure, I'll get there. I'm just not that bad. Nice thought, except it's just as foolish as that racer at the beginning. We are all a long way from "good" (Rom 3:12) and the outlook is not good. It is only the grace and mercy of God that can remedy that problem and it is only when we repent of our condition and throw all our confidence solely on the death and resurrection of Christ for our salvation that there is any hope of avoiding Hell. Don't start from the wrong starting line. It won't get you where you need to go.

Peter and the Internet

It is abundantly clear that Peter did not have the Internet. I mean, if he had, he never would have ever written,

Do not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary, bless, for to this you were called, that you may obtain a blessing. (1 Peter 3:9)

I mean, seriously, who can sit there on those Internet methods of interacting and not revile for reviling? Is that not basic human nature? Is it even reasonable to think that we should not? I mean, if someone pokes you in the eye, are you not expected to return the favor? That's basically how we think, I think. When we read Peter telling us to return a blessing for evil and a blessing for reviling, we naturally think that makes no sense. We may think, in fact, that it's wrong. People who are abusive and unkind are wrong for thinking it and wrong for doing it and the best thing you can do for them is get their attention to let them know it with a dose of their own medicine ... isn't it? Does Peter want us to be doormats? Are we supposed to just lay down and take it? And give a blessing? How does that help anyone?

Of course, we who follow Christ understand that this kind of thinking is contrary ... to Christ. It was Jesus who said, "Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on My account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you" (Matt 5:11-12). It was Jesus who said, "Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also ..." (Matt 5:39-42). It was Jesus who said, "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you ... For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?" (Matt 5:43-46). Maybe Peter wasn't right in the head, but he was just passing on Jesus's instructions.

So, apparently, returning a blessing for evil done and a blessing for people speaking evil against you is the right thing ... which, I'm fairly confident, is neither the natural nor the common response we have. But Peter tells us something interesting. "If you should suffer for righteousness' sake, you will be blessed" (1 Peter 3:14). In fact, he says, "For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God's will, than for doing evil" (1 Peter 3:17). Now, the gist of what he said there we get. It's better to suffer for doing good than evil. Fine. But did you see that clause he stuck in there? "If that should be God's will." That is, when we do what is right (bless for being wronged) and suffer for it, it is God's will. And who doesn't want to be in the middle of God's will? Someplace along the way we decided that God owes us a comfortable life and that those who get in the way of that should be ... slapped down somehow. That's a lie. What we should really want is exactly what God gives. And what we should want to do is exactly what God commands. So apparently that includes not snapping a perfect unkind response to an unkind remark, but throwing back a blessing. Apparently that is part of God's will and apparently we ought to want to do that. (But ... I'm so much better at the other ...)

Precious

I had a physical recently -- routine stuff ... you know -- and they included one of those mental health questionnaires that seem to be perfunctory now. You know. "Do you feel depressed?" "Do you feel too depressed to do anything?" And the last question is always something like, "Do you ever feel like you'd be better off dead?" Answers are along the lines of "Occasionally," "Sometimes," and "Often." To me, that last is a trick question. I mean, if I believe that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord, then how can that be anything less than "Often"? If I believe that when I die I will awake in the eternal presence of my God and Savior, how could that not be "Often"? But I came across this verse in the Psalms and it really struck me odd.

Precious in the sight of the LORD is the death of His saints. (Psa 116:15)

Well ... uh ... thanks, Lord. You really wish me dead? That is precious to You? I mean, with friends like that ... right? But take a look at it.

The verse is trying to convey that there is something that the Lord finds precious. "Oh," you might think, "I want to know what that is! I'd like to give Him what He finds precious!" Okay, what is it? The death of His saints. "Really, Lord?" The verse tells us that He dearly loves (the word conveys "of great value") the death of His people. Of course, if you're tracking here, you know I said something different than the text. It isn't "His people." It is "His saints." The word refers to His "holy ones," His "set-apart ones." It isn't the ones that the Roman Catholic church says lived good enough lives to be prayed to. It is a reference to those people who, according to the New Testament, have their sins forgiven and have new life by the blood of Christ. The elect. The chosen. The sanctified. And I was particularly struck by the possessive pronoun, "His." It isn't "the saints." It is specifically "His saints." We who are saved by faith in Christ are cleaned and belong to Him. As such, He delights to see our deaths.

