News Weakly - 9/30/23

Tempus Fugit

I don't know why it's news. Congress hasn't passed a budget on time in 27 years, so I can't imagine why we'd expect it this year. But, once again, we're all gonna die because Congress hasn't passed a budget for this year. Go figure. (You know, if I failed to do my job that consistently, I would have been fired.)

Last Minute Update: The House passed, as usual, a last-minute stopgap measure to extend the budget deadline 45 days. That's because, as usual, Congress is not doing its job.

Hopeless
A church in Texas, the Cathedral of Hope, held a "Drag Sunday" service to bless members of the "Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence," a group of drag queens who specifically make fun of Christ and the church for the cause of the LGBT crowd. I'm pretty sure that blessing the blatant mockery of Christianity and Christ is a sure way to abandon all hope for those who enter (1 John 2:19).

Thinking Far Outside the Box
Apparently, a new trend in public schools is to go to a 4-day week. Well, it will decrease missed days (by 1 day a week) and discipline referrals (by 1 day a week). It will cost schools less, and, hey, aren't they already doing a bang-up job? Oh, you working parents that are stuck with finding coverage for your kids on that day ... too bad for you. Haven't we already determined that parents are not a factor in childrens' education?

Considering the Track Record ...
The EU, well known for its liberty and protections of freedoms (oh, wait ... hang on), is criticizing Elon Musk's X (formerly Twitter) because they just allow way too much free speech. This is something that the EU just won't allow. While our modern cultures demand that there is no such thing as absolute truth, they are quite sure that the things they deem as "disinformation" or "misinformation" are certainly that ... primarily because they say so. "You can know what is or isn't misinformation because we tell you what it is, and you will align with it or desist." So they are the source of absolute truth and we need to comply.

Priorities
Finally! Some work in the Senate produced bipartisan agreement on a pressing issue. They've agreed to change the dress code. Because, as we all know, the Senate is a symbol of freedom and how you dress there makes a difference to what you can accomplish. Maybe now they can start to get lesser things done ... like, oh, I don't know, government funding? Oh, hang on, they also approved Hispanic Restaurant Week! Yippee!! (The whole dress code fiasco is a fine example of the "end of appropriate" when they have to pass rules on appropriate dress and senators mock it.)

Without Further Comment
The longest running female senator from California, Diane Feinstein, has died at the age of 90. I'll let you discuss among yourselves what to think of that.

More Wisdom (read "satire") from the Bee
With all the political scandals of late, the Bee says that the nation is torn between a party that openly works at rending the fabric of our society over against a party that claims to support family values while secretly discarding them. Decisions, decisions. In fact, it has been suggested that the favorite choice of viewers in the GOP debates has been the "mute button." And, as it turns out, those stores that were looted (actual story) by a group of people in Philadelphia were actually just looted by poor people looking for bread to feed their kids. Give 'em a break, right?

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

Homeschooling

Homeschooling has grown in popularity in the U.S., with an annual growth rate of 2%-8%. Why? Well, obviously people with values that are in opposition to the public school values wish to improve their children's education, and that's not limited to Christians. Other parents are interested in safety, freedom, stronger relationships with families, and allowing children to progress at their own pace. The truth is, however, that homeschooling is not an option for any family; it is mandatory. That is, it happens whether or not you intend it.

Proverbs says, "Train up a child in the way he should go, Even when he is old he will not depart from it" (Prov 22:6). Because all parents teach their kids just by being there. They teach directly and by example. All children are products of their home lives. Parents model everything from daily hygiene and eating habits to husband/wife relationships, lifestyle Christianity (or the lack thereof), personal interactions, conflict management ... all sorts of daily skills required in life. Obviously, when we ship them off to schools and churches, others become their teachers as well, but parents remain their teachers for better or for worse. So Scripture commands, "Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord" (Eph 6:4). God's Word says, "The rod and reproof give wisdom, but a child left to himself brings shame to his mother" (Prov 29:15). Even God disciplines His children out of love (Heb 12:5-8). Homeschooling in this sense is commanded and inevitable.

Scripture gives commands to parents regarding the upbringing of their children. (There is, in fact, nothing in Scripture that approves foisting primary responsibility for training your children onto other sources.) Common sense warns that our children are largely affected by what they see at home. It would seem wise, then, for parents to take this task seriously and pay attention to what they are teaching their kids in everyday existence, because "when he is old he will not depart from it."

Worth Dying For

The entire Christian faith is built on this: as Paul put it, "Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that He was buried, that He was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures" (1 Cor 15:3-4). Christ died for us. And we are amazed, rightfully so. We call it "amazing grace," and it truly is. Just think of it. We were of such value that Christ was willing to die for us! But ... is that true? Were we worth dying for?

Scripture describes the saved as formerly "dead in sin and trespasses" (Eph 2:1; Col 2:13), "hostile to God" (Rom 8:7; Rom 5:10). The Bible says that "while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly" (Rom 5:6). That particular text makes the point that some might be daring enough to die for a good man (Rom 5:7), "But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" (Rom 5:8). So, here we are, sinners who are blind (2 Cor 4:4), dead, deceived (Jer 17:9), enemies of God, and these are the people Christ died for. Creatures who had opted to worship the creatures rather than the Creator (Rom 1:25). Frankly, we were not worth dying for. We were not worth the sinless life of the Son of God.

Why, then, did He die for us? If we weren't worth it, why did He do it? We don't have to guess. Scripture says, "God displayed [Christ] publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus" (Rom 3:25-26). Christ died on our behalf as a vindication of God's righteousness. Since everything God does is for His own glory, Christ died to the glory of God. If sin is falling short of the glory of God (Rom 3:23), remedying sin is restoring that glory. Christ didn't surrender His life on that cross simply because we were so valuable. He gave His life for us so God would be glorified, so God would be shown right and just, so God would win ... as always. We just happen to be the fortunate recipients of that grace and mercy.

The Bible on Homosexuality

Matthew Vines is a self-styled "gay Christian" who wrote a book and has gone on the "campaign trail" to argue that "the Bible never directly addresses, and certainly does not condemn, loving, committed same-sex relationships." From one end, his argument is to the effect that 1st century (and before) societies had no concept of modern "homosexuality" where we now see it as an identity. That didn't come about until the last half of the 20th century, so the prohibitions of Scripture can't be against homosexuality. So he calls up new spins and purportedly questionable translation of hazy words (specifically the arsenokoitēs of 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10). (Note: Prior to 1946 no English translation used "homosexual" for that word.) So, you see, clearly any biblical objection to "gay, committed relationships" is unfounded.

On the surface, he has a point. The Bible never mentions the sexual identity we classify as "homosexual" because no one had that category available in their time. So it is a factual statement to claim that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality. But if you stop there, you're in grave error. In both the Old and New Testaments the Bible does explicitly condemn the act. The famous Leviticus texts (Lev 18:22; 20:13) forbid the act of men who "lie with men as with a woman." In fact, Paul's arsenokoitēs is the Greek translation of the phrase used in Leviticus. In Romans 1, Paul's description is "women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men" (Rom 1:26-27). There is no hint of "unless they're in a loving relationship." The only concern is the act itself. In the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, the men of the city demanded that Lot "Bring them out to us, that we may know them" (Gen 19:5). Jude describes this as indulging in sexual immorality and pursuing "unnatural desire" (Jude 1:7). Nothing about "loving relationships" or "sexual identity" because the act is in view and not any motivation.

