Saguaro

I was thinking for awhile that it might be interesting to take pictures of saguaros and turn them into a coffee table book. Of course, that won't happen (and, no, it wouldn't have been that interesting), but, still here are some facts about saguaros you may not know.

Did you know that, when given a suitable supply season, saguaros can absorb enough water to live through 10 years of drought? I bet the meter on this one is reading "full." The very fact that a cactus can live for 10 years without water in a place that just might go 10 years without water screams "design."

One of the most popular uses for saguaros is as a birdhouse, especially for gila woodpeckers. They will make a hole in a saguaro, wait a period of time for the cactus to "scab over" -- seal itself up inside -- and then turn it into the next cool, protected nest. Interestingly, they don't typically return next season, although others might use them. These hollowed-out, solidified cavities form what is called a "boot," which survives the cactus along with the skeleton and are quite popular among collectors. (They're actually under federal protection.)

Everyone knows that saguaros typically have two arms sticking out ... except that such saguaros are actually quite rare. I've only found one or two traveling the state. Saguaros don't grow arms until they're about 50 years old, and then they often grow quite a few all at once.

Saguaros in bloom are actually quite remarkable. First there are these "tufts" of white flowers that eventually turn into red fruits that the wildlife (like the two cactus wrens here) just can't get enough of.

There are some unusual saguaros, too. Some appear to be all arms and very little saguaro. Some appear to be asking, "Why?" (Get it? "Y?" Sorry ... bad joke.)

One of the most unsual is what I call the "brain" saguaro. Science hasn't figured out what causes it, but the crested saguaro grows this odd shape, sometimes along with arms and sometimes not.




Saguaros are found only in the Sonora Desert, which is found only in southern Arizona and California and northern Mexico. Arizona even has a Saguaro National Park which appears to be a forest of these amazing cacti in all manner of shapes and sizes. A full-grown saguaro is over 200 years old, but no one knows how old the oldest of these cacti is. What we do know is that they are the impressive workmanship of a benevolent and creative God.

News Weakly - 6/29/2024

New Highs of Nonsense
Californian Democrats have opted to delay increasing health care worker minimum wage increase in order to help balance the budget. Mind you, they had no problem increasing the minimum wage of fast food workers high enough to actually put some of them out of business, but health care workers appear not to be so valuable to the Democrats. I couldn't figure out the logic of increasing the minimum wage in the first place, but why it doesn't apply to important folks like health care workers eludes me.

Mixed Messages
Last weekend there were some 14 mass shootings with some 12 people killed. The headlines bemoan the "mass shootings across the U.S." And that's bad. It is odd, though, that on the same day, that article came out, the FBI reported that active shooting incidents declined by 4% in 2023. Mixed messages. You see, the nature of the news is to tell the sensational. Unfortunately, the recipients of this information take it as "normal", and we come away traumatized by the "mass shootings across the country" that are part of, as it turns out, a decline. It seems really close to terrorism to me.

On the Plus Side
It doesn't always have to be bad, does it? I came across this story about a woman who saw a vase in the National Museum that looked a lot like a $4 vase she got at a thrift store. She took it to the Mexican Embassy in Washington and discovered it was an actual Mayan piece of pottery. So ... she returned it to the Mexican authorities. Very nice. Or how about the story of Ed Dwight. Ed was selected for the Air Force training program for NASA astronauts in 1961. He hoped to be the first black astronaut in space. He was ultimately not selected, but he is now lined up with Blue Origin to go to space ... at 90. Nice to see that sometimes dreams do come true.

A Standard Standard?
I didn't quite understand this story. Apparently a woman on an airplane posted a video of a man cheating on his wife. Not clear at all how she knew or why she thought she should post it or why the media picked it up, but haven't we already established that morality is relative and whatever a person lusts for is good and should be celebrated and not judged? So confused.

Heat Wave Casualty
The heat wave this last week had a sad casualty. A wax statue of President Abraham Lincoln melted in Washington D.C. Just goes to show, they don't make 'em like they used to, eh? Bet they'll blame this on white supremacy, too?

The Debate
It happened. Meh. I don't think I've ever learned anything from a presidential debate that I didn't already know.

See Follows Bee
Los Angeles opened a luxury high-rise homeless shelter with $600,000 units (actual story), prompting a father to warn his son that if he didn't study hard, he could end up homeless with a free luxury room ... and vodka shots. The reason I decided to skip the presidential debate was that the White House warned in advance that any live video of Biden looking confused or senile was a deepfake, so why bother? Finally, a pastor who makes $17,000 a year was shocked to learn he was only in it for the money. Everyone knows that.

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

When the Heart Rules

It seems as if our common enemy these days is the mind. We're telling kids, "Don't let anyone get in the way of your dreams." We're telling men, "Get in touch with your feminine side." We're embracing, "Don't think; do," and "Go with your heart." We might bring up a logical argument or pursue a line of reasoning, but when it collides with our feelings, it's right out. So we can embrace science right up until science tells us what we don't want to believe. We will embrace cognitive dissonance -- holding inconsistent and contradictory beliefs -- by silencing the mind and embracing the heart.

Feelings, we tell each other, are more reliable than thoughts. The heart is a better gauge of the right direction than the head. Only one problem with that; it's not true. Scripture says, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?" (Jer 17:9). The heart is not the best way to determine what is right. Do you know what the very next verse says? "I, YHWH, search the heart and test the mind, to give every man according to his ways, according to the fruit of his deeds" (Jer 17:9-10). Did you notice that? He searches the heart and tests the mind. I'm not suggesting that the head is a better gauge of what is best. Sin rots the brain. It makes for futile thinking (Rom 1:21; Eph 4:17). Scripture says, "The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile" (1 Cor 3:20). Both heart and mind are suspect in natural human beings.

We are currently aiming for a heart-driven society where we set our minds aside and rule with our emotions. Even when we try to urge careful thought, it is with the caveat that we ignore thoughts that oppose the accepted "truth." "I know I'm right; don't bother me with facts." The thing is, this isn't new. It wasn't careful thinking that got Eve and Adam to try the fruit in the garden. It was the heart. And we've been ruled by our passions ever since, the result of which is the loss of reasonable thinking. "Futile minds," Scripture calls it. We think "Follow your heart" is a grand plan, but it isn't. What we need is new minds and new hearts. Something only the Creator can supply.

Atheist's Morality

One of the standard proofs of the existence of God is the argument from morality. Put as simply as possible, if there is actual, real (what we term "objective") morality, then there must be a moral lawgiver. Thomas Aquinas offered this argument in his "Five Ways" thesis. If there is no god, it follows, there is no morality. So some will argue that atheists can have no morality Now, be careful here. That is a misrepresentation (because language for us is so difficult). The argument would be if there is no god, there is no objective morality. There is no true morality. There is no morality that is over us all. So ... can an atheist be good without God?

As I said, language for us is so difficult. What do we mean by "Can an atheist be good without God?" Well, typically (and not necessarily always) "good" in that question is defined as "adherence to a moral code." And we just showed that atheists can't have a moral code, right? No. We just showed that atheists cannot have an objective moral code. They can certainly, absolutely have a moral code. And we know this, don't we? We have the phrase "honor among thieves" because even thieves have a moral code. It's just not one we share. So, let's settle that right up front. Can atheists have a moral code to which they adhere? Sure. Well, almost. It's a funny thing about us humans. No matter what our moral code is, we break it. At some point, we will always violate our own moral codes, whether from a god or from our own sources. So, I suppose it would be fair to say that an atheist who has a moral code can, to some degree, adhere to his or her own moral code. Good? Perhaps, in some sense, to that extent.

Here's the problem. Not having a moral lawgiver, atheists cannot have a moral code that they can impose on anybody else. Almost universally, they try (as we all do), but it simply cannot be. Going to the next thing, then, Scripture assures us that there is a God, and God is the moral lawgiver, the one who defines "good." Scripture tells us explicitly, "No one does good, not even one" (Psa 14:3; Psa 53:3; Rom 3:12). So now we know that there is a Moral Lawgiver who has imposed an objective moral code on all humans and that no one meets it. Can an atheist be good without God? By this definition, absolutely not, but not simply because they are without God. It's because none of us can be good unless God makes it so. Ultimately, then, the answer is, "No, an atheist cannot be good without God in God's version of good ... and neither can anyone else." Which is why it is such a relief that God "made Him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God" (2 Cor 5:21). Our only hope.