How can this be? How can the termination of the physical life of people whom God has saved be part of His grand and good plan? The text doesn't tell us. It gives us clues. These are His saints. These are His saints. We know that to be absent from the body is to be at home with the Lord (2 Cor 5:8), that for God's saints, to live is Christ and to die is gain (Php 1:21). So maybe ... just maybe ... we have this whole "death" thing wrong in our communal gut. Maybe (you know, since God thinks so) the death of His saints is a good thing. Not to suggest that causing it or hastening it is a good thing, but clearly if it is precious in the sight of the Lord, our deep discomfort when God's saints die is misguided. That event is precious to God when He brings it about, and it should be to His followers as well. Perhaps some of our anguish and even outrage over the death of His saints says more about our faulty thinking than His goodness and wisdom.

Let God Be God

"I believe the Bible. I believe in the God of the Bible. Try me. I'll show you."

God's Word: I am the LORD, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God. (Isa 45:5)

Us: Yes, indeed, we believe in one God. Mind you, we aren't arrogant. We aren't exclusive. We believe all religions point to the same place and all religions are equally valid. Allah and Krishna and whatever other gods are out there are equally valid for their followers. Even the Jesus of the Latter Day Saints who doesn't at all fit the description of the biblical Jesus. Because we are inclusive.

God's Word: For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. (Rom 1:18-19)

Us: There, see? We're fully on board with that. God is not a god of wrath. A wrathful God is a petty God and we believe in the God of the Bible who is above all that petty wrath over ungodliness, unrighteousness, or even merely misrepresenting Him. No, this text isn't about the wrath of God being revealed, but about the love of God.

God's Word: Our God is in the heavens; He does whatever He pleases. (Psa 115:3) ... which He will bring about at the proper time—He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords. (1 Tim 6:15)

Us: Clear as a bell. God does whatever He pleases, and He it pleases Him to surrender some of His sovereignty to us, His creatures. We, too, are sovereigns, at least of our own lives. We're not exactly sure why He stresses the "only Sovereign" there. Clearly He's not, since He made us sovereigns as well. Probably just a translation error.

God's Word: [I am] the One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these. (Isa 45:7)

Us: We're not quite sure what to do with this text. We know God forms light, but in what sense does He create darkness? We know He causes well-being, but in no way is it possible that He can create calamity. So apparently it's some obscure metaphor, some odd arrangement of words, because one thing we know about God is He only does nice things. If that's not true, we're not sure we believe in this God who causes calamity.

These are just a few examples of plain Scriptures that say straightforward things about God. We give lipservice to taking God at His Word, but when it comes to some of it, we're not so sure. Will we let God be God, or will we overlay our own version and require Him to conform?

Substandard Standards

I was watching one of those movies where a loved one dies and it shakes the faith of the survivors. You know. "Why would God let that happen??" I've always been baffled by that. Is it the common view that a good God would never let a loved one die ... ever? Is it our understanding that death (which, by the way, we brought on ourselves) only occurs because God is a failure? I don't get it.

It's just one example of our standard method of objecting to God. And, by "our standard method," I include believers with unbelievers. We are constantly applying to God our own standards and complaining that He doesn't measure up. Read that again. We complain that God doesn't measure up to our standards. What lunacy! We believe that a loving God would never allow sickness and sadness, injury and misery, trials and tribulations, even though God repeatedly says so in His Word. We believe that if people go to Hell, that's a pretty mean God (either "mean" in the sense of "unkind" or "average"). Most of us are pretty sure that a God of wrath toward sin is a petty God. Mind you, it was Jesus who said, "Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few" (Matt 7:13-14). And even people who call themselves a "follower of Christ" will reject that out of hand. Because we have standards and God has to meet them or He's right out.

So it was disturbing to me when I read the actual standard.

As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance, but as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, since it is written, "You shall be holy, for I am holy." (1 Peter 1:14-16)

Put away passions (which is the standard standard operating procedure for almost everyone) and be holy. Not just holy, but holy as God is holy. Peter didn't make that up. It was what Jesus taught. "You must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Matt 5:48). If God is good and God is love and God is omniscient and God is omnipotent, perhaps we ought to set aside our petty standards we keep trying to apply to Him and look to ourselves, because we definitely fall short of His standard, and His is right.

Christ the Lord is Risen Today

According to Paul, the basic gospel goes like this:

... Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also. (1 Cor 15:3-8)

I know, I know, that's not the gospel. The "good news" is that life will get better (Luke 4:18-21). You know, the "social gospel." And that's all well and good ... as long as you're willing to pit Jesus against Paul. I'll go with Jesus and Paul. So this is Resurrection Sunday. What's the big deal, in the gospel, with the Resurrection?