It is true that the Bible does not condemn any "state of being" -- identity -- that we classify as "homosexuality." It is equally true that the Bible undeniably opposes homosexual behavior, the act of same-sex sexual relations. Now, if it is true that "No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him; and he cannot keep on sinning, because he has been born of God" (1 John 3:9) and self-styled "committed Christians" defend acts that God's Word clearly classify as sin, the question is not about what God classifies as sin. The question is about the spiritual state of the one defending what God calls sin. Those people need special prayer, being deluded by "plausible arguments" (Col 2:4) and not God's Word. What does the Bible have to say about the sexual identity of "homosexual"? Nothing. But it is quite clear on the behavior.

Moving the Starting Line

I know a pastor in a Bible-based Christian church -- a church that does not believe in the ordination of women -- who believes in the ordination of women. He just kind of keeps that to himself and goes along with the church's policy. No actual conflict, then. But it makes me wonder. Not so much about this pastor, but about so many like him. What is it that leads one to believe that it's okay to ordain women to be pastors of churches?

On the surface it seems like an easy answer. They just figured it out. But, historically, they would be newcomers, pioneers. Historically the church did not ordained women as pastors until the 19th century. Think about that for a moment. Something like 1800 years passed in church history before anyone stood up and said, "Hey, hang on a minute, we've been doing this all wrong for the past, oh, 2 centuries or so." Women were always a key part of any church. They had churches in their homes. They served, likely as deaconnesses. Paul referred to them as "fellow workers" who "shared my struggle in the cause of the gospel" (Php 4:3). They were encouraged to minister to women (Titus 2:3-5). They had jobs, tasks, ministries, key roles. But Paul clearly stated, "I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man" (1 Tim 2:12-14). So, historically, the church had a policy ... get this ... to not allow women to teach or exercise authority over men. Amazing, isn't it? Now the modern church mind has come to the conclusion that nearly 2,000 years of Christians, male and female, were all wrong about this and now we've figured out that Paul did not mean that women couldn't teach or exercise authority over a man, that women "must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness" (1 Tim 2:11; 1 Cor 14:34-35), that God placed man as the head of woman (1 Cor 11:3) ... well, any of that. He was either wrong when he said it or we've misunderstood it ... again, for 2 centuries. Now, there are those who argue from Scripture that God did not mean to say that -- what we now have in our Bibles. "We've misunderstood," they argue, "and here's why." But it begs the question. Where did the Holy Spirit go wrong? I mean, Jesus said He would lead us into all truth (John 16:13), and it took Him 2,000 years to get this done? I suspect that this is not what's in play here. I suspect that modern thinking (where 19th century was definitely more "modern" than, say 1st century) infiltrated the church and modern thinkers said, "Wait a minute! That doesn't feel right ... in view of our modern thinking." So they searched about to "prooftext" their objections, not because the texts proved their point, but because, if you held your tongue just right, you could see their point. That is, they didn't argue from Scripture; they argued into Scripture. Instead of "Well, the Bible says this which means that that is true, so we need to adjust our thinking," it was, "Well, I feel like this is true, so I can only conclude that when the Bible appears to say that, it can't be true, so I'll try to find a way to approve of my feeling over clear Scripture."

Actually, Scripture is equally clear on this. One of the reasons Paul wrote to the Colossian Christians was, "so that no one will delude you with persuasive argument" (Col 2:4). What kind of persuasive argument? "See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ" (Col 2:8) The problem is not with Christ or His Word. The problem is "persuasive argument," with "philosophy" based on "the tradition of men" rather than the Truth. It's always dangerous when we start our theology with "I feel" over "God says." It's always dangerous to begin with "my way of thinking" over against what God has given us as truth. And the problem is, the more we allow this syncretism, this melding of worldly perspective with Christian theology, the less we have of Christian theology and biblical truth and ... Christ.

Another Stab At It

Not too long ago we had a discussion about "religion." Especially among believers there is a sharp distaste for the term, "religion." "So," we say, "it's a relationship, not a religion." But religion is in Scripture. And, in the English language, "religion" is defined as "the belief in and worship of a superhuman power or powers, especially a God or gods," and certainly we don't disavow that. So what's the problem? The reaction so many Christians have against the term is, in fact, not in its meaning, but in its use ... or, more accurately, abuse. To many "religion" speaks of a particular sect, denomination, or even cult. And those can be problematic.

As it turns out, Scripture talks about that. God said, "Can man make for himself gods? Such are not gods!" (Jer 16:20). That is, there is man-made religion; it's just not true. Jesus warned that the Pharisees were "teaching as doctrines the commandments of men" (Mark 7:1-8). Yes, there is man-made religion. In Colossians Paul warns the believers they're to not be deluded by "plausible arguments" (Col 2:4). He warned that many build religions on "a shadow of the things to come" (Col 2:17), on things that "according to human precepts and teachings" (Col 2:22). He calls this "self-made religion" (Col 2:23). They have the appearance of wisdom but "are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh." False religion.

What we've done, then, is to react to the abuse of the worship of God in ways that are false, even devastating, and rejected the term that is actually something we should embrace. What's the phrase? "Throwing the baby out with the bathwater." A religion that is deception and "self-made" must be rejected, and, I think we can all agree, there is a lot of that. Instead, then, let's "walk in Him, rooted and built up in Him and established in the faith, just as you were taught, abounding in thanksgiving" (Col 2:6-7). Religion as God intended it, pleasing God by faith (Heb 11:6) and practice (Col 1:10). Listen, they've stolen so much from us -- "marriage," "love," etc. Let's not let them take a perfectly good word that means "the worship of God" and subvert it into something else.

Separation of Church and State

The cry of almost every American, believer or not, is that Church and State must be separate. Almost. Of course, it's not found in any of the official documents of our nation. Oh, it is certainly part of the First Amendment, where government is forbidden to pass laws that prevent people from exercising their religion. But if your religion is real -- actually from God -- it would have to permeate everything you do, so it would make no sense to preclude someone from being in government on the basis of their religion ... thus passing laws against the free exercise of religion. However, all that being said, that's not where I'm going here.

I believe in the separation of Church and State. Oh, not so much in terms of "people of faith must not interfere with governance" like it's normally meant. No, I believe that the Church -- or, biblical Christianity -- separates rather than unites believers with the State. In our world, we see a lot of nationalism. It's not merely an American thing. Most people like to think of theirs as the "best country." It's typically only Americans these days who are not supposed to think that way. But Scripture says, "Do not trust in princes, in mortal man, in whom there is no salvation" (Psa 146:3). Instead, we read, "It is better to take refuge in the LORD than to trust in princes" (Psa 118:9). And you can see what is meant. We often tend to trust in our government. If not, we at least think we ought to be able to. But Jesus said we are not of this world (John 15:19). We are, indeed, ambassadors (2 Cor 5:20) on assignment, but sojourners (1 Peter 2:11). We're only visiting this planet.

Some of us spend a lot of time getting comfortable here. It really makes no sense. We are certainly in the world, but we are not of it (John 17:14-16). It has been said that doctrine divides, but love unites. That is, in fact, quite true. But is division bad? And doesn't the love of Christ unite those in doctrine? In the same way, there needs to be a separation -- among believers -- between Church and State, not in the sense that God's views and values have no place in government, but in the sense that our first allegiance and our final hope is not in our world's systems, but in Christ and Him alone.

News Weakly - 9/23/23

With Friends Like This ...
In an effort to further drive businesses and, therefore, people out of California, the state is suing all the major oil companies -- which, of course, provide employment and income to the state -- the cost of which will be passed on to the consumers. They say oil companies knew all along that they were killing the planet and did it anyway. To further this "Mass Exit" program, Governor Newsom plans to penalize companies by requiring them to report emissions. At some point oil companies and other major companies might deem it cheaper to take their jobs and tax payments elsewhere like so many in San Francisco have already done. Don't worry, California. Big government has your back. You just have to wonder about the knife they're holding when they do.