The Cost of Discipleship

We have all heard of "the Great Commission." It's found in Matthew, after the Resurrection and before His ascension. "Based on the fact that all authority has been given Me in heaven and on earth," He told them, "Go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age" (Matt 28:19-20). We know that; we've got that. Go and share the gospel. No, that's not what He said, but that's what the vast majority of us have come away with. The Great Commission obviously begins with "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation" (Mark 16:15), but that's only the start. He said, "Make disciples," not converts. He said, "Baptize them," not cut them loose to go their own way. He said, "teach them to observe all that I commanded you," not "Oh, and good luck." The Great Commission is a lifestyle command, a lifelong task of bringing people to Christ, immersing them into Christ, and teaching them everything.

I think you'll agree that we, frankly, are not generally doing that. We are, at best, sharing the gospel and encouraging them to come to Christ, but taking them under our wing, walking with them, teaching them? Not so much. Why? What's the problem? As one pastor told me when I asked him, "That's just too much work." Too much work. Now, I think he was right; it is a lot of work. But, as one Christian singer put it, "Jesus rose from the dead, and you can't even get out of bed." In light of the grace and mercy and Spirit and gifts and ... it cannot be considered too much work. So why don't we do it? Some don't because they frankly haven't been told, which is odd because the vast majority of Christians have been told to share the gospel; just not this discipleship thing. I suspect that most of us aren't doing it, though, because we're disobedient. We're lazy. "It's too much work." "It's too hard." "I'm not qualified."

Discipleship is, indeed, a lot of work. That shouldn't really matter since it was a clear and specific command that Christ (the leader of Christianity) gave us. We don't do it on our own. Like all of the Christian life, we aren't the primary power. We do it because the One to whom all authority has been given commands it. We do it by the power of the One who promises to be with us always. The cost of discipleship is, certainly, high. What about the cost of disobedience? I would argue that the "mile-wide-inches-deep" Christianity we see today is a direct result of our refusal to disciple, to do a walk-alongside ministry with people we with whom we share the gospel and who meet Christ through our ministries. Why aren't we doing it? A question you'll have to ask yourself.

How Deep the Father's Love

Recently the topic of discussion was "new music" vs old, or something like it. A good example of a new hymn that is also good theology was written by Stuart Townend -- How Deep the Father's Love for Us -- in 1995. His purpose, he said, was to shift our attentions from our self-serving and self-seeking emotions to ... well ... God. The song is not about us; it's about the Father's love. The first stanza begins,

How deep the Father's love for us,
How vast beyond all measure,
That He should give His only Son
To make a wretch His treasure.

The object of the Father's love is not "cute little kittens" -- adorable us. It is "a wretch" ... like you and me.

Scripture says,

But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. (Rom 5:8)

Look at that for a moment. The "but" is a contrast. What is "God demonstrates His own love toward us" in contrast to? "For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die" (Rom 5:7) The premise is that it is not reasonable to expect anyone to give up their life for the ungodly. And where do I get that "ungodly"? "For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly" (Rom 5:6). Okay, so, Christ died for us, the ungodly. Dying for a good person is conceivable, but not for the ungodly. And we come to the contrast -- "But God ..." So, God demonstrates His love toward us, the ungodly. That is, as unlikely it might be that anyone would do it, but God proved His love for us, the ungodly, by sending His Son to die for us while we were still sinners -- "enemies" (Rom 5:10).

In Hebrews 2, the author of Hebrews seems to question whether it was fitting for the Son of God to die for sinners. At least, he answers the question.

For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to perfect the author of their salvation through sufferings. (Heb 2:10)

It was fitting for Him who is above the angels to suffer death for us in order to bring "many sons to glory." Not because we deserve it. Not because of who we are. Not because we are "just so special." It's all in order to glorify the Father and the Son who have chosen to adopt enemies to be children in His family. That is a depth of love that we cannot fathom and cannot glory in for ourselves.

Modern Slavery

We all know that the slavery of the 17th through 19th centuries in America and Europe was a nightmare. A travesty of justice. The epitome of cruelty and injustice. For what? To make a buck, to be more comfortable, oh, and to have power, to be sure. There was nothing commendable about that era, that slavery. But, as it turns out, slavery has been around a long time and it still goes on. The Bible speaks on the topic of slaves, and, even though it was a different sort of slavery addressed there, it was there. And we are constantly reminded of modern slavery, people kidnapping people to be owned and used and abused. Women, girls, children, whomever serves their lusts, be it sexual or otherwise. Slavery, it seems, always was and remains to this day, shifting only in form but not existence.

Jesus talked about slavery. When He famously said, "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" (John 8:32), the Jews told Him they were already free (ignoring, for reasons I don't quite understand, their Roman overlords). So we read, "Jesus answered them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin'" (John 8:34). That was Jesus's term -- "slave of sin." Paul picked that up in Romans 6.

Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness? (Rom 6:16)

The same idea that Jesus presented. Those who commit sin -- who submit themselves to sin -- are slaves of sin. To the church at Ephesus, he wrote,

So this I say, and affirm together with the Lord, that you walk no longer just as the Gentiles also walk, in the futility of their mind, being darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart; and they, having become callous, have given themselves over to sensuality for the practice of every kind of impurity with greediness. (Eph 4:17-19)

Those who submit themselves to sin are slaves to sin.

Believers -- those who by faith have died with Christ and been raised with Christ -- have the option to not be slaves to sin. And why should we be? Slavery to sin makes futile minds. Slavery to sin darkens understanding. Slavery to sin hardens hearts. Modern slavery -- as it has always been as well -- is practiced by the slaves, greedily giving themselves over to impure sensuality of every kind. Just like we see in our society today. The kind of slavery that rules our current culture.

We moderns, as a rule, are opposed to slavery. Certainly slavery by race. Most of us are absolutely opposed to kidnapping children as sex slaves. (I say "most" because, after all, there are still evil people doing it, right?) We are outraged that slavery still exists. And, yet, as a rule, our society submits itself to slavery. Slavery to pleasure, slavery to lust, slavery to sex and wealth and comfort and power. The kind of slavery that steals freedom and makes for futile minds. Humans enslaving humans is bad enough. Our culture does it to itself and demands that they be free to do it. (Think of the irony of that. "Free to be slaves.") The only hope any of us have for freedom is in Christ, and that freedom comes by faith in Him through death to self. So why are so many of us keeping that freedom to ourselves?

God is Great

You've heard the old prayer: "God is great; God is good. Let us thank Him for our food." Setting aside the unfortunate fact that "good" and "food" don't actually rhyme, what do you think about that? Is God great? Is God good? Does God provide? We repeat the concept often in word and song. Several songs say, "God is good all the time" and another urges us to ask, "How great is our God?" One clever singer wrote, "Good God Almighty" because, they say, He is good and He is almighty. And we nod and repeat the words either as lyrics or ideas, but do we believe it? Do we even actually arrive at the point of asking and answering the question, "How great is our God?" You see, I think most of us nod and agree that He's great ... without thinking much further about it or applying it to every single situation in our lives.

Certain groups -- military, emergency services, etc. -- do what they call "drilling." Here's the idea. In particular situations it is best if you don't think about what you should do; you should know. It saves time, effort, mistakes, etc. It's like muscle memory. You teach your muscles to do certain tasks and they don't need much help from you in performing them. Or strength training, where you build up the strength you need before you need it so it is available when you do. We ought to be doing this all the time.

We are commanded to think in particular ways (Php 4:8). We are told not to be anxious, but to pray with thanksgiving about everything (Php 4:6). Our entire salvation is based on faith in Christ, so shouldn't our lives be, also? I'm not berating or correcting anyone here. I'm hoping to encourage you. Start practicing now. Start telling yourself the truth. Paul said we should be "speaking the truth in love" (Eph 4:15). Shouldn't that include to ourselves? So when we ask, "How great is our God?", answer it. Mull it over. Think it through. Apply it to your everyday existence. "What about here? What about now? Do I believe it?" When we claim, "God is good all the time," really claim it. For yourself. No matter what the circumstances. Give your life "muscle memory" so that, when difficult events or troublesome thoughts occur, your autonomic response will be "God is great; God is good." You can figure out how later. The classic hymn says,

Turn your eyes upon Jesus,
Look full in His wonderful face,
And the things of earth will grow strangely dim,
In the light of His glory and grace.

Yes, like that. As a daily practice.

News Weakly - 6/22/2024

Unclear on the Concept
The American Civil Liberties Union exists to defend the rights of Americans. So, clearly, you could have guessed that they'd be suing the Biden administration for blocking asylum seekers entering the country illegally. Oh ... wait ... I missed something. What are the American civil liberties they are fighting for here?