According to Paul, the first major component of the gospel is that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures. Isaiah said, "But He was pierced for our transgressions; He was crushed for our iniquities; upon Him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with His wounds we are healed. 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 53:5-6). Now, you may not like the concept that Christ died for our sins, but Paul calls it fundamental and Isaiah said it was the plan. Jesus was crucifed for our sin. That's what the Scriptures say. That's what Jesus said (Matt 20:28). That's the good news. His death took our sin. So what about the resurrection? Peter says that our "living hope" -- being born again -- is "through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead" (1 Peter 1:3). If our sin is gone because His death took it, our new life is available because His resurrection started it. We are immersed into Him in His death and raised again in new life by His resurrection (Rom 6:4-5). The gospel is both His death and His resurrection.

We celebrate, today, that unique and wonderful event where Christ, the spotless Lamb, took the penalty for our sin on Himself and died and rose again so that we might have new life. We need both. We can't set aside either. Forgiveness of sins and "born again" are the two points of the best possible news. The Lord is risen!

News Weakly - 4/8/23

The Passing of Common Sense
Tennessee figured, "Let's keep adult entertainment in adult venues and not ... oh, I don't know ... around children." Seemed reasonable, until a federal judge blocked the law. "No!" our federal courts tell us, "You cannot prevent children from seeing adult material ... unless, of course, we disapprove." So they can't go to an X-rated movie, but they must be allowed to go to a show where a strange man dresses up as a woman to entertain the kiddies.

To Be or Not To Be
The EPA has approved California's plan to phase out fossil-fuel trucks starting in 2024. Yes, next year. The plan is to eliminate "box trucks, semitrailers and even large passenger pick-ups" that are not zero-emission. The cost will be staggering to trucking companies large and small, and the infrastructure to support such a massive move doesn't exist in California. So, are they cutting edge ... or cutting their own wrists? And who will pay the price? (That one's easy -- you and me.) Is California blazing new trails or choking itself out of existence?

But This Isn't Racism At All!
Since 1973, more than 20 million black babies have been aborted. About 38% of all reported abortions are for black women although, in total, only 13% of the population is black. In Michigan, more than 55% of abortions in 2021 were for black women. Clearly, then, we can see the mindset of Michigan's governor who this week repealed a nearly 100-year-old piece of legislation that banned the murder of the unborn. If women -- especially black women -- want to kill their babies, Gretchen Whitmer is all for it.

Unintended Consequences
As we all know, former president Trump has pleaded not guilty to 34 felony counts of ... falsifying business records. Oddly enough, the effects are unexpected. Trump's arraignment seems to have strengthened Trump's position. Trump-haters gloat that herein is proof that he shouldn't be president; Trump-lovers applaud him and give him more money. The man admittedly had an extramarital affair with a porn star and paid "hush money" to keep her quiet (none of which were crimes), but the "big crime" is improper bookkeeping. No one cares that Stormy Daniels took the money and blabbed anyway. No one cares that covering up one's indiscretions is standard operating procedure for politicians (and others) everywhere. (Think "the Twitter Files" where the government paid the media to hide the Hunter Biden stories, for instance.) But, I think, the one of the oddest outcomes is that Trump-lovers -- even Christian Trump-lovers -- don't bat an eye at the proven and admitted lack of moral character of the man they want reelected. I don't seem to grasp any of this.

First World Problems
The French workers are angry. Their government has proposed that retirement age be raised from 62 to 64. Cads in power! Of course, they've been doing that for some time here in America. And no one has been too miffed. And, besides, this is the French. What kind of crazy world is this when "We are entitled" overrides "We surrender"?

When Four Fingers Point Backward
Trump, the philandering adulterer, is on trial for trying to cover up his deeds. It turns out he's far more evil than that. According to the Biden administration his evil reached into Biden's presidency and forced him to pull out of Afghanistan in the night, stranding thousands of allies and friends and leaving all those women to suffer at the hands of the Taliban. Right? Or ... the Biden administration, in blaming Trump for that, is trying to cover up what they recognize to be evil and reprehensible on their own side ... just like Trump and his "hush money" debacle.