No Evidence of Election Fraud
In Connecticut in a mayoral primary, a video was leaked that showed Wanda Geter-Pataky, vice chair of the Democratic town committee, stuffing a pile of white envelopes into a ballot box. The losing challenger lost by 251 votes, all in the absentee ballot box. But, no, there is no evidence of widespread election fraud. There is evidence of small-scale, targeted, effective election fraud. But we'll ignore that as "conspiracy theory" stuff because it doesn't fit our narrative.

With Friends Like This II
So it has now come to light that conservative South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem had a long affair with Trump's former adviser, Corey Lewandowski. It's stuff like this -- blatant stuff -- that hurts conservatives who claim to have higher values than those dirty liberals. On the other hand, when Democratic candidate Susanna Gibson was forced to end her campaign because her livestreamed sex acts came to light, she complained that it was an "invasion of privacy" and she is miffed ... not embarrassed. Both sides, of course, need to do a little self-evaluation. I don't hold out much hope in either case.

Seeing is Beelieving
Trump appeared to flip on his pro-life stance this week when he complained about Florida's Heartbeat law. In a follow-up attempt to appease the pro-life crowd, he reportedly said that there are "very fine people on both sides" of the baby murder issue. Elsewhere, as the deadline looms, House Democrats are threatening to keep the government open. The nation is scared. Meanwhile, the Biden family celebrated the news that Hunter was only indicted on gun charges. Considering the list of actual charges he could have faced, it was quite a relief for the Bidens.

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

A Jesus Promise

Jesus said a lot of things and made a lot of promises and we like those. Well ... most of them. Except, perhaps, for the one where He promised that the world would hate those who follow Him.

If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you. (John 15:18-19)

We have a few players here. There is Jesus. There is the world -- the system of the world. And there is "you," His followers. I think it's interesting the reason Jesus gives as to why they will hate you. "Because of this the world hates you," He said. Because of what? Well, first, they hated Him. But the primary reason, He says, they hate you is because "you are not of the world," because "I chose you out of the world." Now, that's interesting, isn't it?

Paul wrote, "All who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted" (2 Tim 3:12). Sometimes American Christians wonder, "Hey, I don't feel like I'm persecuted. I don't feel like I'm hated." Some of that is because we disagree with Jesus's definition (Matt 5:11). Jesus said that insults and false accusations because you follow Him qualify as persecution. Fine. But the other reason is one we need to consider. Are we part of this world, or are we outside? Do we act like those He has chosen to live separate lives from this world, or do we act like everyone else? Do we aim to get along in this world -- with this world -- or do we aim to live godly in Christ Jesus? Jesus said they'll know we are His followers by our love for one another (John 13:35). Is that a hallmark of your life? Jesus said we prove we are His disciples if we bear much fruit (John 15:8). Do we? Do those in this world's system see you as something different? Or are we ... camouflaged?

A Solid Footing

Augustine of Hippo was a very well respected theologian of the 5th century. He wrote a lot of good stuff, but even Augustine had some problems. One glaring problem was that Augustine was schooled in Platonic thinking and was taught that the material world was evil. Therefore, sex was evil. So Augustine had a problem. God commanded Adam and Eve to ... have sex, to "be fruitful and multiply." There was no way around it. So did God command them to sin? He struggled with it. He concluded that the sin would be sexual desire, so the goal, in essence, would be for Adam and Eve to have sexual relations without enjoying it. That solved his problem. Of course, it was manifest nonsense. But Augustine's problem was not with Scripture. His problem was in trying to align Scripture with pagan philosophy.

Augustine wasn't alone in that, was he? I mean, we see that all the time today. We see Christians -- even genuine Christians -- who try to align modern LGBT beliefs with biblical principles. They don't do it by carefully adhering to Scripture; they do it by carefully adhering to the current belief. We have honest Bible-believing Christians who have spent a long time correcting the idea that God created the heavens and the earth. Of course He didn't! That was Evolution! So they come up with "day-age" timelines and "guided Evolution" concepts that were never a problem when Christians thought, "Well, God's Word says He did, so I will believe He did." Some of these might not be secular notions. A large number of believers, for instance, are absolutely convinced of the notion of a pre-Tribulation Rapture. Mind you, that notion didn't exist prior to the 19th century. No one before that was equally convinced. But this new idea, relatively speaking, has become the only possibility for many because, well, that's what we've been told. Pulling it out of Scripture, on the other hand, isn't quite so certain. One I've been dealing with lately is the concept of God's will versus Free Will. It turns out the problem lies in the Free Will idea. Clearly Scripture teaches that we make choices and Scripture says we are held responsible for such choices -- free will does exist -- but that doesn't require some of these notions of Free Will that require that God has no input to our choices. The problem, then, isn't Scripture on the topic. (Find "free will" in your concordance.) The problem is the philosophical footing that causes the objection ... to self-evident Scripture.

The problem, then, appears to be an improper basis. We start with what we think we know rather than what God's Word says. We don't even know we're doing it. Enough people have trod these paths and laid down plausible reasons why it is true, so we don't even think about it anymore. And we build these structures, as it turns out, on human philosphies and notions rather than biblical ones. And then they become sacrosanct, "true," and we will not abide other ideas, even when they come dressed in clear and present Scripture. But God's Word is clear. The heart is deceitful and desperately wicked (Jer 17:9). The world is blinded by Satan (2 Cor 4:4). So relying on our own philosophies is a foolish place to start. While we must think things over, we must also rely on the Holy Spirit to enlighten us (2 Tim 2:7) rather than relying on our fine philosophies built on sand.

Battle for the Mind

In Colossians Paul told the Christians, "As you received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him" (Col 2:6). He explains some of what that means, including "abounding in thanksgiving" (Col 2:7). Then he says,

See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. (Col 2:8)

We have the basic notion here. Be taken captive, as it were, by the things that are according to Christ and not by that which is not. What, specifically, are we to not be captivated by? Philosophy and empty deceit. Human tradition. "Elemental spirits of the world."

I think the argument can be made that Christians these days operate largely under those things. We redefine Scripture by modern philosophies such as "gender fluidity" and "homosexual theory" and even "feminism." That was just a short list. We have a lot. We are told that Genesis 1 and 2 are wrong -- "myth" -- not because there is anything in them to suggest it, but because Darwin offered an alternative for our human tradition. The media, science, government, education, generally all standard edifices these days are built in opposition to biblical truth and Christians feel the need to reread Scripture in light of the world's perceptions rather than vice versa.

The phrasing there is interesting. We are not to be "taken captive." These things tie us up and drag us away. We are no longer free to start with God's Word. We will need to "get permission," as it were, from human philosophy, deception, and tradition. Oh, and not necessarily longstanding tradition. We're always adopting new ones, aren't we? Paul calls it captivity, and it is. Instead, we are to "destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ" (2 Cor 10:5). Oh, they are lofty, indeed, but they are opposed to God's own revelation of Himself and our primary concern must be to obey Christ.

David's Little Prayer

The psalms have plenty of prayers and praises from King David. One is found in the 39th Psalm.

O YHWH, make me know my end and what is the measure of my days; let me know how fleeting I am! Behold, You have made my days a few handbreadths, and my lifetime is as nothing before You. Surely all mankind stands as a mere breath! (Psa 39:4-5)

It's interesting to contrast that with, say, young people (not only of today, but all times). They feel like they're immortal, like they will never die. As a race, we prefer not to contemplate our demise or think about how soon it will come. Whether it's 100 years or 10 years on this earth, it is, in the scheme of things, a short time.

