What Did You Say?

I take my morning walks early. Really early. When I walked the other morning I encountered not one, but five different people with electric blowers and clippers doing loud early morning work in their yards. The thinking, I would presume, was, "I don't want to be out there in the heat of the day, so I'll do it early." The actual message would be, "I have to suffer getting up early to do this, so I don't care if everyone else in my neighborhood has to suffer the same as long as I don't have to endure too much heat." No one ever said that, of course. I'm not convinced they thought it, either. But it was the message, loud and clear.

We've all heard, "Actions speak louder than words." We all acknowledge it is true. So what do our actions say? I'm thinking most intently here about Christians who are carrying the most important message the world needs -- Jesus. Too much of the time our words say the right thing, but our actions counteract them. We declare our love for Jesus while we ignore His explicit commands ... in full public view. We call ourselves "Christians" -- Christ-followers -- while we travel down roads He would never walk. We refuse to love our neighbors when that was His #2 command, and don't even get me started about our failure to love God "with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind" (Matt 22:37). I mean, "Mind? Really? Who does that?" Let alone the rest.

Paul chastised the Jews for dishonoring God by breaking the Law. "The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you" (Rom 2:23-24). How many times have we heard, "Oh, you Christians. You're all just hypocrites"? Too many times the accusation is accurate. We claim a love for God but we live selfishly. And we wonder why we get accused of hypocrisy. Everyone of us fails and falls. The trick isn't to embrace it. The correct response is to admit it and correct it. There is no hypocrisy in "Yes, I was guilty in what you are accusing me, and I'm working on correcting it." The alternative gives God a bad name.

Culture of Death

The term, "culture of death," refers to a civilization that endorses killing, a culture that embraces death as a good thing. We who love human life often decry our current pro-death culture. It shows in the gun problem. Guns are not the problem; they're the tool. It's the people so willing to kill that is the problem. It shows in the entertainment world with our thirst for violent "entertainment" that seems to numb us to actual killing. It shows in our absolute demand that women be allowed to murder babies in the womb if they want, a demand that cost over 65 million lives since 1973. It shows in the new laws being passed that allow doctors to kill patients if the patients want to die. We say we want to live, but in many ways ours is becoming more and more a pro-death society.

It is, then, an interesting twist that Christianity is, at the outset, a death culture. "What??!" many will ask. It's true. Jesus said, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross daily and follow Me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake, he is the one who will save it" (Luke 9:23-24). Paul wrote, "Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life" (Rom 6:3-4). Paul happily declared, "I have been crucified with Christ" (Gal 2:20). The Christian life consciously begins with death ... to self. We are told to lay aside the old self (Eph 4:22; Col 3:9). We are told to identify ourselves with Christ's death.

The difference, however, between our culture of death and our faith that begins with death to self is that the very next step for the believer is new life. We are baptized into Christ's death and now "walk in newness of life, a resurrected life (Rom 6:4-6). We put aside the old self and put on the new self (Eph 4:24; Col 3:10). We are crucified with Christ, but we live ... in a better way. "I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me" (Gal 2:20). So while our walk with Christ starts out in death to self and retains death to self, the new life we receive far exceeds the old we surrendered ... unlike our modern culture of death.

Another Gospel

In Galatians Paul addresses the churches of that region about their defection from the gospel. It shouldn't sound that odd to our ears. We have it everywhere in our time.

We have the Mormons (LDS) who teach the gospel that salvation is through faith in Christ. Well, baptism is required; you can't be saved if you've never been baptized. And more. We have the Jehovah's Witnesses that deny the deity of the Christ in whom they say we need to be saved. According to jw.org, "To gain salvation, you must exercise faith in Jesus and demonstrate that faith by obeying his commands." That is, "faith and." Faith in Christ and obedience will get you in. (They also specify that God, not Jesus, is our Savior.) The Roman Catholic Church holds that the Church distributes salvation to men through their sacraments. That requires Baptism, Confirmation, Mass, Penance, and, more. And, of course, we have the common belief that salvation comes by being good. "Good" is relative, and, apparently, "good enough" is something around "better than the worst example I can think of." ("I'm not that bad.") There are, as it turns out, lots of "other gospels" out there.

But, look, can't we all just get along? I mean, Mormonism and Catholicism both teach "faith in Christ" and the JW's go with "faith in God," so can't we just agree to disagree on the peripherals? Paul says no. Paul calls it "not another gospel" (Gal 1:7). Paul says it is "damned to hell" -- anathema. According to Paul, if it is true that we require the Law in order to be saved, then Christ died for nothing (Gal 2:21). And that, he says, makes Christ a minister of sin (Gal 2:17). There is no other gospel than "a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus ... since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified" (Gal 2:16). Don't be fooled.

Pastor ChatGPT

The New York Post put out a piece about AI (Artificial Intelligence) writing sermons for church pastors. "The evolving consensus among clergy," they said "is 'Yes, they can write a passably competent sermon.'" At Church and Culture, someone described the work of ChatGPT as "creepily not bad." Completely and totally evil, but not bad.

Why not? Why can't an AI do the work of a pastor? Why can't a pastor get a sermon from an artificial intelligence? Well, it depends on what you're looking for from a pastor ... and a sermon. If you want "content" -- well-written, pithy, relevant, stuff -- then why not? That AI stuff is pretty smart. But if you want a Holy Spirit-inspired expression of God's Word from the heart of a loving pastor, I'm afraid that won't be coming from AI any time soon. Or ever. We've managed to create "artificial intelligence" (to some degree, I'd say), but what we have not managed to create is a living being with a God-given soul and spirit that can have a living, breathing relationship with the Triune God. If the heart of a good pastor is the spiritual health of his congregation through ministration of the Word, the heart of the best AI is ... nonexistent.

Once again we're making fundamental mistakes based on fundamental perceptions. Man is not so good that he can duplicate God's work in making a living being artificially. Humans are not mere machines. Sunday morning is not a motivational therapy session where a well-meaning automaton can produce a "best life now" spiel on hope. Think about it. What does a machine know about hope? We have not actually made artificial intelligence. We've made a complicated mimic that can fool the unwary. Church is about fellowship (Heb 10:25) and stimulating one another to love and good deeds (Heb 10:24) by the equipping of the saints for the building up of the body of Christ (Eph 4:12). God has provided the means for that (Eph 4:11), and any substitute we provide will be "creepily not bad," but certainly completely wrong.

Values Clarification

A federal judge struck down Arkansas's law banning transgender treatments for children. Why? Science admits no non-binary sexes. The judge didn't do it for the truth of the question. He did it for "gender-affirming care" -- people who feel they're the "wrong sex" ought to be able to become the "right one." This judge values "affirmation of feelings" over scientific fact. When the Christian Reformed Church synod passed a resolution condemning gay and lesbian sex as sin and same-sex marriage as false, a delegate pastor walked out on behalf of "many LGBTQ+people" ... one of which was his son. The pastor valued his son's sexual orientation over Scripture.