What's In A Name?
The Newsweek story says that almost 15,000 people have signed the petition by a "Christian organization," Faithful America, demanding the resignation of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito because he flew a flag upside down. As we all know, flying upside-down flags or believing there might have been voting irregularities violates biblical Christian values. Oh ... wait. First, he denies it all. Second, there is nothing "Christian" (in terms of actual, biblical Christianity) about forcing out a Supreme Court Justice with whom you disagree. What they're really concerned about is the U.S. returning to "a place of godliness" (their phrase) because nothing violates biblical Christianity more than a nation that turns to God, but lying about being followers of Christ doesn't bode well for "Faithful" America. Where's the petition to get them to stop using the term, "Christian"?

No Win Situation
The U.S. government acknowledged the harmful role building dams in the Pacific Northwest caused for Native American tribes while providing electricity, irrigation, and jobs. Now, hang on a second. Isn't hydroelectric power "clean energy"? And isn't that our highest goal these days? Are you suggesting we were "saving the planet" by harming its occupants?? Or what?

Migrantcy
(Yes, I made that word up. While "migrancy" refers to the fact that people migrate, I made up this one in reference to the people who do.) Christian Inga ticked off all the right boxes. Illegally entered the U.S. from Ecuador ... check. Entered with a 3-year-old child ... check. Arrested (in 2021) and released pending court appearance ... check. So why are people upset that he kidnapped two 13-year-old girls, threatened them with a machete, and raped one? Doesn't his "migrant" status absolve him? Hey, he had a kid! Shouldn't that give him a "get out of jail and ... why not ... American citizenship" card? (I'm asking you, ACLU.) We can't call them illegal immigrants, but I don't know why.

Who Would Have Thunk It?
The UN, clearly and continually showing fairness and favor toward Israel, is suggesting that Israel "violated the laws of war" by using bombs in civilian areas. Mind you, there is no place in Gaza that is not a "civilian area." And Hamas has openly declared that all Palestinians are combatants, either as fighters or shields. And the government of Gaza has as part of its governing mandate the elimination of Israel. And, of course, every war from the beginning of time has included the use of weapons in "civilian areas." But if Israel has the audacity to try to protect itself from attacks (launched from "civilian areas") with anything more than one hand tied behind their backs and pointy sticks, then, by golly, they're in trouble now!

Celebrating Murder
We had Memorial Day to remember those who gave their lives fighting for our freedom and just had "Juneteenth" to commemorate the final culmination of the Emancipation Proclamation and we have Independence Day coming up to celebrate our independence as a nation, so should we be surprised that Kamala Harris is planning to go to Phoenix to celebrate the anniversary of Roe v Wade to remind us that 65 million children have been killed and she considers that a good thing? As a Phoenician, I'm begging her not to show up here to celebrate mass murder on that scale. As a voter, I want to know why anyone would vote for such a ticket. While I'm pretty sure she doesn't care what I wish, I am shocked at the numbers of people who agree with her. "65 million is not enough!"

If You Don't Have Somewhere to Bee
The Bee reports that scientists are torn on whether to blame this latest heat wave on climate change, Trump, or white supremacy. First world problems. (Note: They're blaming climate change and not, say, "summer".) On the upcoming Biden/Trump debate, new rules will include the right of moderators to zap Trump with cattle prods whenever they want. I can see that. And, referring to Biden's plan to meet with the pope, the headline was "President Pretending To Be Catholic Meets Pope Pretending To Be Catholic," which seems less like satire and more like real ... on this fake news site.

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

The Problem of Gender

We all know that today's world is thoroughly ablaze with this problem of gender. Sex, they say, is "assigned at birth." Then, in direct contradiction, they'll say that biology doesn't count; you are whatever you feel you are. You cannot be "born that way" because biology doesn't count. So you are whatever you feel you are right now -- that may change ... tomorrow. Society has ripped a page out of a lunatic's doodling and concluded that "gender is a social construct" which is "assigned at birth."

Just what does that mean? Well, "sex" is, technically, a term referring to your biology. It is a function of chromosomes, basically. It is science, pure and simple. Not a social construct. But "gender" is another thing entirely. That refers to expression. While "sex" refers to "male" and "female," "gender" refers to "masculine" and "feminine" -- how we express being a male or a female. And, if you think about it, certainly some of our standard expressions of masculine and feminine are societal. For instance, we generally think of "pink" as feminine and "blue" as masculine. Why? That is societal. (In the early 20th century some argued that pink was more suited to boys and blue to girls.) (Oddly enough, we have a new tradition that uses pink and blue in their "gender reveal parties" for unborn children who do not currently have an expression of their sex. Now, that's crazy if gender is a social construct.) So, while some of sexual expression is societal, it is certain that most is not. Notice how this works. The American Psychological Association defines "gender" as "the attitudes, feelings, and behaviors that a given culture associates with a person’s biological sex." Therefore, gender is a social construct ... by definition. That's like saying, "I define psychology as a lot of hooey; therefore, psychology by definition is a lot of hooey." Science, on the other hand, can give you lots of biological differences between male and female that clearly inform gender expression, as in these 50 examples.



So, where does this get us? It gets us to a logic trail that goes somewhere we didn't expect. If gender is as social construct, it is not a "thing." It is not a reality; it's a construct. Therefore, it doesn't exist. It is an idea but not a reality. It cannot, ultimately, be defined because society will change it as it goes. Untethered from physical, objective reality ("sex"), it is simply a matter of opinion. So the biological male who believes he's a female and changes his appearance and physiology to match a social construct is thoroughly confused because it's a construct, not a reality. He/she is not "getting to what's real" because "feminine" isn't. All that to say, "We know better, don't we?" Underneath it all, covering lies with more lies, we all know that a biological male is a male and there are absolutely expressions that go along with that, and the same with female. Trying to adjust a male to being a female (or vice versa) while denying that neither has an actual definition is not merely mistaken; it's irrational. Which, by the way, is a definition of "insanity."

Define "Shoot"

I bet the title might make some of you think I'm going on a rant about the 2nd Amendment. I'm not. It has been said that the only army that shoots its wounded is the Christian army. What is that intended to convey? For most people, it's a complaint about how "judgmental" Christians can be. Not for me. I recognize a tendency among church people in particular to find the sins of others repellant. Not their own, of course, but others. "Oh, you're divorced? Oh, my." "What? You have a problem with porn? Maybe we don't need to spend time together." You know, certain sins that Christ has pardoned but we have determined to be unpardonable to us. It doesn't matter if they've repented. A Christian woman who, at some point in her life, might have had an abortion -- even if it was before meeting Jesus -- might be rejected from "common company" if it became known. That's what I think of when I think of "shooting our wounded."

"But," someone might say, "any judgment is just that, isn't it?" Well, that's a problem, you see. We are commanded, for instance, "If anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself, so that you too will not be tempted" (Gal 6:1). If "nonjudgmental" is the requirement, how would we ever be able to recognize that a fellow believer is in a trespass? In Jesus's famous, "Do not judge so that you will not be judged" (Matt 7:1) (considered by many to currently be the best known verse in the Bible), you have but to read on a few more verses to see, "First take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye" (Matt 7:5). That is not, "Never see the speck in your brother's eye," but "Make sure you're not guilty of the same thing." Thus, it is not, "Never judge anyone," but "Be careful to look to yourself first." Even when Jesus (famously) told the woman "caught in adultery," "I do not condemn you, either. Go, and sin no more" (John 8:11). See that? Jesus actually acknowledged her sin and told her to stop it.

What does it mean to "shoot the wounded" in our context, then? If restoring someone in sin is love -- is "bearing one anothers burdens" (Gal 6:2) -- then that is not "shooting the wounded." We must love each other, especially those in the faith (John 13:35), and ignoring a sin problem is not love. Addressing it in love is not "shooting the wounded." It's dressing wounds. We must not be those judgmental stereotypes that reject repentant sinners that Christ has forgiven. That is repugnant ... and dangerous (Matt 6:15). Let's not be that kind of shooter.

Problems

Playing off yesterday's post along with the book of Daniel, I was looking at the famous story of Daniel in the lions' den. The story takes place in Daniel 6. What was previously the Babylonian empire had been conquered by the Medes and the Persians and King Darius was in power. He appointed 120 satraps -- governors of the day -- to manage the kingdom and put commissioners over them and put Daniel over all the commissioners. Of course, the gang wasn't happy, but finding a flaw in Daniel was impossible, apparently, so they decided to create one. They suggested to the king that he should ban anyone asking anything of any god or man other than the king for 30 days. (Imagine that. "Hey, buddy, can you spare a dime?" Bam! You're being fed to the lions.) And the king's ego fell for it. We pick the story up, then, when Daniel saw the law enacted.