Thanks to the movie of the same name, a lot of people have this notion of a "bucket list" in their collective heads these days. You know, a list of things we want to do before we die. The point is to be sure you don't waste your days. The point is that life is short. And, yet, like fools, we live as if we're immortal, pursuing fleeting pleasures instead of eternal treasures. How crazy is that? Perhaps we need to pray David's little prayer, too. Father, make us aware of the shortness of our days so that we will make better, wiser, use of our brief time on this earth to Your greater glory.

Come, Let Us Reason Together ... About Sex

Many times in Scripture God makes it clear that His primary concern is His glory. He also makes it clear that it ought to be our primary concern, too. When Paul said, "All have sinned ..." (Rom 3:23), he included a further description, a clarification of the function and intensity of sin -- "... and fall short of the glory of God." Therein lies the primary error. Therein lies the real problem. Instead, we are commanded, "Whatever you do, do all to the glory of God" (1 Cor 10:31). Quite clear. His primary concern and our primary command is God's glory and our primary failure is choosing against God's glory.

I got to thinking about this fundamental principle and came across a startling thought. If we are looking at "whatever you do" through this lens of "do all for the glory of God," what about sex? We know that sex was God's idea, not ours. We know that one of the very first commands to humans was, "Be fruitful and multiply" (Gen 1:22)¹ Clearly, at the very outset, sex was God's idea and His primary purpose in sex was procreation. So, how can we glorify God in sex? Procreation is one obvious way, but not the only way. If we didn't have the Song of Solomon, we might not be able to see clearly that God also intended sex as a celebration of spouses. It is about procreation, but it is also about pleasure, joy, communion, and celebration. Paul puts it much more ... ridgidly, I suppose. "The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does" (1 Cor 7:3-4). The picture is of husband and wife intent on supplying the pleasure the other wants and needs. All to the glory of God.

If sin is falling short of the glory of God, it would seem obvious that sexual sin would be falling short of the glory of God as well. How can we glorify God in sex? Don't sin in it. That is, sex is not sin by definition, but it is possible to sin in sex. We know, for instance, that the Bible celebrates marriage. It begins with it (Gen 2:23-25) and ends with it (Rev 19:6-9; Rev 21:2). It is the mysterious union among humans that mimics the mysterious union of Christ with the Church (Eph 5:31-32). Biblically, sex is morally restricted to marriage. That is, sex doesn't justify marriage; marriage justifies sex. And that's because sex is not a simple act, a mere "thing to do." It is an actual union (Gen 2:23; 1 Cor 6:15-17) -- not merely metaphorical. As such, sexual sin, as it twists the picture God intended and tortures the soul in false unions, is particularly evil, unlike any other sin (1 Cor 6:18). We are told, then, to "glorify God in your body" (1 Cor 6:20). Avoid sexual sin. Instead, celebrate the union of husband and wife. It is a picture of Christ's celebration of His precious bride. Imagine sex, designed by God for us, celebrating the union God designed between husband and wife with pleasure and purpose. Glorifying God in our bodies. It is, on the other hand, specifically not in redefining God's sexual moral standards, God's purposes in marriage, God's imagery for His Son and His bride, in a celebration of self-gratification and self-serving passion. That would absolutely fall short of the glory of God.
________

¹ It's interesting, too, to see that, when God made Man in His own image, part of that included "male and female" (Gen 1:27). Trying to redefine "male and female" is an attempt at altering God's image in us.

Abraham's Faith

According to Paul, Abraham is one of the earliest, most obvious examples of a person saved by faith apart from works. In both Romans (Rom 4:1-12) and Galatians (Gal 3:6-9), Paul uses the story of Abraham to demonstrate that those who place their trust in God are given righteousness. In the famous "faith" chapter of Hebrews, the author there uses Abraham in his list of people who had faith (Heb 11:8-12). This man was promised a son in his old age and he received that son. Hebrews goes on to say that Abraham's faith was tested when he was told to offer up Isaac (Heb 11:17-19). "He considered that God is able to raise people even from the dead" (Heb 11:19). That's faith.

Here's the catch, though. While we are told what a fine example Abraham is in his faith, the actual story looks a little less solid. You remember. God promised Abram and Sarai a son (Gen 12:1-3), so they went to Egypt where Abram, "trusting God" as he did, told Pharaoh she was his sister so they wouldn't kill him (Gen 12:10-20). Sarai quit waiting and had Abram sleep with her maid to achieve God's promise (Gen 16:1-16) which, obviously, ended badly (Gen 21:9-14). And when Abram (now Abraham) and Sarai (now Sarah) went to Gerar, he again trusted God so much that he told the king she was his sister (Gen 20:1-18), again fearing for his life. All this to say that, while Paul and Hebrews both seem speak of some sort of "super faith" on the part of Abraham, the actual story tells us that it's just not so.

What, then, can we conclude? We know that "without faith it is impossible to please God" (Heb 11:6). When Jesus told the despairing father, "All things are possible to him who believes," the man cried out, "I do believe; help my unbelief!" (Mark 9:23-24). And therein is our hope. God does not require perfect faith. God does not need your unwavering belief. This father recognized his own unbelief in the midst of his belief. And while Abraham serves as a fine example to us of faith that saves and faith that is tested, he also serves as a welcoming example of a less than complete faith that was still sufficient for God to save and use the man. Unless you are one of those super Christians whose faith never wavers, I would think that would be of great comfort to you. It is to me.

News Weakly - 9/16/23

Another Gun Casualty
The governor of New Mexico suspended the right to carry firearms in Albuquerque for 30 days. While many are bemoaning the violation of the 2nd Amendment, I'm more concerned about the other assault. The problem, you see, is that people with no regard for the law are killing people in Albuquerque and the remedy is ... a law against carrying a gun? You guys can debate guns. I'm sorry to hear of the sad passing of common sense.

Well, If That Don't Beat All
Just when you thought you'd heard it all, I came across this story about a "transgender activist" -- a biological male -- who is transitioning to be a woman with the aim of getting a uterus transplant and getting pregnant ... so he can abort it. The story, of course, is so far out there that, on one hand, one has to question its veracity and, on the other hand, looking at the current social climate on both "transgender" and abortion as a good thing that it just might be true. (This character promised to become a woman and have "gay sex" with "trans women" to get pregnant, bringing up the obvious question of "Just what is 'gay sex' in terms of a trans society?")

Late to the Show
The FDA told us this week that phenylephrine, the main ingredient in a lot of decongestants, doesn't actually work. The drug was patented in 1927 and approved by the FDA in 1972. Now they tell us it doesn't work? Thanks for the protection, FDA. So ... about this COVID vaccine ...?

More Election Tampering
A judge in Georgia has cut off Trump's election tampering trial from the others which was set to begin in October, so now they'll move Trump's trial ... closer to the campaign trail. You know ... to further tamper with the election.

The A-Bee-C's of Satire
Because of the uproar over suspending the 2nd Amendment in New Mexico, the governor has suspended the 1st Amendment to silence criticism. Well ... it could happen. In California, a new law dictates that if your kid identifies as Optimus Prime, you have to put tires on him and let him run down the 405 freeway. Thank you, California. In politics, Democrats are saying that this whole Biden impeachment thing is a ploy to get around the Dems' rigged election system. Conniving Republicans. Finally, in a story way too close to the truth to be taken as mere satire, Democrats are complaining that illegal immigrants are destroying their sanctuary cities.