In the past we've often suggested that "our side" has values while "the other side" does not. It's simply not true. On the other hand, I think we've largely missed the fundamental importance of values. For instance, when I discuss abortion with people in general, I don't start with Scripture; I go right to science. Science is not ambiguous. That embryo is a human being. It isn't simply a mass of cells. Nor is it mere "fetal tissue" that belongs to the mother. Science says it has its own DNA, that it is undeniably the first stage of human life. The next stage is fetus. Then there is newborn, infant, toddler ... you get the idea. All of it is the natural progression of a human being. But science rarely sways anyone on the topic. Why? Because they hold a higher value -- a woman's choice. They don't value human life as much as they value choice. Higher than life, higher than truth, they will choose a woman's free will. That is their value system.

It turns out we are expressing our value system in every choice we make and every position we espouse. A person can declare, "I value Scripture" and mean it right up until the Scriptures declare something that opposes what they value more, and Scripture will lose. A Christian -- a Christ-follower -- will seek to follow Christ at least as long as He doesn't go somewhere that violates the Christian's values. Because what we value will trump what we believe and will always supercede truth unless we have Christ as our highest value and truth as our bottom line. Thus, when we do deviate from biblical values, it serves as an indicator that our values are misplaced and gives us an indication of where to fix the problem ... in us.

The Heavens Declare

David wrote, "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims His handiwork" (Psa 19:1). Paul rode his coattails and said, "For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For His invisible attributes, namely, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made" (Rom 1:19-20). How does that work?

Well, take a look. Theologians call it "natural revelation." What does nature reveal about God? The first one is easy. He's a Creator. Beyond that, obviously there is power there. Who can grasp the power of the Sun? Who can understand gravity? How much force does it take to move planets? He possesses all power; He is omnipotent. Clearly there is knowledge. We don't know how magnets work. We can't tell if electricity flows from positive to negative or from negative to positive. He does. We have only scratched the surface of the intricacies of the human body in general and the human brain in particular. He is omniscient. Everywhere you look you will see remarkable things, beautiful things, strange things. He did that. Flowers and birds, clouds and mountains, animal life, vegetable life, sea life, all kinds of life on this planet that are all so interwoven and directed that even an enthusiastic Evolution-fan cannot avoid the word, "designed."

We can learn a lot about God from His creation. Scripture indicates that was His intent. We are, He says, without excuse. So take some time as often as you can to see God's hand in everything around you and glorify Him for the astounding Creator that He is.

News Weakly - 6/24/23

The Sin of Pride?
At a Pride celebration on the White House lawn, a "transgender influencer" (When did "influencer" become a thing? And doesn't it warn us of what social media is aiming at?) removed his/her top. He goes by Rose Montoya. Montoya defended the action on Instagram and TikTok and then apologized because of the backlash. I think the most amusing part of this particular story was when they reported "she was within her legal rights to bear her breasts." Yes, those with breasts should be able to bear them in public ... just not bare them.

And We All Know It
Every outlet I looked at had the same story. A pregnant woman was shot and killed by two gunmen in Washington D.C. "and her baby is in critical condition." It is a tragedy, but why does everyone acknowledge that this unborn child is a baby while denying it elsewhere? Why does "public sentiment" get to define "human being"?

Missing the Point
The story in Business Insider recognizes that Trump allowed a transgender to compete in the 2012 Miss Universe pageant but is now "campaigning to ban trans women from competing in women's sports." Obvious contradiction, right? Only if you completely miss the point. Biological males have an inborn advantage in sports that makes it unfair for them to compete with biological women, so many are calling on bans on biological males from competing (unfairly) with women. Biological women have an inborn advantage over biological males in beauty contests, so comparing sports vs beauty contests is apples and oranges. Mind you, the amount of surgery and literally unnatural -- against nature -- work that has to be done to make a biological male able to compete with a biological female in a female beauty contest seems a bit unfair to me, but my point is that this sports ban isn't an "anti-transgender ban" -- it's an biological-male-competing-against-biological-female ban. Not the same thing ... as demonstrated by the fact that it says nothing about "transgender men" competing with biological men.

Those Crazy Californians
California is at it again. They're advancing a bill that would require parents to "affirm a child's gender identity." It could cost custody and/or visitation amd classify parents that refuse as abusive. "Never mind the science or the permanent damage done to a prepubescent child. We will push this anti-science, irrational agenda in California." Whatever it takes to remove the rational populace from the state.

Bring Down the Constitution
12-year-old subversive, Liam Morrison, was sent home from school in March for wearing a T-shirt that violated the dress code, making students feel unsafe. The malevolent child's shirt boldly declared "There are only two genders." A district court judge ruled against Liam's 1st Amendment right to free speech in favor of other students' nonexistent right to not feel uncomfortable. We have our priorities straight now.

Dangerous Liberty
The Southern Poverty Law Center touts itself as "fighting hate" and "seeking justice," so they like to track "hate groups." You know, hate groups like "Moms for Liberty," a group "dedicated to fighting for the survival of America by unifying, educating and empowering parents to defend their parental rights at all levels of government." Yeah ... parents with rights ... what could be more dangerous? Got it. Moms and liberty are right out. No, of course not. It's just most any conservative group that they classify as "hate."

Assault Weapon Ban
In New Zealand, an attacker with an axe visited 3 Chinese restaurants sending 3 people to the hospital. Government is calling for better assault weapon control, such as axe registration, background checks, and possibly a total ban on axes. No? If not, why not?

Democratic Religion?
Roman Catholics want the church to promote women into decision-making roles and have a "radical inclusion" of the LGBTQ community (like offering them "fraternal space"). Because, as we all know, churches are defined by their people and not, say, by the God they seek to follow. So Scripture's idea about women in authority over men is no longer to be considered. And while I think that homosexuals, etc., need what the Church has to offer, I want to be careful not to give them "fraternal space" as if people in direct, intentional, bold contradiction to God's commands can actually be "brothers in Christ." What people really want is their own club where they can lay down the rules and God has to follow them because they voted it in.

Eliminate the Opposition
A gay, tenured history professor in California was suspended after bringing chocolate bars to a campus open house. The bars were "he/him" bars containing nuts and "she/her" bars without nuts from Jeremy's Chocolate. The professor was suspended for "creating a hostile environment" in opposition to diversity and inclusion ... which, apparently, is remedied by eliminating his diverse opinion and excluding him. Got it. (I'm wondering. Has anyone ever been disciplined for creating a hostile environment for, say, conservatives or Christians?)

A Lesson in Logical Fallacy
The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) has been defending religious freedom since it was formed in 1994. Now that the Southern Poverty Law Center has deemed it a "hate group," the media is jumping on the bandwagon and warning everyone -- "There be Christians here!" The ACLU regularly attacks 1st and 2nd Amendment rights, but that's good these days. If it's Christian, it's bad. This is, by the way, a classic logical fallacy. "Whatever you do, don't consider the argument. You need to consider the source!" (The genetic fallacy.)
__________
Just a note here. I'm skipping the Bee's inputs this week because of the unusual length of the news items this week. I hope what I put here was humorous enough for this week.

Side note: It offended some recently when I failed to spend enough time on Trump's indictments because I'm apparently supposed to be writing about what others want me to write about. If that's the case, I hope others won't be outraged that I am not spending enough time on Hunter Biden's guilty plea. I'm sorry. You can check it out for yourself.