Now when Daniel knew that the document was signed, he entered his house (now in his roof chamber he had windows open toward Jerusalem); and he continued kneeling on his knees three times a day, praying and giving thanks before his God, as he had been doing previously. (Dan 6:10)

Interesting, isn't it? The text makes it clear that Daniel was fully cognizant of the law. He knew that his praying to His God had been banned. So he surreptitiously continued to pray, but in a manner that wouldn't get him in trouble. Oh ... no ... that's not right. No, Daniel prayed where he was clearly visible, and he prayed multiple times a day.

You know how that worked out for him. His enemies (which, by the way, did not include King Darius) made sure they saw him breaking the law, then ran and tattled on him to the king and reminded the king that 1) he himself signed the law and 2) the law could not be changed. Out of options, the king had him thrown into the lions' den per the law. I love how this pagan king held out hope for Daniel because of his God. "The king spoke and said to Daniel, 'Your God whom you constantly serve will Himself deliver you'" (Dan 6:16). The king didn't sleep all night and, in the morning, went to see if Daniel's God had indeed saved Daniel. He had. The king was delighted and tossed the group that had sought Daniel's death to the punishment they had sought for Daniel. Then he made a decree (similar to Nebudchadnezzar before him) that Daniel's God was God indeed and everyone had better recognize and respect Him (Dan 6:25-29).

It's as good story, but what can we take away from it? Daniel had problems. I mean, Daniel's "offense" was following his God faithfully, but his contemporaries hated him enough for it that they sought to have him canceled ... permanently. And the trick worked and Daniel did not avoid the lions' den. Problems on problems. And we have problems, too. I cannot imagine why Christians believe we shouldn't. We do. But Daniel had to decide. Will he wholeheartedly continue to blatantly serve his God, or would he "go underground"? You know, still believe and all, but maybe just keep it quiet? I mean, what if they called him a "kingphobe"? What if they labeled him a scofflaw? What if he failed to observe the right pronouns or bow to the "love is love" police, as it were? Just appear to go along and keep quiet. Daniel stood for God in the face of ... problems. And I wonder if we are doing the same. I wonder what level of "problem" will be the point at which we no longer quite trust our God? If it costs us our reputation? (Isn't it our reputation that prevents many of us from sharing the gospel with others?) What about our livelihood? What if standing for Christ cost us our jobs? Our freedom? Our lives? Do we cave to our "problems" or do we say our God is sufficient for us and we will trust and serve Him regardless of the consequences? Which, you see, was yesterday's question.

How Much Faith?

Recently I asked how much faith was required for us to be saved. I'm not asking that this time. Remember when those friends brought their paralyzed buddy to Jesus to be healed and they couldn't get in (Mark 2:1-12)? They climbed up onto the roof, made a hole, and dropped him in. And Jesus healed him. Oh, but not at first. Remember? Mark says, "And Jesus, seeing their faith, said to the paralytic, 'Son, your sins are forgiven'" (Mark 2:5). Jesus started out with the real problem. Based on their faith, He forgave his sin. This, of course, upset the scribes, so Jesus asked them,

"Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven'; or to say, 'Get up, and pick up your pallet and walk'? "But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins" -- He said to the paralytic, "I say to you, get up, pick up your pallet and go home." (Mark 2:9-11)

Which is easier?

I've noticed a difference in my faith in Christ's saving me and my faith in Christ in the day-to-day. Believing that Christ has saved is ... well ... fairly simple. I mean, there's nothing to see, nothing to look for. I can't verify it, go to a doctor and say, "Are my sins forgiven?" So I take it ... on faith. Nothing to prove it; nothing to refute it. But on that day-to-day stuff, it's different. It's much harder. Because, you see, we think that if God is managing everything, keeping His promises to supply our needs, giving us peace and joy and all that, filling us with His Spirit ... all those promises we know of, then life would be ... better. It would be peachy. Smooth. Trouble-free. And it's not. And when it's not, we question. Is God trustworthy here? Is He at work? Is He really in charge? Can I have confidence in Him?

It's kind of like that encounter from the roof. We can trust Him with forgiveness, but will we trust Him with healing? It's easy to say, "Your sins are forgiven," and with no contrary events to refute it, we can take that. How about the "real" stuff? The down-to-earth stuff? How much faith do you have? Just the easy part, where you can believe you're saved without any need for proof or performance? What about those other things? What about trusting Him for His providence, His empowerment, His meeting your needs? All that? Why don't we step out in bold faith far more often? Is it just that we don't trust Him enough? And whose fault is that? Certainly not His.

Vain Repetition

This is more of a musing than usual. One of the things I dislike about some modern worship music (and, by the way, it isn't limited to "modern" -- it just seems more prevalent) is the repetition. Sometimes these songs repeat the same line ad infinitum. And I think, "Is that the best you can do? Is that the best that you have to offer our infinite God?" And it makes me think about Jesus's instructions when He told His listeners in the Sermon on the Mount,

"When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you. And when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their many words. (Matt 6:5-7)

He followed that with a "prayer structure" that we have come to call "The Lord's Prayer" (Matt 6:9-13). I'm wondering, then, about that phrase (in the NASB, here) "meaningless repetition." The King James calls it "vain repetitions." What did He mean by that? Various translations use various phrases. There is "the same words again and again" (BBE), "talk on and on" (CEV), "empty phrases" (ESV), "babbling vain words" (LITV), or "babble repetitiously" (NET), for instance. What was He talking about?

The concept of simple repetition is not in view here since Jesus Himself employed it (as in "Truly, truly, I say unto you ..."). The seraphim used it ("Holy, holy, holy"). The psalms use it (see, for instance, Psa 136). We use this method in our own lives when we want to emphasize something. That's clearly not what Jesus was saying. The biblical text uses one word -- βαττολογέω -- which is a combination of "to stutter" and "words". It suggests noise, babble, mindless repeating not for what it says, but just to repeat. Jesus said, "Don't." The irony, of course, is that we do this on a regular basis. We quote the Lord's Prayer so much that we're not even meaning the words. We sing Amazing Grace so much we don't think about what we're singing. We sit through Communion so often that we often aren't thinking about what it was intended to remind us about. We've heard, "I do" so often that we aren't even considering what is being vowed.

I don't know. Like I said, it's more of a musing. Is singing repetitively -- either the same song or the same phrase -- "meaningless repetition"? Is taking Communion mindlessly "vain repetition"? Are we guilty of doing what Jesus told us not to because of our worship songs or our worship practices? Obviously, if that is the "vain repetitions" that Jesus protested, they are so because we let it be so. We don't engage our brains. We let repetition become meaningless. Is that what we're doing?

The Important Question

My wife and I will be traveling in a few weeks across the country to a wedding of a niece. It has me thinking, again, about things. Do we Christians (because I'm absolutely certain that unbelievers don't care) ask the right questions going into a marriage? Or are we asking the world's questions with the world's outlook in mind? If marriage is as Scripture defines it -- the livelong union of a man and a woman for purposes of procreation and mutual support -- what kinds of things should someone considering marriage be looking at? This article lays out some good questions a man must ask himself before proposing marriage. These are important questions. And, in the same way, there are lots of important questions in life that we might easily gloss over but shouldn't.

So often we face life without asking, "What would God want?" We don't wonder if Scripture has something to say on our choices. We often don't ask other believers for insight into our selections. We often just proceed as if our daily choices are "secular" and we only need to consult God for the "sacred" things, which, as it turns out, is a false dichotomy. How do I know that? There are commands given for specific instances -- forgive, bear one anothers burdens, etc. -- that appear "sacred," but there are others that are universal, touching on everything. Commands like "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind" (Matt 22:37) and "Love one another, just as I have loved you" (John 15:12) (which is significantly more than "as you love yourself") affect all aspects of life. Ultimately, there is one overarching command that must be in mind at all times. It encompasses "Love the Lord your God" and "Love one another" as well as every other command. What is that? "Whatever you do, do all to the glory of God" (1 Cor 10:31).

That's our singular question, isn't it? That ought to be our first consideration. "Is my choice of spouse going to glorify God?" And later, "Am I glorifying God in my marriage?" And everywhere else. "Do I glorify God at work?" "Does my choice of what to wear today glorify God?" "Is my conversation with others glorifying God?" If the command is "Do all to the glory of God," perhaps we aren't taking that command seriously enough. Even on Sunday.

News Weakly - 6/15/2024

Striking A Deal
The U.S. suggested a ceasefire resolution for the Israeli/Hamas conflict to the UN Security Council, which they accepted. Now Hamas says they're ready to accept it (as in "negotiate over the details"). Essentially the deal would be that Israel would withdraw and Hamas would swap the remaining hostages for some detainees in Israel. Essentially, the deal would be that Israel backs off, giving Hamas what they want, and the few remaining hostages who weren't already killed could be released. It gives "striking a deal" a whole new meaning. Seems like a bargain ... for Hamas. Sadly, you know the world of pro-Palestine protesters won't be pleased until Israel is erased.