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

Sinning Boldly

In 2020 the Pew Research people wanted to know how religious affiliation affected views on sex. They found that, among those not affiliated with religion, 78% believed that casual sex was always or at least sometimes accepable. That was over against 57% of Christians. Broken down further, Evangelicals were most likely to say that casual sex without commitment was never acceptable -- 47%. Less than half. (Interestingly that was the same percentage for those who attended services monthly or more.) In contrast, atheists were at 2% and agnostics at 3%. Clearly "Evangelical" had an effect but, clearly, even Evangelicals were not in full agreement ... with God. God's Word is abundantly clear on a whole lot of things, but even unbelievers know that it is uncompromising on the topic of sex outside of marriage. Many have tried to reinterpret Scripture around many things -- homosexuality, marriage, divorce, etc. -- but no one has been able to reason around God's absolute proscription of sex outside of marriage.

I pick this particular issue because it is abundantly clear and everyone knows it, yet among Christians there are many who ignore it. People who claim to know the truth -- God's truth -- still ignore His commands. I'm not talking about occasional slips or excursions into sin followed by repentance. They go there without apology and don't much care. So it is disturbing to me to read, "For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness" (2 Thess 2:11-12). For what reason? They "did not receive the love of the truth" (2 Thess 2:10). It's not that they didn't know it; it's that they refuse to love it. And the result is God will further their blindness for the purposes of judgment.

John wrote, "No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God" (1 John 3:9). The text says it is an impossibility for one truly born of God to sin without repentance. So what are we to conclude about all those self-identified Christians who do it with regularity and vigor? "They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us" (1 John 2:19). It is Scripture like this that causes me to pray much for Christians I know who sin freely and think there is nothing to fear. We all sin. That cannot be denied. No true believer should be comfortable doing it. Are you?

Who Are You Going to Believe?

I frequently hear of or talk to Christians who have questions about God's faithfulness. Some are serious, angry. Others are puzzled and confused. But the question, at its core, is always the same: Why isn't God doing what I think He should be? Paul might answer, "Who are you, O man, who answers back to God?" I would try a different approach. It is, I think, not a question of God's faithfulness, but our faith.

There are two versions of "faith" out there. The best known one I don't term "faith." I call it "credulity." Credulity is believing in something without reason, and faith is believing in something for a reason. The Greek, translated "faith" in the Bible, refers to "being convinced (by argument or evidence)." "Evidence?" some might say. "Isn't faith, by definition, blind?" Not at all. My favorite illustration is the Exodus. You remember the story. Moses got a direct command to go "Set My people free." So he went to the Israelite slaves and told them. They said, "Oh, don't do that. You'll just make him mad." But Moses did it. And, in fact, he did make Pharaoh mad. But the hits just kept coming. The last, the tenth, was the pinnacle. God warned Israel to take certain measures -- pack, eat a particular meal, blood on the doorpost ... that sort of thing -- and then He sent His angel of death, and the firstborn of every household in Egypt died ... except, of course, for the Israelites'. And Pharaoh told them to leave and the Egyptians showered them with gold and God's people set out. It wasn't long before Pharaoh's advisors told him, "You know, you just released our workforce." So Pharaoh mounted up and pursued them. The Israelites found themselves standing on the shore of the Red Sea with a pillar of fire blocking Pharaoh behind. What to do? Moses prayed and God brought up a wind that pushed the sea back and cleared a dry land crossing. In the morning they were ready. So what would you do? It was impressive that the sea was standing up like that, but for how long? There is no indication that they hesitated. The people crossed. Faith. Not credulity, mind you. And not a faith they had at the beginning. A confidence in God shaped by 10 plagues that they saw but escaped. If God could do that, He could do this. Convinced by evidence.

We face difficulties here all the time. And we call out to God all the time. As we should. And we ask questions of God. Not a problem on the face of it. But there are certain things we know. We know that God works all things after the counsel of His will (Eph 1:11), and that He works all things together for good to those who love Him (Rom 8:28). We know that He will supply all our needs (Php 4:19). So if you can't hear His voice and you can't see His hand, who are you going to believe? A song I liked said, "When you can't trace His hand, trust His heart." Knowing what God says about Himself and knowing that He has, thus far, been faithful, why not trust Him to continue to be faithful? It's not credulity; it is based on prior evidence. It's faith.

Scary Things

Marshal Art is a regular visitor and commenter here on this blog. We generally see eye-to-eye on things. No two people think the same about everything, but we're generally in sync. But Art has this line of thinking, certainly not an uncommon one, that is troublesome. I comment here about that line of thinking and not Art. Back in 1992 and again in 1996, Pat Buchanan ran for president. Clinton took it both times. One guy from my church told me, "Clinton is not my president. Pat Buchanan is." Because, you see, people like Bill Clinton and Joe Biden and the rest of the Left are really bad for the country. And if the Right had their way, only the Right would be in charge. Without it, we can expect nothing but bad.

From a secular view, that may or may not be so. Not from a Christian view. I am stunned by the scary world in which so many genuine believers live, always on the precipice with bad people having bad influence on a bad world. I say they live there, because I don't. In my world "The king's heart is a stream of water in the hand of the LORD; He turns it wherever He will" (Pro 21:1). In my world "there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God" (Rom 13:1). In my world Christ is over all authorities. Beyond that, the way I see it is "God will supply every need of yours according to his riches in glory in Christ Jesus" (Php 4:19). There are no conditions that limit that.

If I understood that we need a conservative president and bad people (however you might define "bad people") saw to it that we didn't get one, it is not the fault of those bad people. It is God's failure. Conversely, if God is in charge, and God is Sovereign, and God does supply all we need, then I would have to affirm that this bad government that infests our world today is what God thinks we actually need, for whatever reason, and I would want to "rejoice in the Lord," (Php 4:4) to "give thanks in all circumstances" (1 Thess 5:18), to look for God's good hand at work and seek to join Him there. The alternative, which appears to be the view of the majority, is too frightening for me, leaving me without a reliable God who is reliably Sovereign and who cannot reliably supply my needs. To so many, a world run by evil people is a scary thing. To me, an unreliable God is moreso.

Weaponized

It doesn't take a grand conspiracy theorist to see that the current climate of the justice system et al is on a campaign to control the 2024 presidential election to make sure that Donald Trump doesn't rise again. Mind you, I'm no Trump fan, but it's quite clear. The media has beat this "insurrection" claim to death despite the fact that the Senate absolved him and the FBI determined no insurrection took place. Regardless, we all know Trump did it because ... well ... they told us so. And we'll take him to trial for it ... carefully scheduled for the critical campaign time so that, regardless of the outcome, "Trump committed insurrection" will still simmer in the minds of the public. But it's not just the Trump thing. There are sufficient reports that the government, the media, Big Tech, Big Pharma, the FBI -- the list is long -- have conspired on multiple things with false, misleading, or obstructed information to control your life and my life to arrive at their preferred outcome. And it's still going on, unaddressed.

It's called "weaponizing." You take something that is not a weapon and you turn it into one. Using the justice system to control opponents has been around for a long, long time. The media was an information outlet until it realized it could control people by controlling the information -- restricting, releasing, or even fabricating it. One popular method of weaponization uses words as weapons. You know this. If you can compare your opponent to Hitler, it no longer matters what your opponent believes; he is evil personified. "Now, hang on a second. Shouldn't we hear what he has to say?" "Why? He's evil!" So we come up with catchy terms like "homophobic" and "anti-trans", "libtard" and "right-winger". Once "racist" meant "someone who evaluated on a racial basis" and now it means "white." Once "sexist" meant "someone who preferred one sex over another" and now it means "men." Mostly (and ironically) we weaponize words to end dialog. If you can call someone a "hater," no further discussion will matter. Never mind that ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy. Never mind that the term may no longer mean what you thought it meant and may not even represent the truth. Never mind that attacking the messenger doesn't evaluate the message. We've accumulated more weaponized words than any hardcore 2nd Amendment militia has guns and use them frequently to kill conversation and ideas.