I'm Just Sayin'

Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall. (Pro 16:18)

It's Pride month. July is coming. Be ready ...

Who Do You Say I Am?

They had a lot of terms for Jesus in His day. Some called Him a blasphemer. Some called Him "Rabbi" -- teacher. Some called Him a devil, and some called Him Lord.

Now, when Jesus asked His disciples who they said He was (Matt 16:15), He got the right answer. "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt 16:16). What I find odd is that not too long after this, His disciples were scattering and running for cover. If they believed that Jesus was the Christ -- promised by God to Israel as their Savior -- and the Son of the living God, why run? Well, obviously, they no longer believed that. Maybe not consciously, but their actions spoke louder than their words.

Most of us know the right answer. We would agree that Jesus is teacher and Lord and the Son of the living God. But is that the real answer? Do our lives demonstrate it? Do we learn from Christ, the Word of God? Do we submit to Christ as Lord? Do we rely on the Son of God in everything? We will always act on what we truly believe. What do your actions and attitudes say about what you really believe about Jesus? Based on your attitudes and actions, who do you say He is?

Thinking About the Gospel

In Paul's epistle to the churches of Galatia, he's concerned about them deserting the gospel for "a different gospel" (Gal 1:6). About that gospel he says it is "really not another" (Gal 1:7). Only one. So ... what is it? The first mention of "the gospel" is in Matthew. Jesus proclaimed it in Matthew 4. After His desert experience, He "was going throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom" (Matt 4:23). He was saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel" (Mark 1:15). The gospel of the kingdom. The kingdom of God was at hand. The gospel. But what is it?

The erroneous gospel Paul was addressing was the ever-present gospel of works. Be good enough and you'll get in. Of course, "good enough" is relative and, as it turns out, impossible if you believe Jesus who said, "You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Matt 5:48). That "good enough" doesn't happen this side of heaven. Some want us to believe that the gospel is that everyone goes to heaven. Universalism, or something very much like it. Now, that's good news. Except, it's not the good news Jesus preached. He said, "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it" (Matt 7:13-14). There's no way to twist "there are few who find it" into "everyone." Some want us to believe that His was a social gospel, that He came to make life better for the poor and oppressed. Isn't that what He said (Luke 4:17-21)? But if it was about a better life for poor and sick people, He apparently failed. He helped a lot of people, but not all. And Jesus said, "You always have the poor with you" (Matt 26:11). So, while "a better life" would be good news, it doesn't appear to be the good news that Jesus intended. So ... what was it??

The gospel Paul taught and portrayed as the only gospel was that "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us — for it is written, 'Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree' — so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith" (Gal 3:13-14). Saved by faith apart from works. Now, does that make sense? Jesus said it was about the kingdom of God (Mark 1:15). He said it required repentance and faith (Mark 1:15). It was, then, especially good news for those who accepted it. But how does the better life for the captives, the poor, and the blind that Jesus spoke about fit into this? I think we find an answer in Galatians. Paul said we were to "walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh" (Gal 5:16). He explains what the works of the flesh are (Gal 5:19-21), and he explains what the fruit of the Spirit is (Gal 5:22-23). Could it be, then, that the gospel Jesus proclaimed in the synagogue in Luke 4 was not a merely "best life now" gospel, but a spiritual one? Could it be that the poor find their wealth in Christ, that the captive find their liberty in Christ, that the blind find their sight in Christ? Could it be that this gospel is about God's kingdom coming into our hearts? Is that possibly the gospel?

Well, perhaps. There will always be people that want to tell you that the gospel is "be good enough" -- the primary teaching of every major religion ... except Christianity. There will be those who tell you that the gospel is that everyone gets to heaven ... in direct contradiction to Christ's words. There will be those that tell you that the gospel is that the marginalized of this world will have a better life in this world ... in direct contradiction to Christ's words and actions. I will hold that the good news of Scripture is that Christ died for our sins -- became sin for us -- so we can be forgiven and He rose from the dead so that we can have new life and that all of this is available through repentance and faith in Him. Scripture indicates that's the only gospel. Feel free to make up your own ... but keep in mind that Paul curses that kind of thinking (Gal 1:8-9).

Hate the Sinner?

Years ago I watched a documentary on this child born without arms or legs. His mother gave him up for adoption and another couple adopted him. This couple hated the fact that this poor kid was without arms or legs, so they set about providing a remedy. They got him prosthetics for his arms and he learned how to put them on with his teeth. They got him prosthetics for his legs and he learned how to put them on with his prosthetic arms. They taught him to feed himself and dress himself and the documentary showed him playing and laughing with his "better armed" siblings. He was a happy kid. But ... of course, we know he wasn't. Underneath the surface, this kid was born appendageless. (Yes, I just made that word up.) He wanted to be free of them because he wanted to be as he was born to be and these hateful adoptive parents just wouldn't let him. No, of course that's not true. He was grateful and all who saw it were grateful that these parents hated appendagelessness (Look! Another new word!) but loved the child who was without arms and legs enough to remedy it.

We can, as this documentary illustrates, understand the concept of hating a condition without hating the people in it. We can grasp the notion of hating "A" and seeking desperately, out of genuine concern, to rescue people caught in "A" by birth or by choice or by accident. You don't have to hate a person because they are in a condition you hate. We don't have to hate poor people just because they're poor. A caring person would want to end their poverty, not encourage them to flourish in it. Unfortunately, while we can understand that concept, too many operate without it. They despise Christianity (as an example) and, therefore, hate Christians. They hate transgenderism (another example) and, obviously, must hate people who present themselves as transgender. You get the idea. Why some of us do this isn't clear, and I suspect that's a rather complex answer, but that they do is equally clear.

I am quite transparent that I oppose the concepts of transgenderism or homosexuality or abortion, to name a few. It would be an absolute mistake to conclude I must hate people who present as trans or people who are in homosexual relationships or women who have had abortions. That would be completely false. But, for the same reason that some brain-dead people read that "80% of Evangelicals voted for Trump" in 2016 and concluded, therefore, that I must be a Trump lover, people assume that since I openly oppose those concepts, I must be a hater of those people. Absolutely not true. Conversely, I find that people who hate what I believe will routinely express hate to me without regard to the reality that everyone is an individual and, even when it comes to commonalities -- we're Christians or we're Republicans or we think science is quite clear that transgenderism is a lie, etc. -- we are all still individuals and, therefore, variable. Some hate the fact that I hate those things I listed and, therefore, choose to hate me, doing the same thing they accuse me of doing and hating about me. So think back to those adoptive parents who hated the concept of appendagelessness so much that they sought desperately to rescue a young boy born that way from it and try to think about the possibility that not everyone hates the sin and hates the sinner. Just a suggestion from one sinner to another.

Just a Quibble, I Suppose

This isn't a big thing. It has just kind of bothered me ... for years. In my lifetime I've lived in a lot of places and been to a lot of churches, and here's something odd that I've observed. At churches, Mother's Day is typically a day of celebrating mothers. They give them gifts and thank them and thank God for them. If there is a sermon about mothers, it's about why God loves them so and why we should be grateful for them. Father's Day is typically different. Sure, they start the service by thanking dads, but if there is a sermon on dads, it's about how they need to improve and step up and stop being sinful fathers. Mind you, this is stereotypical, but I have seen it more than a few times.