Words Matter
Question. If a "pastor" is someone who takes care of the "sheep" that belong to Christ, can someone who fleeces them -- steals from them -- still be called a "pastor"? I don't think so. Words matter.

Anyone Need an Out-of-Work Bishop?
Recently the pope issued an apology for using what constitutes an Italian "homophobic slur.". Now two sources are complaining that he did it again ... in a closed-door meeting. So, two bishops in a closed-door meeting with the pope opted to violate the intent of "closed-door" and turn a private comment into a public offense. Exactly how the pope could offend people who never heard what he said is beyond me. I'm no fan of the pope, but if I was in charge, there would be a couple of bishops who would be looking for work right about now.

Another Win for Reason
A transgender swimmer who goes by the name of Lia Thomas has lost his bid to compete with biological females in the Olympics (or any "Elite Events"). He argued that their rule banning biological males from competing against biological females is discriminatory. Just to be clear, it is. All rules discriminate. That's not at issue. What's at issue is whether or not it's right. The question is whether or not a biological male (with the biological advantages that go with it) should be allowed to compete against those with lesser biological abilities simply because he "identifies" as one with lesser biological abilities. Let's not lose sight of the truth here.

A Narrow Lens
The Southern Baptist Convention narrowly rejected a ban on all female pastors in all instances. (They required 66% and only got 61%.) The headline I saw read, "Baptists Uphold Equality," which is so far from the truth that it hurts. Yes, Scripture bars women from "teaching or having authority over" men (1 Tim 2:11-14). Does that mean that the Bible opposes equality? Absolutely not (Gal 3:28)! It does not bar women from ministering to women. Indeed, it commands it (Titus 2:3-5). So women pastors who are in children's ministry or women's ministry wouldn't violate Scripture. It's not about equality! But, of course, the narrow lens of the world won't see that.

No Justice, No Peace
The House has decided to hold Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt of Congress for refusing to turn over recordings from Biden's classified documents case. Garland said, "It is deeply disappointing that this House of Representatives has turned a serious congressional authority into a partisan weapon." Right. As opposed to Garland and the Dems who have repeatedly used the justice system as a political weapon against the likes of Trump and his followers. Got it.

Mad, Mad, Mad World
Cheyenne, Wyoming, has a new mayoral candidate in the mix. It's an AI chatbot named "VIC" created by a library worker. If Cheyenne would actually vote in an AI with no conscience, no accountability, and no humanity, they've lost their minds. If an AI can be designated a "real person" and a human being in the womb cannot, we have lost our collective minds. Okay, well, maybe that's already a given ...

Don't Worry; Bee Happy
One story says that Democrats are hoping that Senator Fetterman's car crash (actual story) caused sufficient brain damage that he might become a Democrat again. In another story, CNN (the Bee's leading competition for fake news) is claiming that Hunter Biden's conviction is Russian disinformation. And some wily college pro-Palestians have escaped prosecution by defacing a pride mural (actual story) with "Free Gaza."

Whistle a Happy Tune

In a variety of places Scripture calls on Christians to be united. Paul, in his letter to the church at Philippi, says,

If there is any encouragement in Christ, if there is any consolation of love, if there is any fellowship of the Spirit, if any affection and compassion, make my joy complete by being of the same mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose. (Php 2:1-2)

From the Psalms (e.g., Psa 133:1) to the New Testament (e.g., John 17:21; Eph 4:3-4; Col 3:14), we are called to be "one." In what sense?

It would be easy to conclude that unity was our primary goal, so we need to do what it takes to be united. If that is the aim, compromise would be mandatory and we'd have to seek the lowest common denominator. But is that what God is calling us to? Clearly not. In that Philippians text, the unity in view was "one mind," sure, but also one love, one spirit, one purpose. We know it is not "sameness" (1 Cor 12:1-27). The Body of Christ is designed to have and requires diversity. So when Jesus spoke on Christian unity (John 17:22-23), He did it with intention. "Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth" (John 17:17).

Our instructions are to be united, but not simply for the sake of unity. We are to be united in truth. When a piano tuner goes in to tune pianos, he takes a standard -- a tuning fork. All pianos are tuned to that standard so, while all pianos don't play the same songs, they have the same tuning. When an orchestra tunes up at the beginning of a performance, they have one note played by one instrument. All other instruments tune to that one note so, while they all play different parts, they all have the same tuning. We are called to play different parts, but to be united by being tuned to the truth. That truth is found in Christ (John 14:6) and the Word. Without it, we're just ... whistling in the dark.

Simply Complex

When Paul wrote to the church in Rome to explain to them the gospel, he started with God's righteous wrath. He told them that "the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness" (Rom 1:18). The violation was the suppression of the truth, you see. The truth about God. So what is this "ungodliness" and "unrighteousness"? "Ungodliness" refers to violations in our relationship with God and "unrighteousness" refers to violations in our relationship with others. So, just what is that violation?

At one point Jesus was approached and asked, "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?" (Matt 22:36). Jesus didn't appear to hesitate.

And He said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets." (Matt 22:37-40)

The "great and first commandment" is in relation to God. The simple requirement is to love Him ... with all of your being -- with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. Nothing held back. Nothing reserved for you. The standard of "godliness" is perfect love for God with all you have and are. Easy, right? I've known some less-than-honest people who said it was, but I've never met or heard of another human being who was actually capable of that level of loving God. Those who claim it fool themselves. The rest of us are, sadly, aware of our shortcoming. The second commandment -- to love your neighbor as yourself -- is the standard of "righteousness," right relationship with others. Love your neighbors at least no less than you love yourself. And it doesn't take a genius to figure out none of that do that perfectly either.

Paul explained that the gospel is the power of God to save those who believe because it reveals God's righteousness (Rom 1:16-17). The first point of God's righteousness is His wrath toward those who violate God by failing to relate rightly toward Him and toward others in the process of suppressing what we know about God. If the standard of right relationship with God and right relationship with others is a love that transcends self, clearly we're falling short. Clearly we deserve God's wrath. Clearly we need a Savior. You'd think "Love God and love your neighbor" would be simple, but it's not, is it? Simple to say, I suppose, but not so simple to do for self-centered, sinful creatures like us. Thanks be to God for His indescribable gift of His Son who paid for our sin!

Send In The Clones

One of my favorite Christian musicians was Steve Taylor. The first song I ever heard from him was titled I Want to be a Clone. The idea is that so many in the Christian realm seem to want to make all Christians the same. One line says, "If you wanna be one of His you gotta act like one of us." Whether or not we consciously think like that, I think there are a lot who believe that "I'm a pretty good Christian" so "Christians should be like me." Of course, then, the problem with other Christians is they're not.

It is quite a relief to read of Paul's concept of "the Body of Christ." Assuring us that there are a variety of gifts and ministries of the Spirit and that everyone has at least one (1 Cor 12:4-7), Paul claims, "The body is one and yet has many members" (1 Cor 12:12-14). He explains on one hand that you can't say, "Because I'm not like that person, I'm not part of the body" (1 Cor 12:15-16) and, on the other hand, how little sense it makes to say, "You should all be like me" (1 Cor 12:17-19). All of us need the others (1 Cor 12:21) and the "less showy parts" are more necessary than the "more impressive parts" (1 Cor 12:22-25). It is true, then, that all believers are part of the Body of Christ, but the unity Scripture repeatedly calls for is not uniformity because God wants to use all types.

People who know me are happy to point out that, in a lot of ways, I'm not like others. That used to bother me, but Paul's explanation of the Body is very helpful. We are not all teachers, all preachers, all prophets, all healers (1 Cor 12:29-30). God doesn't want a sea of sameness. He wants individuals doing individual ministries with individual gifts for the good of the Body. A gift of service is just as important as a gift of teaching. Ministry to the Body -- not status -- is the point. Unlike in the world, all of us are necessary and useful and have a part to play. I don't want to be a clone. I want to serve God in the way He has designed me to serve ... and not in the way He has designed you to.

What Are You Saying?

In Matthew 12 we have that moment when the Pharisees (dangerously) accused Jesus of doing miracles by the power of Satan (Matt 12:9-24) Bad news, guys. Jesus warned them, "Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come" (Matt 12:32). The classic unforgivable sin. At this point in the narrative, Jesus went on to talk about trees and tongues. A good tree produces good fruit and a bad tree produces bad fruit (Matt 12:33). In the same way, He says, what comes out of your mouth is a product of your heart (Matt 12:34-35). And then He makes this chilling statement. "I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment" (Matt 12:36). Well, if you're paying attention, I'd think that you (like me) might start examining your careless words. Notice, it's not "evil" or "bad" or "offensive," but merely "careless." What does that even mean?