Weaponized words are the most popular method for radicalization. Build in catchphrases that will make them think they're in the right while teaching them the wrong. Weaponized words are the weapon of choice for those wishing to control your thoughts. It happens all the time. Sadly, weaponized words are largely responsible for the assault on free speech. Universities, for instance, will not allow those with "wrong ideas" to speak on their campuses precisely because the opposition has prejudiced the students with weaponized words. And you can be sure that "hateful" and "evil" and other weaponized words will be used to push Christianity out of the public eye. "No, we can't talk about it. You can believe what you want as long as you don't, you know, believe it enough to talk about it, tell us about it, live it ... that sort of thing." We are promised "all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted" (2 Tim 3:12) and we have had it way too easy for way too long. And once they engage a war with words, other weapons are sure to follow. Count on it.

Never Forget

On this date in 2001, al-Qaeda carried out the deadliest attack on American soil. Nineteen terrorists hijacked four commercial airliners intending to fly them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. They succeeded in bringing down both towers and damaging the Pentagon. Best estimates put the death toll around 3,000. "Never forget" became the theme after that ... although, for the large part, we have. After all, it has been 22 years. The current batch of young people weren't around to remember it. But those who were old enough to remember can still recall the horror of that day.

Those of us who recall watched the whole thing unfold on that fateful morning. We saw live feeds of aircraft colliding with the twin towers, of people falling/leaping from the buildings, of smoke and flame and ultimate total collapse of both towers. We watched as brave emergency workers risked (and lost) their lives to get as many out as possible. (Estimates put up to 18,000 people in the twin towers at the time of the attack. Of those, less than 3,000 didn't make it out.) We listened to recordings of the valiant passengers who, apparently, fought back on United Flight 93, bringing that plane down before it could reach its intended target. The event spawned our "war on terror" and tighter airport security among other things. We read of rescuers who survived, but endured long-term health consequences. It was only a year ago that Biden (badly) ended the efforts of the troops in Afghanistan seeking to prevent another such attack.

What do we take away from this? Lots of people have answers for that. Mine is likely somewhat different. I would answer, like Joseph, "You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good" (Gen 50:20). I would suggest, "We know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose" (Rom 8:28). I would argue that God "works all things after the counsel of His will" (Eph 1:11), and what He does is always good. So, knowing God, I would maintain that 9/11 was evil and tragic and horrifying, but that God is still in control and we can still rejoice in the Lord.

Truth Decay

It has been said that "There is a worm in everything." Paul put it this way. "The creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God" (Rom 8:20-21). Everything decays. Everything is corrupted. It's the nature of ... nature.

I remember a time when the news media was our friend. Even before my memory, we considered "the freedom of the press" something worth guaranteeing rather than merely applauding. "People," they would tell us, "have the right to know." So the Walter Cronkites of my youth would tell us "That's the way it is" without bias or subtext. We never knew if he was liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, atheist or theist. He just told us what was going on. At some point, however, that all changed. Now we read stories about how the news media might be "the greatest enemy facing the American public today." And even if it isn't, they've certainly lost our trust. Hitler used it to gain power and control in Germany in the 1930s. Stalin used it to control minds in subsequent years. In our day, there are substantial allegations that the news media colluded to control the information to the public in order to affect the 2016 and 2020 elections (just as examples). At best, it's nearly impossible anymore to tell if the media (either side) is giving us the truth anymore. For instance, they literally ridiculed those who claimed that the COVID mortality rate would be less than 1% and we come to find out that it was ... less than 1%. They laughed at (and covered up) the Hunter Biden story before the election and we eventually discovered that it was real. Two "front page" examples.

This isn't about the news media. This is about what Scripture calls "corruption" or "futility" -- the decay of everything. We place our trust in our world as if it is trustworthy, and it's not. We place our trust in our favorite media source as if it is reliable and it's not. We have our human resources -- political parties, economic systems, governments, nations, etc. -- and we think we're standing on solid ground. We're not if we're standing on the world's resources because the creation was subjected to futility and the human heart is deceitful (Jer 17:9). David wrote, "I hate those who regard vain idols, but I trust in the LORD" (Psa 31:6). Any substitute for God is an idol. Instead, "Trust in the LORD with all your heart and do not lean on your own understanding" (Prov 3:5). He is a safer place to stand.

News Weakly - 9/9/23

A Man Has to Know His Limitations
The president claimed to have reduced the national budget deficit, but, in fact, most of that was due to the end of COVID spending. Worse, the budget deficit is projected to double this year. Thank you, Mr. President.

Insulting Women
According to Vogue Magazine the only sportswoman on their list of "Britain's 25 Powerhouse women" ... is not a woman. It is a transgender. "Emily Bridges" (I can't find his original name because that would be "deadnaming" which is immoral if not illegal.) was on the men's team as late as 2020. I'm quite sure that he surrendered his national junior men's record over 25 miles ... like Jenner did for all his men's Olympics awards. Oh, no, that would imply honesty.

Not Really Doing Us a Service
Now, this is news. The media is reporting that the services sector of the American economy picked up in August. I would consider that news, seeing as how it has become nearly impossible since COVID to find people willing to provide customer service. Of course, to be honest, they weren't saying that customer service has improved. But it is a nice thought.

Can You Say "Lemmings"?
After the Civil War, the Constitution was amended by the 14th Amendment to prevent those who "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" from serving in office. Mind you, Trump's trial isn't scheduled until March 4 of next year. Mind you, Trump was acquitted of insurrection in 2021. Mind you, the FBI determined that no insurrection took place. These things don't bother his loud opponents. Neither does the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" anymore. In this "We declare what is or is not true and you agree or suffer the consequences" world we now inhabit, they're hoping to disqualify him from office beforehand. Because all they really care about is justice control. And all we, like lemmings, should follow the loudest voices off the cliff.

A Good Reason
VP Harris has nothing better to do, so she's on the campaign trail for 2024. She told a television interviewer that she and Biden would win in 2024 and she was ready to lead if necessary. Now, I can't think of a better reason to work hard at making sure they don't get voted in.

Coming Soon to a Nation Near You
A former Finnish government minister stood trial for "hate speech" because she quoted Scripture on Twitter. She included "male and female created He them" and, perhaps the ultimate offense, the term "sin." They weren't putting the Bible on trial, they said; just her faith. You cannot believe what you want in Finland, where certain opinions about Bible verses "are criminal." Make no mistake. The Bible is on trial; always has been. And the world won't tolerate it.

California ... Again
California has become the first state to celebrate a Transgender History Month. I'm not clear. Is that because transgender history doesn't go much past a month? According to Wikipedia, the modern concept of "transgender" "did not develop until the mid-1900s." But California says, "Our strongest defense against the anti-trans agenda is just to tell the truth" which, I'm pretty sure, will not include that little tidbit.