Beeyond Beelief
As the Bee points out, after electing nothing but Democrats for the last 100 years and getting nothing but corrupt leaders, rising crime, and increasing poverty, Chicago has spoken out firmly and elected ... another Democrat. You know ... like the definition of "insanity" -- doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome. I hear that NBC is debuting their latest Law & Order: Falsification of Business Records Unit. Ought to be thrilling. And, last, the story of the Democrats throwing the biggest fundraiser we've seen in awhile ... for Trump (who, seriously, has raised $7 million since his indictment).

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

Crazy Peter

Peter told his readers who were facing difficult times to "Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution" (1 Peter 2:13). What follows are examples of human institutions, including government (1 Peter 2:13-17), servants (1 Peter 2:18-20), and the institution of marriage (1 Peter 3:1-7). In every case Peter tells his readers to submit for the Lord's sake even in the case of bad leadership. He sums up this way:

To sum up, all of you be harmonious, sympathetic, brotherly, kindhearted, and humble in spirit; not returning evil for evil or insult for insult, but giving a blessing instead; for you were called for the very purpose that you might inherit a blessing. (1 Peter 3:8-9)

You see, this text makes it abundantly clear that ... Peter was a loon. Crazy as a bat. All that "harmonious" and such is well and good, but, seriously, man, do you actually expect us to not return evil for evil or insult for insult? That's not even human.

How can we do that? Why would we do that? Peter gives a basic reason for us to do such an outlandish thing. By giving a blessing instead, "you might inherit a blessing." Okay, fine, we all want a blessing. Indeed, Peter says, "you were called for the very purpose." That, he says, is one of the fundamental things you and I were called for. So ... how? How can we possibly do this? Well, earlier he told them to "fervently love one another from the heart" (1 Peter 1:22), which looked like "putting aside all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander" (1 Peter 2:1) first and then longing "for the pure milk of the Word" (1 Peter 2:2). This works well "if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good" (1 Peter 2:3). And there's the key. In his explanation of how wives could submit to unbelieving husbands, he told them about women of old "who hoped in God" (1 Peter 3:5). That allowed them to submit for the Lord's sake and adorn themselves with a quiet and gentle spirit.

That, then, is our secret weapon. Not returning evil for evil, insult for insult, but honoring everyone and fearing God (1 Peter 2:17). If our hope is in our circumstances and our own abilities, we're going to have to get nasty sometimes. If it is in our God, then such responses are not necessary. "Oh, but they are," some will protest. And I'll happily let you argue that with God who says otherwise.

Is Silence Golden?

He who shall not be named was miffed at me because I didn't mention Trump's indictment in my News Weakly last weekend. I'm not sure why. Even a casual reader of my blog will know that I'm no Trump fan. Nor am I a Trump hater. But I do have thoughts on the matter. On the surface, there is the concern about "executive privilege." Now, on one hand I would not want actual crimes committed by a president to go unpunished because he committed them in office. On the other hand, there is a serious concern that political opponents might turn the judicial system into a political weapon, and that is a concern. But ... this indictment has nothing to do with that.

So, what about Trump? And why didn't I include him in my News Weakly? Well, let's look. For what has the ex-president been indicted? It's tough to be certain because the indictment is sealed. First, he is not being indicted for something he did as president. He's being indicted by a Manhattan grand jury. So what is it? It appears to be about "hush money" paid to a woman who made it her life's aim to besmirch his reputation, but that seems odd since "hush money" isn't criminal. So it seems to be about how the payment was recorded -- as payment for legal fees. What is the evidence? We can't know; the indictment is sealed. If convicted, will this prevent him from running for president? No. Will he go to prison? Not likely. So this appears to be what the military would call a harassment operation. You send small squads out to nip at the heels of an enemy to distract or hinder them. And that sounds a lot like weaponizing the judicial system for political gain.

So this is big news. "The guy we love to hate is in trouble with the law!!" They, oddly enough, are not equally concerned, say, about Hillary's flouting of the law with her emails or Biden and son with their financial shenanigans, for instance. No, it's "the guy we love to hate," so even if this means very little and proves nothing regarding his presidency, past or future, it's a good thing. I, on the other hand, prefer not to pass judgment on charges without having the information, the evidence, the full story. You know ... innocent until proven guilty. That, unfortunately, is a long-lost concept in America today. Now it's "innocent as long as you're on our side; otherwise, guilty." So while we try to sound patriotic and all (from both sides), we proudly and loudly undercut our national virtues. It's not a good thing.