I wonder why we do this. Do we think mothers are all very good and fathers are not? Do we think that mothers are worth more than fathers? Do we not see that hugging moms and beating up dads might lead some dads to want to stay away from church? (I would suggest that there are more than a few things that we do in church that favor females over males and few things we do that encourage men to be there. But that's a different topic.) Do we think that women are more fragile and men more able to take it? I don't know.

I am not suggesting we do not celebrate mothers on Mother's Day (Although I was in one church service on one Mother's Day where everything was about how wonderful our mothers are. I kind of thought we were in church to worship God.) And I am not suggesting that fathers don't need to be encouraged to be good fathers. God ultimately holds them responsible (e.g., 1 Cor 11:3; Eph 6:4; Col 3:21). They need to be urged to be good husbands and good fathers. But not mothers? Don't mothers need to be encouraged to be godly women, godly mothers, godly wives? And don't fathers need to be appreciated? I mean, given the current societal perspective that "masculine" is "toxic" and men are the problem in all ways, I'm pretty sure they're not getting appreciated enough. I think both aspects -- appreciation and encouragement to improve -- are necessary for both, but it seems like our practice is ... gender-biased. Just a thought.

Father's Day, 2023

It's Father's Day, and for those of you have been around for awhile, you know that my father went to be with the Lord in March. I won't be sending him a Father's Day card. Little did I know last year that it would be my last Father's Day with my father. But I will remember him today, so I'm posting this (modified) from back then.

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, fishing in California, 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 fishing 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 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 lived Christ in front of me. He 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 in March. 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 father that I have had in my life. And today he is fully healed and happy in the presence of His dear Savior. I will remember him fondly and thank God for him as a special gift from God.

News Weakly - 6/17/23

Stop Me If You've Heard This
A new study from a team of researchers at Iowa State University found that limiting daily social media usage could have significant benefits in health and emotional wellbeing. Those who cut their social media usage "scored far better on score of anxiety, depression, and loneliness." Of course, the Surgeon General has already issued an advisory on this, but, hey, let's go ahead and give our kids unlimited access and see how that works out for them.

Word Play
GLAAD is reporting that Twitter is "the most dangerous social platform for LGBTQ users." Apparently all platforms "fail at enforcing the safeguarding of LGBTQ users from online hate speech" (and more), but Twitter is worst. Now, when Jesus pointed out that insults to Christians are classified as persecution (Matt 5:11), the world says that's ridiculous, but "hate speech" to the favored group is classified as "dangerous." I just can't keep up with the standards of what constitutes "dangerous."

Biden v Beyoncé
We have Biden to thank for our record inflation. Apparently Sweden has Beyoncé. An analysis by an economist is blaming her for a spike in Sweden's economy because of a highly-touted and very expensive concert she did. Go figure.

If At First You Do Succeed ...
After her failed rape case against Trump followed by her successful defamation lawsuit, E. Jean Carroll is ready for Round 3. That first defamation suit went well, so why not a second? Hey, after that, I'm sure we can find other mean things Trump said about her. (In fact, I think he's said mean things about just about everyone.) Besides, inflation is making our lives more expensive, so she'll need more from Trump to maintain the lifestyle to which she'd like to become accustomed, right? If at first you do succeed, try, try again.

I Told You I'd Bee Back
It's Pride Month, and the official state religion has entered high holy days. However, in a shocker of a story, Bert and Ernie have come out as straight. In the midst of the "women as pastors" controversy, the SBC is wishing God had written some sort of a book that would have explained just who could become pastors. Garth Brooks is defiant about serving Bud Light at his bar despite "anti-trans backlash" (real story). One news outlet simply reported that Garth Brooks opened a gay bar.

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

Unequal Representation

I did a search through a standard news feed. I counted the number of stories I found and how many were on the topic of LGBTlmnop in general or transgender in particular. Easily 10% of the news was on these topics. It seems odd since a generous study would say that the group (LGBT) constitutes less than 5% of the population. "Equal representation" is the term that is bandied about, and it doesn't seem like they're getting "equal representation." Now, you can argue, "Well, they're just much bigger news" for some reason. Perhaps, but if you argue that "More black people go to jail for committing crimes than others because they commit more crimes," you'd be dragged out and lynched. Explaining or making excuses for unequal representation doesn't make it right, apparently. Pointing out, for instance, that while more than 14% of Americans are black, but more than 75% of professional basketball players are black, is unacceptable. "No! That's not unequal representation!" Well, yes, it is.

How is it that one is and the other is not? Or, perhaps a better question, why is it right in one application and wrong in another? Obviously, it's right if it meets your agenda, if it's what you want to see. And that is almost never "equal representation." The question is always, "Is it accomplishing what I want accomplished?" So, is the unequal representation of LGBT issues in the media getting the public to complain and agree that LGBT is "normal" and, in fact, "valued"? Then bring it on. The goal is not to "live and let live." They want to silence Christians who point to Scripture and say, "The Bible says that's wrong." "Hate!" they yell. If I say, "Science is clear that there are only two sexes," I'll be met with loud rejoinders. Mind you, I'm not asking them to agree. I'm not moving legal boundaries, pushing laws, or tormenting anyone. But if a teacher has a "Pride" flag in the classroom, they are applauded, yet if they have a Christian flag in the classroom, they are fired.

Equal representation is not the aim. Any fool can see that. It's a nice sounding term, but it's not practical, not useful, and not of any real interest to anyone. It should be deleted from the "Social Justice" platforms. It won't be, but, like the ACLU that won't fight for the civil rights of Christians, Social Justice Warriors will pick terms and fights they want and not necessarily "equality" issues. It's just not on the agenda. Neither is truth.

Grasping Ingratitude

Comedian Louis CK said, "Everything is amazing and nobody is happy." Yeah, yeah, it's part of a routine, but how true it is. Have you ever noticed? For instance, America has a real poverty problem. Well, real to those in it. But apparently the poorest 20% of Americans are richer than the average person in most European countries. Forbes reported that America's poor still live better than most of the rest of humanity. The Heritage Foundation reported that the average poor family in America has a refrigerator, at least one television, air conditioning, cable or satellite television, a cell phone, and an XBox.

Just an example. I'm not talking here about poverty. I'm talking about ingratitude. We are prone to complain about the things we don't have and think we should and the things we do have but aren't satisfied with. Our most common measure of what we think we should have is what others have. We live in a world full of wonder and beauty, but we rarely appreciate it. We have friends and family and rights and privileges and stuff ... lots of stuff ... and we're not grateful. It's our nature, and it's not the good side of our nature.

Paul wrote, "I have learned in whatever situation I am to be content" (Php 4:11). Imagine that! He wrote, "Godliness with contentment is great gain" (1 Tim 6:6). How many of us can say the same? How many of us find either godliness or contentment sufficient? Yet, we are told, "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places" (Eph 1:3). Our typical response seems to be a collective "Meh!" Is it any wonder that God's wrath includes our failure to give thanks (Rom 1:18-21)? How would your life change if you were a person of contentment?