Privacy Matters
Currently Florida's Supreme Court is taking up the question of whether or not the state constitution protects abortion rights. Mind you, the Supreme Court of the U.S. has already ruled that the Constitution does not. But do the constitutions of the individual states? In Florida (as, originally, in Roe v Wade), Planned Parenthood and the ACLU argue that the constitution guarantees the right to privacy. That always struck me as odd. How does the right to privacy (protected or not) mean a right to kill a child? If I follow this logic down its rabbit hole, wouldn't it stand to reason that, as long as I do it in private, I should be able to, oh, I don't know, kill another person? Make drugs? Steal from the IRS? What does "privacy" have to do with it? And if it is done in a doctor's office, how can it be called "private" anymore? It's not like it's a victimless crime. Babies are getting killed. Oddly enough, the ACLU doesn't give a fig for the rights of babies -- just the right to kill them. Isn't that false advertising? Or is it okay as long as they do it in private? I'm not getting this at all.

Heat Exhaustion
The Bee itself complained this week that it was a "slow news week, but chalked it up to some conspiracy of the reptile people. So I don't have much humor this week. Not my fault. End-of-summer heat exhaustion and all that, you know?

All Glory?

Scripture carries a repeated theme. Peter asked that "in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom belongs the glory and dominion forever and ever" (1 Peter 4:11). Paul commanded "Whatever you do, do all to the glory of God" (1 Cor 10:31). To the Ephesians he wrote, "To [God] be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations forever and ever" (Eph 3:21). Isaiah quoted God as saying, "I am YHWH, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another" (Isa 42:8). In Ephesians 1:3-14, where Paul lists some of the blessings already ours in Christ, he says three times that the blessings are for God's glory. Psalm 115 begins, "Not to us, O YHWH, not to us, but to Your name give glory because of Your lovingkindness, because of Your truth" (Psa 115:1). It would appear, then, that God's running theme is His own glory. And it would appear that our failure to grasp this is our primary sin (Rom 3:23).

What is the glory of God? It is a reference to God's overall magnificence. It is all of His attributes together and tied in a bow of eternity -- never beginning and never ending. All that He is. So why would He get all the glory? Paul put it this way. "Nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things" (Acts 17:25). He should get all the glory because it is all His. Some have suggested that God is a megalomaniac, desiring that everyone recognize how great He is. That would be a reasonable accusation ... if it wasn't God. Because a megalomaniac is mistaken about his own greatness. It is a delusion of grandeur. God, on the other hand, really is that great. God is no megalomaniac; He is a realist.

It bespeaks of our own very real problem. Clearly the Absolute Master of the universe should receive all the attention, but we, tiny and insignificant as we are, begrudge Him that. We deny the truth. And therein is our problem -- our suppression of truth for which God is righteously angry (Rom 1:18). In fact, if we can grasp His glory, then pursuing and demonstrating that would actually be fulfilling our purpose in life. None for us; all glory to Him.

No Fail

Who said, "I have learned to be content in whatever circumstances I am"? It's quite a startling claim. I know people who are discontented regardless of their circumstances. But Paul said he was content in whatever circumstance he found himself (Php 4:11). How is that possible? Could we learn to do it? (Most Americans would ask, "Should we learn how to do it?") To be contented regardless of circumstances seems like it would be a good thing.

Paul said he had learned how to get along with little or much (Php 4:12). Isn't that interesting? He recognized that it was just as difficult to be content with a lot as it was with a little. You and I call that "greed." How much is enough? A little bit more. But he said, "I have learned the secret." What was it? "I can do all things through Him who strengthens me" (Php 4:13). "I gotta tell ya, Stan, that doesn't sound like an answer." I hear you, but it is, indeed, a great secret. Keep in mind that Paul is writing this from prison. Content? In "Him who strengthens me"? But you can see it earlier in his letter. "Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, rejoice!" (Php 4:4). There it is ... that secret. Did you see it? He doesn't say, "Don't worry; be happy." He doesn't say, "Rejoice in your circumstances." He says, "Rejoice in the Lord." And that is all the difference.

When we arrive at the place where all of our joy is found in Him, there is nothing that can disturb our contentment. When we've died with Christ and our new life is with Him, there is nothing that can take away our joy in Him. We may scrape and scratch to make a living, to get by, but when our true joy is in Him and our confidence is in His supply for all we need (Php 4:19), we cannot lose. "But," some may say, "we do." Oh, no. We give it up. Needlessly. If our joy and our strength and our confidence is in the Almighty God, there is no "fail."

The Importance of Knowing

"What you don't know can't hurt you" they tell us. It's not true, you know. "I didn't know that rattlesnake was around the corner." Silly example, but it makes the point. In fact, there are things that, if you don't know them, can worse-than-kill you.

There are lots of things that can cause grievious bodily harm or even death if you don't know about them. Harmful elements like lead paint, asbestos, polluted water, and secondhand smoke are easy examples. If you don't look both ways, that car you didn't know was coming could be devastating. Biblically, there is a worst-case scenario. Jesus said, "This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent" (John 17:3). Not knowing about arsenic in the water can kill you; not knowing God can kill you eternally. Paul said that not knowing God makes us "slaves to those which by nature are no gods" (Gal 4:8). The solution is "to know God, or rather to be known by God" (Gal 4:9). The key component to being saved from eternal death is knowing God and Him knowing you (Matt 7:23). We are saved, in fact, because we are "foreknown" by God (Rom 8:29).

As a rationalization of hiding things from people, it's a poor excuse that really doesn't work out in the end. Still, too many cling to it in their avoidance of knowing God. He stands ready to receive each and every one, and, believing ourselves to be wise, we become fools and pursue ignorance of the God of the universe. There are things, indisputably, that, if you don't know them, can kill you. Or worse. Not knowing God is worse. And completely unnecessary.

Stirring Up Trouble

The "military industrial complex" came into being in January, 1961, in a speech by President Eisenhower. Okay, not really. He was the first to use the term. The truth is that the making of arms as a big money maker found its stride just prior to America's entry into World War II. You see, to make scads of money on the very expensive process, you needed volume. A world war served that purpose. So how is it that the thing kept going after the war? Fear. There were the Soviets and the Korean War, Vietnam and the Chinese. There was the whole fear of getting overrun by the Reds -- Communists of any flavor. So we supplied weapons to allies and built up our own in the hopes that the Cold War wouldn't turn hot. Unfortunately, those "major threats" never materialized. Unfortunately, that is, for the military industrial complex. The wall came down in the '80s, the Soviet Union is no more, and China is doing just fine taking us down with spies and economics rather than weaponry. Military spending is down, and the military industrial complex is in trouble.

That was just an example of an economic boom built on crisis. It was a big money maker. (Frankly, still is, even if it isn't as big as it used to be.) The military market may be waning, but there are so many more like it. It feels as if that's the present purpose of the news media. You see, "news" isn't everyday stuff. No one wants to hear that "130 million people went to work today and didn't die in an accident." A silly example, for sure, but you get the idea. It has to be something outside of the ordinary for it to be news. So the news will tell us that "COVID is on the rise" because, as we all know, COVID was a major crisis a few years ago. Well, at least, that's how it was reported. While the WHO and the CDC and the rest bemoaned the dangers, it turns out that almost 99% of COVID deaths were not caused by the virus. Turns out that the mortality rate of the virus was less than 1%. But the news media ridiculed that claim and the sense that everyone got from it was that we're all going to die. Meanwhile, Forbes was reporting on 40 new billionaires who got rich off fighting the virus ... including 9 new Big Pharma billionaires.

COVID is just an example. If you pay attention to the news media, they are always touting the next big crisis with the expensive ways we'll have to face it. These crises may not even be real. (Think "Cold War".) That's okay. There's money to be made on your fear and there is terror enough to go around. That's when "the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding" (Php 4:6-7) becomes vital. And it's available to believers everywhere. No charge.

What If?