Good Mourning

As reported earlier, my father passed away recently. So I have a memorial service to go to and I have caring people offering me condolences -- "We're sorry for your loss." That's all fine. But it's interesting. My mother keeps correcting them. "Don't be sorry! He's with Jesus now! He's experiencing perfect delight! And I have Jesus with me! Nothing to be sorry about!" That's my mother.

I think we get confused about death and mourning. Mourning the dead person is pointless because ... they're dead. I don't think we really do that much. Well, we comfort ourselves with "She's in a better place" even if she lived a life deserving only hell, but, really, what we're mourning is not the dead person, but our own loss. It is, basically, quite selfish. Does that make it wrong? I don't think so. Jesus said, "Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted" (Matt 5:4). That's not "Confused are those who mourn" or "Selfish are those who mourn." Blessed. Why? Because in our mourning we receive comfort. Jesus, of course, was speaking most specifically of spiritual mourning, of mourning our own poor spirit (Matt 5:3), we who suffer from "hunger and thirst for righteousness" (Matt 5:6). That's true. But recognizing that there is pain in the absence of a loved one is not sinful. And recognizing it in others is commanded. "Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep," Paul wrote (Rom 12:15). So mourning the loss of a loved one isn't sin; it's expected, and God offers comfort.

I'll miss my dad, to be sure. "Oh," some tell me, "you'll see him again." Probably, but, to be honest, if I am loving Christ as I am commanded to (Matt 10:37), my greatest joy in heaven will not be found in reuniting with loved ones. It will be to fall at Jesus's feet ... for a few thousand years or so. And it's not like my father isn't with me anymore. I have his words, his example, the lessons he taught me in word and deed. Funny how God calls those to mind when I need them. So I will mourn a while my loss of my father, but I am promised comfort and that's good enough for me. I will find my full satisfaction in Christ.

Omniscient

Back in 2020 a German artist took 99 smartphones, turned them all on, put them in a wagon, and walked down the street with them in tow. The result was a "traffic jam" reported by Google Maps to all its users in the area. Ninety-nine phones moving really slow. It was just a sideshow, of course, a "Google hack," but what really struck me was that Google was tracking 99 phones ... without "permission" or informing the users. That is, Google is able to tell where any phone is at any time including location, speed, and direction.

Now, of course, it shouldn't really surprise us. The capability of tracking millions of phones is impressive, and the intrusion is minor, but it made me think down a different track. That feat wouldn't even be a challenge for God. The Omniscient God knows everything. He knows what was, what is, what will be. He knows what you've done, what you haven't done, and what you will do. He knows all contingencies, but He knows nothing contingently. "Well, this will happen if that happens ..." He knows all the "could haves" and all the "will bes." He knows your every thought. Your location, speed, and direction? Trivial. And He does it without your permission. Well, to be fair, being God, He could not not do it. He's Omniscient.

I have had many occasions that I've wished I could "delete files" in my brain. Remove a memory. Cancel a line of thinking. Block a tendency. And while God promises not to remember my sin, having forgiven it, that doesn't mean He has forgotten my sin ... or He wouldn't be Omniscient, would He? I can't know stuff He doesn't know. That's just nonsense. So if I wish I could delete stuff from my mind, how much more do I wish I could do the same from His. But, He is Omniscient, which means He can't not see or unsee anything. I guess the only remedy is to stop saying, doing, or thinking anything I don't want Him to see. I guess I have my work cut out for me.

Let God Be God

If you read through Peter's first epistle, you come across some sticky concepts. One of the stickiest, perhaps, is found in the second chapter. Peter writes there that we are "living stones" because we believe in Christ, the cornerstone (1 Peter 2:4-7). "But," he goes on to say and explains about those who do not believe, who reject the cornerstone (1 Peter 2:7-8). He concludes,

They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do. (1 Peter 2:8)

Now, surely, you can feel the tension there. First we have that uncomfortable term, "destined." Then we see he is saying that they were "destined" to disobey. And at this point many honest, well-meaning, genuine, Bible-believing theologians balk. "No, no," they say, "it's not disobedience that is destined." So the NASB says, "They stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed." I put that word in italics because I emphasize it, but the NASB puts it in italics because it's not in there. It's added by the translators. Now, why would they do that? First, we will not agree that God causes sin. No way; no how. (And we all agree on that.) Second, the notion that God destines punishment exists elsewhere in Scripture. Jude, for instance, writes of "certain persons" who "have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation" (Jude 1:4). That "long beforehand" is literally "before time" and we might balk at the notion that some people are condemned before they're born, but it's there. So we'll buy that the condemnation might be foreordained; just not the sin.