Other translations offer "idle" for that word. The Greek is essentially "not working." It's a word that does nothing. It refers to thoughtless, useless words. Paul refers to "silly talk and coarse jesting" (Eph 5:4). Job talks about "unprofitable talk" (Job 15:3). Solomon warned that those who babble are like piercings of the sword (Prov 12:18). The standard, then, is not merely just evil talk (Matt 12:34). We get that. No, it's even idle, careless, apparently nonfunctional talk. Conversation without purpose.

This is a bit unnerving because all of us have pointless conversations at time. Oh, sometimes our "silly talk" actually has a purpose (like breaking the ice or disarming a situation), but how much of what we have to say is idle? How much is doing nothing? It appears that words -- our communication -- are extremely important to God. Wasting words is a bad option. Perhaps that's why we are to be quick to hear and slow to speak (James 1:19). And the real concern, according to Jesus, is the fact that the things you say are an expression of what's in your heart. If you were to analyze how you speak, what would it say about your heart condition? Especially if "idle" or "careless" is classified as a problem.

Been There, Done That

For Christians we have biblical certainty that those who are in God's hand cannot be removed (John 10:27-29). We have absolute assurance that He "is able to keep you from stumbling, and to make you stand in the presence of His glory blameless with great joy" (Jude 1:24). These texts and many others are clear that if we are one of His own, it is a sure thing that we will remain so. But ... how many of us have wondered, "Am I really saved?" Why? Well, almost without fail, it's because we all struggle with sin. Often repeated sin. "I just repented of that last week and here it is again." There is not one of us who does not sin and we hate it ... and do it again. So we may well ask, "Do I actually belong to Him, or am I fooling myself?" And it's not a bad question. Paul told us to "Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves!" (2 Cor 13:5). Jesus warned of those who thought they were His but weren't (Matt 7:21-23). It happens. So we should ask. But, what if we ask and come to the conclusion that we are trusting Christ alone for our hope of salvation and can do nothing else? What do we do then?

Paul experienced the same issue. Yes, the Apostle Paul. "For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate," he wrote (Rom 7:15). "I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members" (Rom 7:22-23). Have you experienced that? (Be assured. Every true believer has.) Paul cries out, "Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death?" (Rom 7:24). Note his answer to himself. "Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus" (Rom 8:1). Did you catch that? He isn't expecting perfection in this life, although he is striving for it (Php 3:12-14). He doesn't think that he will arrive at it in his lifetime. Neither his "proof of salvation" nor his comfort despite his failures don't lie in sinless perfection. His hope lies in the absolute assurance that there is no condemnation when you belong to Christ.

I would be surprised (and a bit skeptical) if you, too, had never experienced this questioning. I think the realization that we are not free of sin and cannot seem to get free of sin and we hate it is the universal experience of all true believers. In fact, I see it as an evidence of faith, since those who don't know God don't have the same Spirit in them convicting them of sin. So I want to remind you. We are not saved by attaining perfection. We are saved by being in Christ Jesus. In Christ, we no longer have condemnation ... even if we condemn ourselves. If we confess our sin, He's faithful and just to forgive us our sin ... and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness -- past, present, and future (1 John 1:9). Our salvation isn't reliant on us; it depends on Him. Our perseverance is not our doing; it's His (Php 2:12-13). And we can rest fully in Him knowing that He is able even though we know we are not.

What Does Our Music Tell Us About Our Beliefs?

Paul wrote,

Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God. (Col 3:16)

I've been in churches all over the country for my entire life, and in my experience very few have connected "psalms and hymns and spiritual songs" with either "let the word of Christ richly dwell within you" or "teaching and admonishing one another." Oh, there have been some, but not a lot. Why is that? I'm not sure, but I think the kind of worship music a church uses can tell us a lot about their theology.

A lot of churches have shifted to contemporary songs because they find the older ones "boring." Now, I'm not at all suggesting that "contemporary songs" are the equivalent of "bad theology." Not at all. There are some outstanding contemporary worship songs. It's just that so many are not. The most popular theme, of course, is "God loves me." Too many are what is termed "Jesus is my boyfriend" songs that speak vaguely enough about that love that it could be sung as a secular relationship song. And, of course, there's the ongoing communication problem where we hear "God loves me," run "love" through our modern lexicon, and come away with "God has deeply warm affection for me." (This is an anomaly, but one "church" I heard about in California incorporated sex acts in their services because "God is love" and "Love is sex." You see what I mean.) If not the "God is love" theme, the general sense of most modern worship music is to engender warm feelings toward God. They use music as an appeal to the emotions largely because music itself has the capacity to bypass the brain and engage with emotions. So if "worship" is "happy feelings toward God," then that's good music for church. But that's not worship and that's not what Scripture calls for.

These mistakes and others would be avoided if the aim of worship music was to incorporate Scripture into our lives and to teach and admonish through music. If the worship leadership was aiming at teaching and admonishing in music, I think we'd see some real changes in our churches. Of course, it wouldn't appeal to those who come for the entertainment. But ... is that a bad thing? Is our worship music declaring that our good feelings are paramount, or are we being turned to God and His Word? I think the answer speaks to our basic theology.

News Weekly - 6/8/2024

Trump Made Me Do It
With 5 months before the election Biden has signed the order to close the southern border. "Trump gave me no choice." Wait ... what? That's what he said. Then, "We must face the simple truth, to protect America as a land that welcomes immigrants, we must secure the border and secure it now." Umm, yes ... I think that's what a lot of America has been saying ... for a long time. Too bad he was "forced" by his political opponent to act. (And to top off the madness, Trump promised to reverse Biden's closing of the border. Is he going for a policy position of "Whatever Biden wants I don't"?)

Unexpected
A Maricopa County judge has ruled that Arizona Governor Hobbs (D) acted illegally by avoiding state law in appointing allies in charge of 13 state agencies while, at the same time, she is being investigated for taking $400,000 from an organization headed by a CEO who was on her inaugural committee that ended up with the organization getting more money from the state. (On a sidenote, Hobbs was the Secretary of State in charge of the 2020 election contested by Trump and, last year, called for Trump to be indicted in Arizona for the crime of believing there were election irregularities.) Of course, none of these accusations can be true because she's a Democrat and they don't do this kind of thing.

Equality?
In Colorado the Republican party called for LGBTQ Pride flags to be burned. I personally think it's mindless -- what difference will it make if you burn a few "pride" flags? -- but I wonder if the left will be outraged at the burning of "pride" flags when they're unconcerned at the burning of American flags?

Those Crazy Christians
The Southern Baptist Convention voted to expel two churches (One was the Rick Warren's megachurch, Saddleback) from the SBC for having female pastors. A ratio something like 9 for expulsion to 1 against. Those nutty Southern Baptists, leaning so far into Scripture like that (1 Tim 2:11-14). They're even voting on making it a policy. What's wrong with them? Everyone knows the Bible was all wrong on that point. Of course, the media won't get it and boldly declared they're aiming to "ban women from most leadership roles." Not really. Just the ones Scripture talks about -- leading and teaching men. (They specified just pastors.) But, of course, truth is rarely an issue here.

Lawfare
I learned a new term the other day: lawfare. "What's that?" you might ask. It's built on an original "warfare" in which people use the law -- the justice system -- to wage war. You know, like we're seeing today. Trump was convicted of juggling the books, but there are so many questions. I'm not even a Trump fan, but even I can see real problems here. The selection of the judge was ostensibly random, but that's certainly in question. The prosecutor merged a felony charge by connecting a New York misdemeanor to a federal campaign finance law which, as it turned out, was not the charge. The judge prevented the defense from bringing in an expert witness who was going to testify about federal campaign finance law. The specific crime was not specified throughout the course of the trial. And at the end, the judge instructed the jury that they didn't all have to agree on what the crime actually was. Now they're talking about sending him to jail without protection, which is surely tantamount to an assassination attempt. For some reason the anti-Trump crowd sees all that and says, "Hmmm, seems pretty just to me." Go figure.

California ... Again
California is moving ahead with CA SB53, a bill aimed at taxation and movie picture credit ... oh, wait ... they redlined that ... oh, okay, it's firearms storage. Yeah, I see the connection. Not at all. They don't care. Bait and switch. So if you aren't holding your weapon, it must be stored in a California/DOJ-approved container. First offense will get you fined and lose the right to own a firearm for a year. After that it can be jail time. Right up there with the coming bill that would require new cars to beep at you if you're speeding. In other words, California continues to invade your life in every detail.