What if you knew? Not thought. Not hoped. What if you knew? Would it make a difference?

What if you knew that you are loved? What if you knew that you are more deeply loved than you know? What if you knew that all the good things you enjoy are a gift? What if you knew that all the bad you've encountered are part of a plan, a bigger operation that, in the end, will be far better than if you hadn't encountered them? What if you knew every bad thing you've done is forgiven, that every good you've failed to do is accounted as completed? What if you knew that there was no reason for guilt or shame because there is no condemnation from the One who matters? What if you knew that you are watched and cared for and guarded and guided? Infallibly. What if you knew that the Master of the universe sought to adopt you as His very own child? And succeeded. What if you knew that you currently have an Omnipotent God at work in you to do that which you cannot even dream?

What if you knew? Not thought. Not even merely believed. What if you knew? Would it make a difference? Would it make a difference if you could be absolutely certain that all that and more is true ... of you?

Sunday Morning Faith

It has been said (although more recently denied) that America is a Christian nation. CNN reported in April that 64% of Americans call themselves Christians. Of course, there is a growing number of school girls that are calling themselves boys, so what are we to conclude? It depends on what you deem "Christian." If, as is the current trend, "I identify" is classified as true, then Christians are still a majority in America. But, let's be honest. "I identify" is no way to actually determine truth ... for Christians or people with gender issues. Or anything else, for that matter. So, what is a "Christian." It isn't someone who calls themselves one or someone who grew up that way or someone who lives in America because "We're all Christians, aren't we?" (I actually had someone tell me that.) No, "Christian" specifically refers to a believer in Christianity. More specifically, "Christian" refers to a follower of Christ. So when I hear people tell me "I'm a Christian" in the midst of stories of a lifestyle that is a direct denial of Christ, I'm pretty sure someone is mistaken. Jesus mentioned these types. "On that day many will say to Me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and cast out demons in Your name, and do many mighty works in Your name?' And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you workers of lawlessness.'" (Mat 7:22-23). Apparently knowing Christ, or, rather, being known by Christ, is what is required.

I don't doubt the sincerity of many who claim Christ but don't demonstrate a relationship with Him. I don't think they're being devious or trying to mislead. I think they're confused. James wrote about "dead faith" -- a faith that is real but nonfunctional. "Faith without works," he wrote, "is dead" (James 2:17). That faith is the same kind the demons have (James 2:19). It is what one songwriter calls "Sunday morning faith." And, as Jesus pointed out, it only results in separation, not union, with God. Dead faith. I believe those people believe sincerely that they're Christians; I simply believe they're deceived. And why not? This kind of deception is going on all around us, isn't it? You can be sure.

Jesus said, "The hairs of your head are all numbered" (Matt 10:30). That means that He knows everything about you, and that the details matter. So when we are commanded to "Do all to the glory of God" (1 Cor 10:31), that would include "all." Our everyday experience should be continual prayer and thanksgiving (1 Thess 5:17-18). We should be nurturing an attitude of obedience (John 14:15). Everything we do He sees and He cares. Not just Sunday mornings. Claude missed it. You don't have to. But a Sunday morning faith is not going to make it.

News Weakly - 9/2/23

"Inclusive. You keep Using That Word..."
A woman from Benicia, CA, spoke out at a school board meeting about the nonsense of requiring school children to choose pronouns, complaining, "Teaching kids that there isn't standard or truth and that you can believe anything that you want to believe is not correct." She claims it got her fired from her job. Because you can believe what you like as long as it is not in violation of what you are allowed to believe. Because businesses will employ you as long as you don't violate society's preferred beliefs. You have been warned.

Hands-Off Parenting Used to be a Crime
It is only to be expected that California's attorney general would sue a school district that requires teachers to notify parents if their children are transgender or nonbinary. Because, as we all know, parents are only responsible for their kids if they fail to prevent them from getting a gun in today's new system. Otherwise, parents, keep your hands off the children they are hoping to indoctrinate.

A Living Wage
The argument lofted at us for these massive raises in minimum wage that has been a major contributor to our skyrocketing cost of living has been "We need to pay them a living wage." Is anyone going to reconsider, then, when they read the study that determined that single people in Hawaii need to average $112,000 a year for a "living wage"? I doubt it. "Don't bother me with facts; I know I'm right."

The Wall Cracks
And ... there it is. In New Hampshire they are now suggesting that Trump should not be included on the 2024 primary ballot because of the 14th Amendment. "Justice!" his haters will cry. To me it looks a lot more like "Guilty until proven innocent." To me it looks a lot like throwing a lot of stuff against the wall to see what sticks ... or cracks the wall. I'm no Trump fan, but to me it looks a lot like ... election tampering. Kind of like the Bee put it on a similar story: "The federal judge presiding over former President Donald Trump's trial on charges of election interference has set a trial date that will line up perfectly to interfere with the 2024 presidential election."

Don't Ask
We're told to "trust the Science." But then they don't. Worse, now they are banning the questions. A study was done to examine if the current "gender fluidity" phase -- specifically this new Rapid-Onset Gender Dysphoria -- is actually a product of "social contagion." Are kids identifying as transgender as a result of social influences? The paper was forced to be retracted because of their methodology and because the American Psychological Association said it couldn't be. "You can't ask the question. You can't study it to see if it's true. We have determined that it is real, so calling on science to confirm or deny it is a violation of science ... which is whatever we say it is."

When the Fight for Freedom was Slavery
A school in Colorado Springs told a 12-year-old student to remove the Gadsden flag -- "Don't tread on me" -- from his backpack due to its "origins in slavery." That did not go well for them once it came out and they had to backtrack on it. But the Bee had a lot of fun with it. There was the pre-dawn raid by the FBI to seize the offending backpack and the 6th-grader who was suspended for having a U.S. History book with an American flag on it. My favorite was this one: "The Vanguard School in Colorado Springs has released a powerful commercial demonstrating why parents should homeschool their children."

________
P.S. As you may have noticed, this week I sprinkled my Babylon Bee inputs in among the stories. I hope you found them okay.

Indoctrination

The media was upset recently about Florida's public schools "indoctrinating" kids. They were less concerned in 2012 when Philadelphia students were required to watch a film titled That's a Family! that argued that gay marriage was normal. And when Maryland parents sued to be able to opt-out of "Pride Storybooks" in their kids' curriculum, the judge threw it out.

Indoctrination. That's the term. They use it when it's "the other guy" -- when it's what "those people are doing" -- but not when they are. That, of course, is because it is considered a bad thing. Mind you, indoctrination is simply defined as inculcating with a usually partisan or sectarian opinion, point of view, or principle. In fact, the second definition is "instruction especially in fundamentals or rudiments: teaching." Why is it bad? Well, one aspect of indoctrination is to teach without encouraging critical thinking or questioning. That is the bad part, they say. Mind you, teaching a kid that "2 + 2 = 4; now don't ask questions" isn't quite so objectionable. We hope to imbue them with certain beliefs on certain facts without questioning the facts. Well ... at least as long as we agree on the facts. And, for a large part, we don't. I would argue, for instance, that most of school children are taught not to think about what they're learning. Indoctrination.

The truth is both sides (pick any question) indulge in indoctrination. They want us to accept without question that "trans" is real and normal and we want them to accept without question that science doesn't agree. They want us to accept that "gay" is morally right and we want them to understand that the Bible disagrees. None of us want our kids growing up questioning the facts and values we deem absolutely necessary for a good life, and that is indoctrination. It's not always a bad thing (Prov 22:6). But in the hands of those without God -- those without a true moral compass -- it is very likely catastrophic.