Mixed Messages

We were in a home recently visiting with friends. We spent the night in the room they fixed up for their grandchildren when they visited. Along with a variety of things to play with and things to create with, they had what I would term "recommended reading" -- things they want their grandchildren to read. Atheist Christopher Hitchens wrote a book titled, God is Not Great. That was one of the books on the shelf, cued up for the kids to read. On the refrigerator they had a magnet with a quote from atheist Richard Dawkins. "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction." These grandparents had a mission. They had a message for their grandkids. And I thought it was sad. Then I noticed a print up on the wall. It said, "Hope." Below was a verse. "Blessed is he whose help is the God of Jacob, whose hope is in the LORD his God" (Psa 146:5). Strange, right? Is hope found in the Lord, or is there no God at all?

People are strange. They'll tell you it's wrong for Christians to say, "Well, there are just things we can't understand, but we trust God" and then they will tell you, "I know there are things we can't understand, but it's okay." They'll tell you, "We need to love our neighbors" and never meet their neighbors. They'll say, "We need to be more embracing and forgiving of things we aren't comfortable with" and then refuse to embrace or forgive things they're uncomfortable with. They say, "I know that God works all things together for good" and then complain about how God is working things.

Christians, unbelievers, all humans ... we are inconsistent. And, well, why wouldn't we be? "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?" (Jer 17:9) We live in a world hostile to God (Rom 8:7). Even Christians have a sin nature (Rom 7:17). Why we are inconsistent isn't a necessary question. Why don't we know it? That's a good one. Do you examine yourself? Does your life reflect what you think you believe? Or are you simply sending mixed messages?

Tidy Little Circles

Christians often tend to reside in tidy little circles where other Christians of like mind are found. We get our ideas reinforced rather than challenged, or, if they are challenged, it is only in a nonthreatening way like on peripheral subjects or, at the very least, in a safe environment. Now, that sounds very "typical," I know. "Yes, you Christians, you just don't consider outside ideas. That's why you're so narrow." But the truth is that I could replace "Christians" with "People" and be equally true. Humans, as a whole, prefer to gather their input from sources friendly to their ideas and get their news from places that affirm their position and spend time with likeminded people. What we generally don't like to do is to wade into combat zones where people with opposing -- especially strongly opposing -- views will take shots at us. Whether it is on philosophy or religion or politics or just about anything, we prefer to stick with our own. It's just safer, and it makes us feel better about ourselves.

I don't doubt that Jesus felt the same way, but it didn't stop Him from hanging out in hostile places. He spent time with sinners who would surely not greet Him with warmth when He urged them to repent. He spoke openly with Pharisees who actually wanted to kill Him. He didn't agree with their views on life and religion, but neither did He excise them. He understood them. Only in that way could He clearly demonstrate why theirs were wrong. Only then could He correctly expose the Pharisees as "white-washed tombs" (Matt 23:27), pretty on the outside but dead on the inside. Only then could He demonstrate His authority to forgive sins through His authority to heal (Mark 2:2-12). Only then could He correctly identify repentance in a sinner versus hypocrisy in the unrepentant (Luke 7:36-50).

It is, in fact, dangerous to leave our tidy little circles of comfort and walk among the opposition. It's not an even battlefield. We will use Scripture and susbsequent reasoning with guidance from the Spirit while they will listen to their deceitful hearts guided by the father of lies. They won't even know they're doing it. We won't survive in that hostile environment on our own merits and abilities, but we're not out there on our own. I'm convinced that Jesus's powerful, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations ..." (Matt 28:19) doesn't simply mean "Go somewhere else." I am certain it means "Go next door" or "Go to your friends and family who are hostile to the gospel" or "Go to your workplace" and make disciples. We are promised persecution -- mild or serious -- for doing so, but we aren't doing it alone and we aren't doing it unarmed. We're to be prepared to give a defense for our hope (1 Peter 3:15), to contend for the faith (Jude 1:3) rather than sit comfortably in a safe corner. Obedience can get messy. It can cost you a friendship, a family relationship, maybe even a job or worse. It will also yield great rewards.

A Theory of Relativity

"Embryo: the young of a viviparous animal, especially of a mammal, in the early stages of development within the womb." That's what the dictionary says. The "early stage of development." The first stage of development, where stage 2 naturally follows and stage 3 is next and so on. It is a constant process. Embryo, fetus, newborn, infant, toddler ... you get the idea. But for me to make such a claim, solely on the basis of science, is offensive. I must not claim that the thing in the womb is a human being. It's something else. It's not human until I say it is. ("When?" "I'm not sure, but it is not when you say.") That's hate. That's sexism. That's evil. Got it. Science is evil.

"Male: of, relating to, or being the sex that typically has the capacity to produce relatively small, usually motile gametes which fertilize the eggs of a female." "Female: of, relating to, or being the sex that typically has the capacity to bear young." "No, no, no! Females can fertilize eggs and males can bear young and no amount of hate will change that!!" Sadly, science has become the enemy of culture, a hateful, heteronormative voice for anti-trans forces. Dictionaries and encyclopedias and biology itself have been subverted to this acrimonious position of binary sex in humans.

We have arrived. Truth is relative. Some truth claims are easy to dismiss. There are no leprechauns or unicorns. 2 + 2 does not equal 5. Easy. But when objective truth violates our current truth we've voted in by divine media and coercion, it is no longer true. And we'll dismiss it out of hand without even considering the ramification that dismissing objective truth will only eliminate the ground we stand on. But, hey, you go ahead. We'll see how that works out for you.

Although they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks to Him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools" (Rom 1:21-22)

Without Hope

Peter wrote, "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" (1 Peter 1:3). "He has caused us," he said, "to be born again to a living hope." By God's special working, we have hope. Through Christ's resurrection, we have a living hope. Born again. Now, I know lots of Christians who feel hopeless. I know lots of believers who suffer with despair. It must be from an error because Scripture says ours is a living hope caused by God, so if we lack hope, I would suggest it is on our end. I would, in fact, suggest it's a lie we tell ourselves -- a suppression of truth.

I was talking to an honest atheist. He told me, "You Christians tell me the only way they can imagine coping in this world is by this relationship with God. Well, I don't have that relationship with their imaginary being. And I'm happy to have no relationship with an imaginary being. I am free from that nonsense. Oh, I'm not better off; I have no reason to hope. But I'm free." Better off.

Which are you? You might be born again to a living hope while you live without hope. You might be at odds with any sort of divine being and living with hope. Both of those are irrational positions. You might be an enemy of God and be without hope, and that makes sense, or you might be alive in Christ with living hope and that makes sense. The former, however, cannot be "better off" -- without hope. Which are you?

News Weakly - 6/10/23

This will be a shorter one. I'm traveling this week and next and have less time and access to do this than usual.

Mixed Metaphors
Great. Now Mike Pence is taking a shot at becoming president. Pence is someone for whom I have sufficient respect that I could actually vote for him without holding my nose or crossing my fingers, but, like so many times before, it would be a pointless vote. Trump stabbed him in the back. The far right railed against him. The left can't stand any actual Christian for president. And, of course, the media hates Christians, so the sheeple of America would never vote for him. So Pence is dangling a carrot and I'll expect a stick.