Is that so? We all agree that God doesn't cause sin (James 1:13-15). Does that mean that God does not predestine sin? Let's look. Jesus was talking about His pending crucifixion at the Last Supper before the disciples had caught on to what He was talking about. He told them, "But behold, the hand of the one betraying Me is with Mine on the table. For indeed, the Son of Man is going as it has been determined; but woe to that man by whom He is betrayed!" (Luke 22:21-22). So His crucifixion was determined in advance as was His betrayal. Jesus knew from the beginning who would betray Him (John 6:64). Judas's betrayal was determined in advance and he would be culpable for it ("woe to that man"). That sin was predetermined. Or how about the worst sin of all time -- the illegal and unjust murder of the Son of God? According to Scripture, that was predestined by God to be carried out by specific people (Acts 4:27-28). That sin was predetermined. But I think the clearest example is back in Genesis. Joseph's brothers planned to kill him, but they relented and sold him off as a slave instead. After that whole story played out and Joseph ended up saving the whole family (and all who would be saved in Christ, since the Messiah was going to come through that line), the brothers feared reprisal. So they went and asked for forgiveness. Joseph, famously, told them, "You meant evil against me, but God meant it for good ..." (Gen 50:20). We have two players here -- the brothers ("you") and God. And we have two intents here -- evil and good. "Intent" is a word of "will" or "motivation" or "purpose." So the question here is what is "it"? What was the "it" that God intended for good and they intended for evil? The sin of selling their brother into slavery. Therefore, Joseph was arguing that God meant -- intended, purposed, willed -- "it" -- the sin -- for good while they meant it for evil. God willed their sin. He willed it to produce good, and the fact that He produced good from it didn't exonerate them for their sin, but He meant them to do it.

God didn't cause sin. He didn't force disobedience. He didn't push them into it. God allowed it. God allowed Judas to do what Judas would do and allowed Pilate and Herod et al. to perform the murder of God's Son. He determined it, but He didn't cause it. So it is abundantly clear in Scripture that God does appoint sin as well as judgment. He does so with clean hands Himself; He doesn't cause it. He does so with justice and with wisdom. The old joke is, "Lead me not into temptation; I can find it on my own." It's true. We don't need God to push us into sin; we're accomplished in that on our own (James 1:14-15; James 4:2-3). We don't need God or the devil to make us do it. It's good to know, then, that God knows how to use for good those things by which we condemn ourselves ... and some of that good is to save some.

On Atonement

Atonement. The word kind of defines itself. It means, basically, "at-one-ment." At the beginning of the story, two are separated, and atonement is required to unite them. The word came up in the Old Testament in the laws given in Exodus. All that stuff about offering bulls as a sin offering for atonement and such (e.g., Exo 29:36). In Exodus the word appears 11 times; in Leviticus there are 51 references. All of the Old Testament considered, there are 105 uses of the word. A running theme -- making atonement for sin ... because sin causes a rift between God and His creatures and something has to be done to remedy that condition. The New Testament doesn't use the word, but it has its own version. The Greek word is katallasso -- to reconcile. Of course, if sin isn't that bad, the whole concept is pointless. All those animals sacrificed in the Old Testament for the at-one-ment for Israel's sins were meaningless. Unnecessary. Someone -- probably the vast BigFarm co-op -- pulled a fast one on everyone (including Jesus) making them all think that sacrifices were necessary for sin when anyone with half a brain could tell you that God was just a nice guy and He didn't much care about all your trivial mistakes.

This is the week of at-one-ment. It's the week that we focus on it, put a laser pointer on it. This is the week we commemorate the Body broken for us and the Blood shed for us. It is the week that we remember the price paid for our sin. Jesus used the word "ransom" (Matt 20:28; Mark 10:45). He came to "seek and to save the lost" (Luke 19:10). Jesus said that He was the only answer, that "No one comes to the Father except through Me" (John 14:6). Jesus thought that "many" would find their way to destruction but "few" would find the way to life (Matt 7:13-14). Jesus warned that a failure to repent would result in perishing (Luke 13:1-5). Sin, to Jesus, was a real problem that He came to provide a solution for -- at-one-ment. Reconciliation. Ransom.