Sharp as a Laser Bee
Ouch! In the wake of Trump's felony conviction, the Bee pointed out that American voters can look forward to choosing between a convicted felon and an unconvicted felon in the next election. Nice. On that "Trump made me do it" story on Biden closing the border, the Bee claimed Biden announced plans to pretend to care about the border until November 6. (Do you suppose Trump made him do that, too?) And, apropos to nothing, there was the story about the man who resolved to be productive but ended up deeply into a Wikipedia story about the great molasses flood of 1919. Oh, wait ... there was a great molasses flood of 1919. Hang on a minute, I'm going to ...

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

The Power of the Tongue

It was James who wrote, "For we all stumble in many ways. If anyone does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect man, able to bridle the whole body as well" (James 3:2). My regular readers know I've often made a big deal about the use of words. I would like to point out, then, that I'm not alone. James warns about the power and danger of the tongue (James 3:2-12). I think, if you look around, you might be able to see it. You are certainly a victim of it. You might even be doing it.

We are way too flippant about our use of words. There are lots of easy examples. Our society uses "homosexual" as an identity rather than an act, so we do, too. Our culture claims "love is love" without the slightest regard for the nonsense of the claim. (Do we all really believe that "love of pizza" and "love of mother" and "love of my pet" and "love of my spouse" are all the same thing?) Today we tell our kids, "Don't let anyone stop you from reaching your dream." Really? What if that dream is to be a serial killer? Shouldn't we actually evaluate these "dreams"? Almost all of us have embraced the "self-esteem" concept that says, first, "We all must love ourselves" alongside, "We don't." The Bible disagrees (Eph 5:29). Today, warning someone that they're overweight and it could be detrimental is "fat shaming" instead of "concern for their physical wellbeing." We -- all of us -- have incorporated lies into our vocabulary and given the nod to our societal fabrications of identity, choice, love, sex, marriage ... on and on. We've relinquished words with their intended concepts and accepted substitute concepts without new words for the original concepts. Those original concepts, then, are tossed out, marginalized, erased. Biblical love, marriage, identity, sin, and more cannot be discussed because the words are gone.

I often find myself walking a fine line here. As an example, our culture (and, therefore, most of my readers) think of "LGBT+" as a monolithic group whose identity is in their sexuality. If I want to speak of those who support and/or practice sex between the same sexes or alternate genders as a group, the most expedient way is to use their language -- "LGBT+" -- but I don't actually believe in their concept. Just a single example. There is so much more. I find that if I am to actually communicate the ideas in my head to my readers, I am not allowed the words and would have to use too many other words and definitions to accomplish it. So how can I not stumble in what I say and still be understood in today's world? It's a dilemma.

A Defining Moment

In July of 2008 California's Supreme Court ruled not only that marriage between two people of the same sex was okay, but that it was mandated. That is, as part of their ruling, they required the state to start issuing licenses. Mind you, the people had voted to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. The court, instead, admitted that they were knowingly violating, in their own words, the "longstanding, traditional definition of marriage" and establishing a new one. Well, no. Just rejecting the longstanding, traditional one. In response, in November of 2008, the people voted again to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman, but this time they did so by making it part of the state constitution. Of course, the court struck that down, too, and we know the outcome, but here's the question. How do we define marriage?

I have long said that marriage was the lifelong union of a man and a woman for purposes of procreation and mutual support. Most people will say, "Fine, that's your definition, but it's just opinion." Actually, it's biblical. More to the point, the One who created the world and created male and female also created and defined marriage. I go with His definition. Go ahead. Look it up in the Bible under "M" for "marriage." No, of course not. The Bible isn't a dictionary. But we do have a definition ... from the lips of Jesus. When the Pharisees asked Jesus if there was any lawful reason to divorce (Matt 19:3), Jesus replied,

"Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate." (Matt 19:4-6)

Jesus was not obscure or unclear. Notice what He did there. First, He quoted Scripture to answer them because Scripture is authoritative. "Have you not read ...?" Then He gave the source. "He that created them ... said ..." Keep up now. Jesus is saying that Scripture says that God gave us this institution of marriage. It's not merely a human institution. Then Jesus broke down the definition. First, it is "a man" and "his wife." (In the Greek, that "wife" is gunē -- woman. It is translated "wife" because of the context.) Biblically, according to God, marriage is purely between two heterosexuals, one man and one woman. No other options. Second, they were leaving their own families. Marriage established a new family. Thirdly, they became "one flesh." The sexual aspect of marriage (and marriage alone -- all other sex was defined as sin) was a union (cp 1 Cor 6:16). The sex act unites in more than a merely physical way, which is one of the reasons it was designed for and limited to marriage. Finally, since it is God that joins them, it is a lifelong union. We have no right to sever that tie.

Jesus was not unclear. Marriage, established by and defined by God, is limited to two people, one male and one female, consumated in their sexual union, for purposes of creating a new family (procreation) and mutual support (Gen 2:18). I didn't make that up. It's not a simply traditional or conservative view. It is a biblical view. Those who opt to alter it (and, by the way, I have yet to see anyone who adopts the "same-sex marriage" option offer any other definition with any sort of support at all) do so in opposition to Scripture which claims that it was God who established and defined it. Therefore, to do as that court in 2008 did -- reject the "longstanding, traditional definition of marriage" -- is a rejection of God and His Word. Do so at your own peril. As for me, I have no room to maneuver. Here I stand. I can do no other.

Not Good Enough

In Psalms 37 David writes, "Delight yourself in YHWH; and He will give you the desires of your heart" (Psa 37:4). Now, you get the point, right? If the desires of your heart are in the Lord, He will satisfy those desires. The Bible talks a lot about being satisfied with God. In Psalm 16 David writes, "You make known to me the path of life; in Your presence there is fullness of joy; at Your right hand are pleasures forevermore" (Psa 16:11). "Pleasures forevermore." We know with confidence "He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things?" (Rom 8:32). Scripture makes it clear that we have every reason to count on God for our best interests and satisfaction.

So we know this and, on Sunday, we go to church and sing His praises. We thank Him for His goodness and praise Him for His grace and mercy. We even have a term for God: "Providence." Because God is our provider. But we often have a different message, don't we? You and I know it as "sin," but what is sin? We know Jesus is Lord, but sin says, "You're not the boss of me." We know that "Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above" (James 1:17), but sin says, "That's not enough." In the Old Testament, God referred to Israel's idolatry as adultery. Why? Because He was Israel's "husband" and she was His "wife," but she said, "You're not good enough; I need another, better husband." Thus, in the same way, every sin we commit is telling God, "You're not my boss" and "You're not good enough for me."

If we could keep that in mind, I think it would have to have an impact on our lives. The psalmist wrote, "I have stored up Your word in my heart, that I might not sin against You" (Psa 119:11). If we kept His goodness and authority foremost in our minds and found our greatest satisfaction in Him, perhaps we'd stop hunting around for satisfaction elsewhere. And if we recognized what we were saying to our beloved Savior when we sin, we'd be less willing to sin. I think that's a certainty.

Dwell On These Things

This verse was rolling around in my head the last couple weeks. I'm sure you've seen it.

Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things. (Php 4:8)

I thought, "Do I?" Truthfully, I'd have to answer, "Not enough." In fact, not nearly enough. What do I "dwell on"? There's the whole problem of the "alphabet community" -- LGBT ... whatever else is tacked on. They're redefining morality, marriage, sex, love, even trying to redefine Christianity, and so much more. And I hear, "Dwell on these things, not those." There's the entire political scene, with Trump and Biden, the right and the left, the GOP and the Dems, the November election, the serious questions of political weaponization of the judicial branch and the assault on the judicial branch by the legislative branch and ... oh, so much stuff under that term, "political scene." And I hear, "Dwell on these things, not those." Or how about today's media? Any news source you want to consider. Do we have a reliable source? Is anyone accurately reporting the facts, or are all our sources just giving us their spin? Why does it look so much like Orwell's 1984? And I hear, "Dwell on these things, not those." And those big, international concerns -- Ukraine vs Russia, Israel vs Gaza, Iran and Yemen and all the fighting we see. There are international conspiracies like the World Economic Forum that openly suggest we end capitalism and democracy and are quietly working toward that end ... in my very backyard, even. And I hear, "Dwell on these things, not those." There are closer issues like will my retirement hold out against inflation or why are people so evil to one another so much of the time or who taught that guy to drive? Things like that. And I hear, "Dwell on these things, not those." The list goes on. You know how it is. Our modern world is in turmoil politically, environmentally, financially, geopolitically, physically ... on and on. So much to concern ourselves over. And I hear, "Dwell on these things, not those."