Values Clarification
For a while now the PGA has been loudly protesting golfers that played in the LIV. It's immoral. It's unfaithful. It's an insult to all who died in 9/11. So the answer appears to be money. The PGA agreed to merge with the traitorous, offensive, insulting LIV. Individual golfers mustn't, but as long as the PGA does it, it's good. It was simply wrong for professional golfers to do it. Clearly. Okay, so now we understand. It wasn't principle on which they stood. It was money. "Pay us enough, and we'll agree with you."

Not Innocent
The FBI is reporting an increase in extortion cases where individuals have been threatened with "deepfake" images. Deepfake is the technology that allows you to take an innocent image or video and convert it so realistically to something else that the casual observer can't tell it's not real. So they're taking images from private messages, video chats, or online posts and doctoring them into something sexually explicit for purposes of extortion. Just to show you that science in general and technology in particular can be for good or not good. An important lesson in a society that seems to think that technology will be our salvation. And to highlight the danger of innocent exposure on the Internet.

Exhibit A
As if to support that last item, we have this piece. A report is out that policies at Instagram provide a connection to a "vast network" of accounts devoted to trafficking in pedophilia content. "Wait," I say, "are you telling me that people are using a wide-open media platform aimed at open and outlandish expression from young people in particular to gain access to young people in particular for immoral purposes??? How can that be?" Or, to put it another way, "Duh!" Technology is neither moral nor immoral, but people dedicated to opposition to all things godly will surely use the tools for ... all things ungodly.

So That is a Bumble Bee
This week we learned that Trump was being indicted for having classified documents at Mar-O-Lago instead of in the trunk of a corvette or something. Seems right. After the (real) news that New York City is ranked with the worst air quality in any major U.S. city, Mayor Eric Adams is calling on residents to look toward Canada and blow really hard at the count of three. Finally, Rick Warren is boasting that he has ordained more female pastors than Jesus.

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

Red vs Blue

Red vs Blue was a series of computer-generated video episodes based on the popular Halo game of a science fiction military conflict between two sides. Primarily comedy. Primarily silly stuff. But people liked it. I personally see it as an analogy for our day. Today in America we live in a "Red vs Blue" environment where everyone is "Red" -- leftist lunatics -- or "Blue" -- rightwing whackos -- depending on your particular leaning. It is interesting, actually, to observe. If you are a liberal, carefully fed by CNN or some of the other prevalent media, you see the primary problem in America as "the Right". They are intolerant, ignorant, unreasoning beasts willing to go to extremes to accomplish their subjugation of our nation to their whims. If you are a conservative, religiously imbibing the Rush Limbaugh/Tucker Carlson style of the media stream, you see the primary problem in America as "the Left". They're out to eliminate capitalism and democracy, to take everything the rich have and line their pockets with it, and to subjugate the nation to their whims.

I've been surprised at this sharp and very blind divide. Think about it. I'm a registered Republican. "SEE!? You're one of those Proud Boys types!" Not at all. "You're a crazy Trump lover!!" Absolutely not. In fact, my views fall amazingly close to center rather than left or right. But it doesn't matter, does it? You'll still classify me as "one of those" and warn people away from "his way of thinking" ... even when it coincides with yours. We tend to categorize people into extremely narrow pidgeon holes that could not possibly contain all that they are being forced to contain. And that's the end of it. We cannot talk about it. We cannot examine it. We cannot possibly be wrong. End of discussion.

You can see, I hope, that this is neither reasonable nor helpful. In fact, it leads to all sorts of problems. I saw a bumper sticker that declared "When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross." Got it. Red vs Blue. The true enemies of America are patriotism and Christianity. Rash and overreaching generalizations that make the conversation pointless. We cannot examine the real issues. We cannot learn what we as individuals really think. We can't figure out what the real problems are or the real solutions might be. But what we do know is that we are not the problem; they are. Which gets us nowhere.

Hypocrites

Interesting phenomenon. We Christians know that we are supposed to be "in the world but not of it." We're supposed to be different. We're supposed to be known for godliness and goodness and not sin. But I've observed an interesting thing among believers. When we want to be godly, we like to be with fellow believers. When we want to be sinful, we prefer to be with sinners. Now, on the surface that is perfectly logical, but you can see, I would hope, the serious contradiction therein.

When we want to be godly, we'll hang out with believers. We'll demonstrate godliness to them. We'll talk about Christ and we'll pray and we'll talk about godly things. Talking with them about problems with godliness is not an option. We won't discuss problems with sins or spiritual doubts or the like. No, we'll be godly people with them. When we want to be sinful, we'll go where that sinfulness is acceptable. We go to people who don't mind the sin we're committing. We'll be in places that no one minds, where maybe they'll even applaud our sin. But this is all turned around. On the side where we won't discuss our problems with sin with other believers, we're supposed to find Christians who are bearing one anothers burdens, who are loving and always seeking our best. We're supposed to find support, encouragement, direction. Do we? On the side where we're sinning, going to sinners is precisely the wrong place to go. We sully the name of Jesus, damage our own testimony, and tell them, "You're right; there is no observable difference between believers and unbelievers." Instead, we push them farther from Christ and eliminate the possibility of sharing the gospel. Rather than leading them to Jesus, we lead them away.

All of us sin. We can't avoid it; it's a reality until we die. Denying it to believers simply cuts us off from the support we could gain from fellow believers. Displaying it to unbelievers simply confirms that we're hypocrites like they always thought we were. And that's not helpful to us or to them. Christians are supposed to be the light. We are sinners, but indulging sin and denying it is hypocrisy. We have to be better than that.

A Dilemma

As the world continues to spin off farther and farther from a Judeo-Christian ethic into everyman's "whatever seems good to me," we find ourselves in the hard place of figuring out what to do. On one hand, God did not put us into this world to make it more moral. No one gets to heaven by being "more moral." No, Jesus came to seek and to save the lost. On the other hand, since God is the Creator and knows how the creation works, it is patently obvious that, even if not everyone gets saved, they would certainly be better off living closer to God's way of doing things. So, how much do we get involved in government, in politics, in society, in culture? It can't be 100%, but it can't be 0% either.

But consider this. Paul said, "Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things" (Php 4:8). That's pretty clear, but is it possible? Consider. Is it possible today to turn on the television or computer these days and not encounter all manner of things outside of those parameters? Is it possible to drive down the road without street signs, billboards, and your car radio violating that over and over again? We live in this world, but we're not of it. And I'm pretty sure most of us don't even have a clue about how much of that has seeped into our everyday thinking. Think about the true, the honorable, the just, the pure ...? In this world? Not likely.

I'm trying to figure out how to be a good follower of Christ, dying to self, pursuing the things He cares about, and shunning the things that He would shun, all while I live in this world, dead set against God. It's a difficult path. What's really hard to figure out is why it is that I seem to be one of a very few that has a hard time figuring this out.

The AI Dilemma

AI, artificial intelligence, has been in the news a lot lately. Some are delighted. Some are disgusted. Some are disturbed. Having sat through hours of fictional movies about AI and how it will kill us all, some are concerned that ... AI will kill us all. At the very least they'll take our jobs. Or make our lives better. We can't decide.