If your understanding of the Crucifixion does not include Christ bearing the penalty for our sin (Isa 53:4-6), you do so against Scripture in general and Jesus in particular. If you miss the point that Jesus came to save sinners, you worship a different Jesus than the one we find in the Bible. On the other hand, if you recognize that this is the week in which we gratefully remember that Christ died for our sins and rose again on the third day, then you will see that this is indeed a monumental celebration.

God is Good

In his description of what it means to "love one another earnestly from a pure heart," (1 Peter 1:22) Peter tells his readers to "put away all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander" (1 Peter 2:1). That stuff needs to be replaced. What does Peter tell them? "Like newborn infants, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up into salvation" (1 Peter 2:2). Now, Peter has already explained what that "pure spiritual milk" is. It is the Word of the Lord (1 Peter 1:23-25). Thus, in order to love earnestly from a pure heart, we need to "long for" God's Word as our primary sustenance.

Peter follows this thought with an interesting qualifier. He tells them to long for the pure spiritual milk "if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good" (1 Peter 2:3). Now, that's interesting, isn't it? Peter is drawing from the Old Testament here -- specifically Psalm 34:8. "Oh, taste and see that the LORD is good! Blessed is the man who takes refuge in Him!" And, you see, this is, indeed, the fundamental question, isn't it? Is the Lord good? "Well, of course He is," most of us would say. But do we believe that? Eve didn't (Gen 3:4-6). And we get tripped up on it all the time. Sure the Lord's good ... when things are going the way we like them to. What about when they're not? What about when a loved one is dying or a job has been lost or we're beset by injustice? Where is your "good God" now? It is the tripping point of most who part ways with God. He didn't do what they wanted Him to do, so He's out. He's not good.

That, then, is the question before each of us. Is God good? If He is, then we can trust Him. If He is, then we can trust His Word. If He is, then we can place our confidence in Him even when things don't look good to us. If He is, then we can know that He works all things together for good. If He is, then in Him we can find complete rest and full contentment. If we are not finding those, it might just be that we haven't tasted, haven't seen, are still asking the question. Is God good? You need to settle that.

News Weakly - 4/1/23

Our Union Overlords
In a bow to their true constituents, the Michigan state government carried out their plan to eliminate the right to work in Michigan. Unions rule. Don't like it? Tough! Governor Whitmer says (in essence), "We love you, Michiganders ... as long as you knuckle under."

All the Wrong Questions
Another tragic shooting. Another round of stupid questions. A 28-year-old Nashville woman (who identified as a man) shot 3 elementary school students and 3 elementary school staff before being shot by police. The questions they're asking are about gun control. The question that needs to be asked is why so many no longer value human life. Guns have been with us a long time. This random, senseless use of them, not so much. Changing weapons won't fix that problem. I can't say for certain why human life has drastically dropped in value, but I wonder if things like this kind of thinking plays a part.

The Elusive "Living Wage"
After largely achieving the $15/hr minimum wage in much of the country, states like New York, California, and Hawaii are pushing for $20/hr or more. Why? Well, because, as it turns out, when our Democratic government breaks records for inflation and you raise the minimum wage, the cost of living goes up, so it becomes necessary to raise the minimum wage, which will drive up the cost of living, so it will be necessary ... ad infinitum. Why is that so hard to see?

No Kidding
The World Health Organization has taken a turn on their recommended policy. Now they are saying that healthy children and teens may not need COVID vaccinations. Given that this group constituted an extremely small segment of the overall impact of COVID, I would have advised them of that ... years ago. But, of course, science knows best, if not, perhaps, slowest.

An Arm and a Leg
Ford is boosting the price of its electric F-150 nearly 50% due to rising costs. You know, like union wages and the cost of everything else thanks to our current economic overlords. So, sure, you need an electric vehicle ... but it's gonna cost you ... well, you know the rest.

The Bee is Back
I skipped the Bee last week, but they're back. In one story, doctors are reporting a troubling rise in testicular injuries among female athletes. In another, despite all we hear about how expensive it is to live in California and how much people are fleeing the state, the Bee lists 11 Great Reasons to Stay in California, starting with "Zillow estimates your cardboard box house will be worth $3 million in just a few years" and ending with "Best of all, the government will make all your decisions for you." What a great state to live in! And a report from the White House is out that Biden, hearing that a president was being indicted, was deeply concerned until he realized it was Trump.

Must be true; I read it on the Internet. No foolin'. (If you missed that, check the date.)