I wonder what that would look like? I wonder how it would be dwelling only on that which is true, honorable, right, pure, lovely, of good repute. If, instead of looking at the storms all around, we were looking at those things that are excellent and worthy of praise, wouldn't we be living differently? Wouldn't we be worrying less and wringing our hands less? Wouldn't we be calmer, less angry, less agitated? Wouldn't we be closer to the joy and peace that Christ came to bestow on us? Funny thing. There may not be a lot we can do about so much of what's going on in our world, but our failure, even refusal to "dwell on these things" rather than all that other garbage is something we can do. They can't prevent us. We are the ones that aren't doing it. And then we complain to God about how things are so bad. And He's saying, "Dwell on these things, not those." Why not? My high school driving instructor told me, "Don't watch the parked cars; keep your eyes where you're going. You will always go where you are looking." So where do we want to go? The good or the bad? I suppose, more to the point, who are you going to obey? The world and all its uproar or God: "Dwell on these things, not those."

Short-Handed

In the book of Daniel, Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar had that dream about multiple kingdoms (Daniel 3). Later, he had a second dream. Daniel had done such a good job of interpreting the first that the king asked Daniel to do the second. Daniel was dismayed (Dan 4:19), but the king insisted on the truth. The dream foretold that the king would be driven from mankind, eat grass, and be drenched with dew for "seven periods of time" (Dan 4:24-25). The text goes on to say that a year later, the king was looking at his kingdom and boasting to himself about his power and majesty. And the prophecy came true. He went mad. He ran out, ate grass, and was basically wild (Dan 4:30-33). After the prescribed amount of time, he returned to his senses and blessed the Most High and Him alone. In his praise, he made an astounding statement.

"All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, but He does according to His will in the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of earth; and no one can ward off His hand or say to Him, 'What have You done?'" (Dan 4:35)

Nebuchadnezzar was a pagan king who got slapped in the face by God. This king claimed that "no one can ward off His hand." He claimed that we do not have the right to challenge God -- "What have You done?"

I wonder how many of us would claim the same? I mean, how many of us faithful believers? How many of us actually believe that God does whatever He pleases? It seems to be a prevalent perspective that we can limit God by our sin or lack of faith. We seem to believe that if we don't do what we ought, God cannot accomplish what He intends. I am constantly amazed at this notion. Do we really believe that the God of Creation can be limited by His creation? Is that not what Paul warned about when he warned Christians "not to think more highly of himself than he ought to think" (Rom 12:3)? Is that really the God of Scripture? Not that I can see. God's hand is not that short. You can count on it.

The Big Picture

As it turns out, we are human. I know! What a surprise, right? Of course not, but it appears that we assume that because we are human and "the top of the food chain," so to speak, God must be a lot like us. That's largely because we don't know the idea of "holy" as it was intended -- "other." But if you examine, for instance, the life of Christ, you'll find that He spoke in human terms but saw things in much larger terms.

That was patently obvious at the Sermon on the Mount when Jesus redefined things like "murder" (Matt 5:21-26) and "adultery" (Matt 5:27-30) from God's view rather than our own. But He seemed to do that most of the time. I already wrote about how He spoke of the "poor" and those who "hunger and thirst," for instance, but meant it in a spiritual sense rather than a merely earthly sense. Or think about His language regarding the bread and wine. He scared away disciples when He told listeners, "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day" (John 6:54). Really, Jesus? Cannibalism?? Of course not! He was speaking of spiritual things, bigger things. He used the ordinary to refer to the extraordinary. Or consider how confused His disciples were. The Old Testament promised a Savior who would establish His "kingdom" (e.g., Dan 7:27). Jesus's first gospel presentation was, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel" (Mark 1:15). So His disciples repeatedly asked Him, "Are you going to do it now?" They expected freedom from Rome ... maybe even Herod. They expected Him to establish His kingdom. And He did, but not in the way they thought. His kingdom, He explained to Pilate, "is not of this world" (John 18:36). His kingdom was established through His death and resurrection. He reigns now, currently from heaven and eventually on earth. His kingdom already is; we just have too small of a vision to notice.

God is not a man like us. He is not troubled with tunnel vision or narrow thinking. He is not concerned in the same way that we are about the here and now, the everday difficulties, the "little stuff," but has a much bigger version that incorporates all things to work together for good. So when you find life pressing or oppressing, be assured He is still in charge, still on hand, still working all things. Always for good. Always for the best. Always for a "best" that, in so many cases, we can't even imagine. He sees the bigger picture. And He likes it, because it's His.

News Weakly - 6/1/24

Disturbing News
Pew Research last year reported that half of Americans assiduously get their news from the most reliable of all sources ... social media. A place without control or verification where any claim can be made without consequences. The joke was always, "I know it's true; I read it on the Internet." Apparently, to at least 50% of Americans, it's no joke. They really believe it. In a world where 50% get their news from a mainstream media that has decided their job is not to inform you, but to tell you what to think, and the other 50% get their "best information" from uncurbed drivel (from all sides), is it any wonder we're in this mess and getting worse every day?

The Story in the Details
The story from the Israeli/Hamas conflict was that Israel denied the Hamas claim that they captured some Israeli soldiers in northern Palestine. The thing that struck me was a statement in the story that "The Washington Post could not independently verify the IDF's reports." Oddly enough, the media appears to have no problem taking Hamas claims at face value without hedging with "couldn't independently verify" (like the claim that "35,984 people have been killed ... since the war began") but, apparently, they're definitely not going to trust Israel's claims.

Having A Voice Gives You A Voice?
Dua Lipa is a singer/songwriter. She has called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. I suppose, if Dua Lipa says it, we must. You guys get right on that, okay?

We've Got To Suppress These Judges
In what appears to be a blatantly political attempt to eliminate a conservative voice in the Supreme Court, Democrats demanded Justice Alito recuse himself from cases involving the riot on January 6, 2021. Alito rejected their demands. It was stunning how biased the USA Today story was. The "offending" flags were "connected" with "false claims" that the 2020 election had been stolen, according to "experts." "Experts" determine the purposes of flying an historical flag? Senators Durin and Whitehouse tattled on Alito's refusal to Chief Justice Roberts, hoping to get Alito on an ethics violation. Clearly they want a Supreme Court Justice to not be allowed to serve if they think he holds views they don't approve. Sounds a lot like tampering with the Judicial Branch, if you ask me. (And, in a stunning discovery, it turns out that the city of San Francisco was part of the "Stop the Steal" movement since they've flown that same "Appeal to Heaven" flag for 60 years.)

Another "Not News"
I'm sure you've already heard, but the jury convicted Trump on all 34 counts of falsifying documents. (I'm pretty sure no one else currently in office -- including Biden -- has ever falsified documents. No, really!) He is now officially a felon. Mind you, it doesn't disqualify him from running and it won't diminish him in the eyes of his avid fans. Nor does it exonerate those who brought the charges of any political malice. He was tried in a state that hates him and it was never a question of whether he'd be convicted. Those who care will continue to care, and those of us who don't won't. (I still can't figure out why some hateful commenters think I'm a Trump fan. Haven't I made it quite clear that I'm not? Is it just that I don't hate him like they want me to?)

Another Genuis Move in California
In 2014, California became the first state to ban those single-use plastic bags for groceries. Californians were required to get reusable bags and bring them to the story or pay a fee. Now they're planning to ban any plastic bags, including reuseable or even recyclable ones. Apparently their plastic ban only resulted in more plastic waste. Now you'll need to pay for paper bags with at least 50% recycled content ... or maybe juggle your groceries getting out to the car?

Here's Your Bill, Big Oil
Vermont passed a law that will require fossil fuel companies to pay for their share of the damage caused by flooding last summer "caused by climate change." Proving how much flooding climate change caused or obtaining a reasonable amount fossil fuel companies should pay seems really elusive to me. And, of course, I'd be tempted, if I was some "Big Oil" company in Vermont, to pull out. "See how you like 'no gas or oil' where you are." But, I suppose, that's why I'm not "Big Oil." If "justice" is a thing in America anymore, I'm not hopeful that this will succeed at obtaining it.

Bee Reasonable
The Bee had a lot to say on the Trump trial and outcome. A recent story out of the Bee tells us that the judge in the Trump case has instructed jurors that they need not believe Trump is guilty to convict him. I think it's kind of sad that it sounds almost possible. From Australia, kangaroos are protesting the comparison of the current American justice to them. After the conviction, one story talks about Donald Trump being convicted for being Donald Trump, and another warns that 12 jurors voted unanimously to ensure his reelection. I think that probably represents the sentiment of the pro-Trump crowd.

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.