Already in the news we've had university students admitting and recommending the use of AI to write their papers, completely missing the point of writing papers. Already we can say with certainty that a proficient AI will cost jobs. (That's because it already is ... and it's not yet all that proficient.) Clearly low-income and low-skilled workers will take the brunt of this. That shouldn't be a problem, should it? ("Yes, it will" is the correct answer.) Safety is a huge concern. Take, for instance, any AI with a weapon. Terrifying. Another concern is reliability. When we hand off a task to an AI, how confident can we be that it will be accomplished and not, say, fudged? My biggest concern, however, is ethics.

We humans already face an ethics question. Who's ethics will we use? We complain when Christians want to urge people not to kill people (little people) and we complain when people whose ethical parameters include the murder of people go and murder people. We are, ethically speaking, deeply confused. We like God's "Thou shalt not kill" for the most part; just not God. We embrace "Thou shalt not steal" unless, of course, it's the government, or you really, really want it. So we muddle about with half-baked right and wrong, always, it seems, generally relative. We each carry our own versions and try to align to our own standards (and, as it turns out, generally fail at that, too). Now we are aiming at letting loose an artificial intelligence to help us. It will be far less regulated and far more autonomous than any tool we've ever used. Given the right options, it could do us immense harm. But that's okay. We'll include a load of ethics in the our AI to keep it from doing that. Except we don't have a good source for ethics and we don't share the same values, so we can't really give our AI a common sense of right and wrong. But that's okay. We can use the help, even if it kills us.

My point at the end, then, is not actually about AI. My point is about humans. We think we're okay. We think we have a handle on all this. We know right and wrong. But we do so without, obviously, thinking. We gather our ethical values and assume common ground and find that some people think that shooting a bunch of school kids is good and some people think it's bad and we figure that, by controlling the tools (think "guns") those people have available to exercise their ethical system, we can make them more ethical. What we do on a much more common basis is reject an actual, functional, God-given ethical system -- Scripture. That one, put in place by God and grounded on His absolute truth, will not be our guide to right and wrong. We're much smarter than that -- we and our offspring, AI. That's my AI dilemma.

Frenemy

"Frenemy" is a relatively new term in our lexicon. It was recognized in 2009. It is the combination of "friend" and "enemy" and refers to people who appear to be your friend, but are actually your enemy. You know, like those false teachers I've referenced lately who come out from us, who are "wolves in sheep's clothing," who entice and woo you only for their own self-satisfaction. That's a frenemy. Maybe it's that clever bully in school who pretends to be your friend in order to get you to let your guard down so that he can hurt you worse. Maybe it's those people who kiss up to you because they want to get something from you they want. You get the idea. Maybe ... just maybe ... it's a parent.

"Hang on," you will likely say, "a parent? How can a parent be a frenemy?" I'm glad you asked. Speaking biblically, parents are unique in the life of a child. We have kindly expanded the notion of family to include close friends and such and even pets, and "parents" may include any adult in your child's life, but that's not the case biblically. Scripture says, "Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord" (Eph 6:4). Very specific. Not "grandfathers," "uncles," or "close family friend." Indeed, these other people are legendary for enjoying the pleasure of spending time with your kids while not bearing the brunt of the responsibility of your kids. But God's version of parenthood places the weight squarely on the backs of fathers. Fathers, then, share that load with mothers, and no one else is held responsible by God to "bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord." What do we see today? Certainly not "discipline and instruction of the Lord." Today we aim for frindship. Today we encourage them to "pursue your passion," conveniently replacing the "instruction of the Lord" with "whatever you feel like." We have firmly rejected "discipline," of course, and why not? You can't do anything "harsh" with a child and be their friend. As Scripture points out, "All discipline for the moment seems not to be joyful, but sorrowful" (Heb 12:11), so how could it be good? Well, Scripture also tells us, "The Lord disciplines the one He loves, and chastises every son whom He receives" (Heb 12:6). Isn't it ironic that God would be arrested for child abuse by today's standards?

Back to "frenemy." The point I'm trying to make here is that God has charged parents with the task of raising their children in the discipline and instruction of the Lord. We've largely set aside "the discipline" and, mostly, foisted off the "instruction" to others -- churches, teachers, and so on -- while we aim to be their best buddies, their pals, their friends. All well and good, except it's not possible. It doesn't work. Most importantly, it's not good. Playing the "friend" to our kids, we become their enemy by neglecting the important tasks of loving them to Jesus and doing the hard work of training them to be godly people. The current young adult generation, then, is known as the "me generation" because they've been trained by "loving parents" to evaluate everything by their own standards and do whatever they want. Parents who practice parenting with this approach are frenemies to their kids. They just don't know it. And today they are in the majority. Even in the church. If "The Lord disciplines the one He loves, and chastises every son whom He receives" and we parents do not discipline our kids, what is the Word of God saying? "Whoever spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him" (Prov 13:24). If we, as parents avoid discipline for our kids, it is not love. It simply makes you ... their frenemy.

The Encounter We've Never Had

You know the Huffington Post, right? Far left. As far as it gets. So when they ask, "Why Don't Christians Wear Their 'Sunday Best' to Church Anymore?," we might choose to ignore it. Or not. Their answers were interesting. Part of it is culture. You know, like in the '40's and '50's when they used to "dress for dinner" but no one does now. But the big one was telling. "Most Christians don't really have a high view of God." Ouch!

The author was a pastor living in Shanghai, and he noted that other places still have dress codes for places of worship, but we don't. "Think about it," he wrote. "We're daring to approach a transcendent God dressed like Neanderthals? Really? Seems disrespectful." Instead, we have a "God is our buddy" view. The omnipotent, unapproachable, transcendent God doesn't really demand your respect. Part of it, he tells us, is that evangelism is about attracting people to church and they just won't come if we ask them to dress up. And there is no biblical dress code, right? So the ends justify the means, and if we can make sinners more comfortable in the presence of a God whose wrath they're currently facing, that should make things better.

Look, to me it's not actually about what you wear to church. It's about your heart. It's about your attitude. A guy in a suit and tie who's there to impress is in a bad condition while a farmer who puts on his cleanest t-shirt and jeans out of respect for God is not. My concern, then, isn't the outside. It's what the outside tells us about the inside. Truthfully, America has largely lost their sense of "appropriate," as demonstrated by recent news stories about the "evil" government trying to keep inappropriate material out of school children's hands. When I moved to Arizona years ago and showed up for my first job interview in a suit and tie, they told me, "Don't do that. No one does that here." We don't grasp the notion of "appropriate" about anything much anymore. And that carries over to church. But the real problem isn't "appropriate dress." The real problem is a God we don't know. We've never encountered the God of Sinai who was so frightening that the people asked Moses not to have them show up anymore (Exo 20:19). We've never seen the Lord, sitting on a throne, lofty and exalted ... a sight that drove a prophet to come undone about his sinful lips (Isa 6:1-5). So we have this lowly view of the God Most High. And our attitudes and actions show it. Which is not to our credit.

News Weakly - 6/3/23

Unnatural Child Birth
A gay celebrity and his gay partner by "same-sex mirage" have announced their second child via surrogate. This whole infertility problem among same-sex couples is baffling and it is so heartwarming that these guys could find a solution ... via God's design for procreation. Go figure.

The Real Message
A brave (or foolhardy) Dodger player, Clayton Kershaw, disagreed with the Dodgers' decision to reinstate the "Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence." He said his complaint wasn't against any of the alphabet folk, but against the blatant anti-Christian intent and message. The Dodgers originally canceled their appearance when some complained, but the LGB ... oh, no, not again ... community protested, assuring us all that their intent is to mock the Christian religion and not simply about "sexual orientation." We'll see how long Mr. Kershaw will remain.

Agenda? What Agenda?
A video is making the rounds of an obviously male employee wearing a dress presenting himself as "one of the fairly godmother's apprentices" at Disneyland. Tell me there's no message here ... for little boys and for little girls. The aim is a new normal, "and we'll decide for you what that will be." It is certainly a new Disney. And how many females could have done that job and better? Why is there no female outrage?

Scientifically Established
A new study says Earth is "really quite sick now" based on 7 of 8 "scientifically established" safety limits. Why? Well, as it turns out, some of these new "scientifically established" safety limits include "justice" like harm to ethnicities and genders. Now, we don't have "scientifically established" justice and we can't figure out "scientifically established" genders, so, while there are likely areas of concern, it really makes me question the whole story.

Another Woman Silenced
The woman who accused Biden of sexual assault and was promptly ignored by the media because "the woman is always right" only when it's not a Democrat being charged has fled to Russia because she didn't feel safe here. Understandable, but really sad.

A Wonder to Beehold
There is a new productivity app for iPhone and Android. It works by shutting your phone off for hours. Really makes sense. The Bee reviewed the Little Mermaid remake. "Just like classic Disney," they said, "but bad." And Trump was quoted as saying, "Florida is a mismanaged hellhole and only an idiot would live there." Look, he got one right!

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

St. Jude the Plagiarist

They tell me that Peter wrote his epistles around A.D. 64-ish. He died very soon thereafter. They guess that Jude wrote his letter between A.D. 67 and 80. Hard to pin down. But definitely after Peter. And if you read the two back to back, you get a certain feel. Jude starts his letter with "Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 1:3). He goes on to tell them they need to contend for the faith against the promised and prevalent false teachers that are and will be in their midst. But it's like Jude sat down to write about salvation, read Peter's second epistle, and changed his mind. "I wanted to write about salvation, but there is a more pressing issue I need to address."

I say that because if you read 2 Peter 2:1-3:3 you will find an amazing parallel in Jude's letter. Jude makes many of the same comments that Peter does and basically in the same order. Peter said they "deny the Master who bought them" (2 Peter 2:1) and Jude said they "deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ" (Jude 1:4). Peter said, "Their condemnation from long ago is not idle" (2 Peter 2:3) and Jude said they "were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation" (Jude 1:4). And so it goes. Peter wrote that "angels who are greater in might and power do not bring a reviling judgment against them before the Lord" (2 Peter 2:11) and Jude includes this interesting reference to Michael wrestling with Satan over Moses' body saying, "The Lord rebuke you!" (Jude 1:9). Peter used Sodom and Gomorrah and Balaam as illustrations of God's judgment (2 Peter 2:5) and so did Jude (Jude 1:7, 11). I count no less than 14 parallels in Jude's descriptions, illustrations, and accusations. In fact, the two are so much alike that I can't imagine why anyone would have objected to Jude as canon.

Now, Peter, of course, was long dead, so this wasn't a problem for Peter. In fact, he wrote

I consider it right, as long as I am in this earthly dwelling, to stir you up by way of reminder, knowing that the laying aside of my earthly dwelling is imminent, as also our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me. And I will also be diligent that at any time after my departure you will be able to call these things to mind. (2 Peter 1:13-15)

"I'm reminding you now and I'll find a way to remind you after I'm gone," he said, essentially, and Jude, apparently, took up the task. But we have to ask ourselves, why did God inspire Jude to write what Peter wrote and include it in our Bibles? I can only make a guess, but it seems quite obvious that this is a huge issue that needs to be brought up over and over. False teachers were predicted by Jesus (Matt 7:15-20) and touched on throughout the New Testament. These false teachers are "among us" -- going "out from us." They're in our midst, and, as Jesus's famous "wolf in sheep's clothing" illustration pointed out, they look a lot like us. So it's a problem that we need to hear about, recognize, and be vigilant over. No small thing. That's often the effect of repetition to make a point. "It's important. Pay attention." And it only takes a brief look around to see it everywhere. Are you defending the faith?

Claiming To Be Wise, They Became Fools

Paul warned the Romans that natural man's rejection of God makes us futile in our thinking and foolish in our hearts (Rom 1:21). So Jude's short letter is written expressly with false teachers in mind. He urges believers to "contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints" (Jude 1:3) because of false teachers. In his description of these teachers he includes this: "These are the ones who cause divisions, worldly-minded, devoid of the Spirit" (Jude 1:19). Note that "worldly-minded."

The truth is there isn't one of us that isn't, to some extent or another, worldly-minded. It's our environment, our surroundings, our pot (Remember the "frog in the pot" thing?). We don't even notice it. Consider. Prior to the second half of the 20th century most people considered contraception a bad thing. Certainly Christians did. Today, we're baffled by this. What changed? The 1960's brought a sexual revolution, and, obviously, a real danger of "free love" is unwanted pregnancy, so, since abstinence was the alternative, contraception became first a necessary evil and then an expected norm. Consider. Scripture routinely commands us to love God and love one another. Our world defines love as "warm affection." How does that even make sense? Why would God command us to have warm affection for God and our neighbors? How do we choose to drum that up in ourselves? That's because Scripture describes love differently than we do (1 Cor 13:4-8), and we seem to miss it. Consider. For most of history the majority view has been patriarchal. Still is today. But the 20th century brought us feminism which brought us radical feminism which has given us "toxic masculinity" where everything masculine is evil and women ought to rule the world. Worldly thinking. But it isn't biblical thinking. Yet, even in the church a majority today believe that God's design -- "Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ" (1 Cor 11:3) -- is wrong. Consider. Prior to the 1970's in the U.S., divorce was exceedingly rare. Enter "no fault divorce" and we're floating around (ostensibly) at 50%. Why? Worldly thinking. And it's not just in the world; it's in the church. Many churches today will not abide Paul's "I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet" (1 Tim 2:12-15) because of worldly thinking. The list goes on and on and, sadly, we Christians are barely aware of it.

Jude warns that judgment is coming on these kinds of people. God is coming with His forces "to execute judgment upon all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their ungodly deeds which they have done in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him" (Jude 1:15). Do you see a trend in that warning? They are ungodly, the polar opposite of godly. Godliness is right living as produced and defined by a right relationship with God ... in direct opposition to "worldly-minded." Our pursuit ought not to be to think like the world thinks because we know that the mind set on the flesh is hostile to God (Rom 8:7). Our pursuit ought to be "building yourselves up on your most holy faith" (Jude 1:20-21). "Wordly-minded" is not an asset; it's a threat. We need to weed it out everywhere we find it ... in ourselves. Of course, the only way to do that is to expect it and to recognize it.