News Weakly - 8/31/2024

Note: I apologize for the short News Weakly. It seems like it has been a slow news week. Or ... apathy on my part?

False Alarm
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has issued a warning of a "worldwide catastrophe" from the rising sea level caused by global climate change. Mind you, NASA says sea level is up 105mm from 1990. That's 4 inches. My wife and I are looking at mountain property -- you know ... at least a foot above sea level -- just to be safe.

Bidenomics?
Home prices have hit a record high -- 5.4% higher than last year. Thanks, again, Mr. President. Do you suppose Kamala will freeze housing prices if elected?

Need We Say More?
The Harris-Walz campaign has hired Rev. Jen Butler (yes, a female) to head their "faith outreach." Butler is a "well-known liberal religious advocate" and not unexpected, but clearly the Harris-Walz campaign is not including actual Christianity in its "faith outreach."

Oh, Really?
This story is so obvious it's painful. Apparently ... get this ... after so many states have legalized marijuana ... the use of cannabis is at an all time high! Go figure! No, seriously ... how is this a story? Of course if you legalize something like that, it will be abused more than ever. Did they think otherwise?

Going Down to Babylon (Bee)
Harris and Walz have agreed to a joint interview (actual story). Or, as the Bee puts it, a "strong, capable woman asks a man to come with her to her job interview in case they ask any hard questions." Right? An actually disturbing Bee story is about how pro-lifers are criticized for asking pro-life candidates to support pro-life policies. Too true to be entirely "fake news." Finally, the Attorney General has reminded Americans that questioning the results of the 2024 election is illegal ... unless, of course, Trump wins.

I know it's true; I read it on the Internet.

A Deeper Look

Most of us would agree that one of our go-to, favorite verses is the wonderful John 3:16.

For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.

Wonderful! But ... do we go to it too lightly? Just what does it say?

The first glitch I find is that word "so." I've heard and seen the verse say, "For God loved the world so much ..." Because "so" can be used that way. Except, that's not the Greek word used here. The word here is houtō and means "in this way." It is not a quantity, but a quality. We see this when Jesus said, "Let your light so shine before that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven" (Matt 5:16). That's not a quantity of "shine," but a quality. "So that." The same use is in this verse. The statement being made here is in what way does God love the world? Well, He gave His only Son. Like Paul wrote (Rom 5:8).

Now, we all know that the word "begotten" is there (at least in most translations), but don't let that confuse you. In most uses, "begotten" is something made -- specifically, a child by means of reproduction. But the Greek word here is monogenēs, a two-part word with mono for "one" and genēs for "come into being." That last is the root of our "gene" and refers to a type, a kind. So, when speaking of Christ, it would be fair to refer to Him as the "one-of-a-kind Son." Not made (John 1:1-3) like other false sects believe. So, the way God loved the world was to send His one-of-a-kind Son.

The last place we run into difficulty is that word, "whoever." "Whoever believes in Him shall not perish." What does "whoever" tell us? Most people think it means "anyone who chooses," but there's a problem there. There are, biblically, people who cannot make that choice. Jesus told the Pharisees, "You do not believe because you are not of My sheep" (John 10:26). Note the cause and effect appear to be switched -- they're not. We think, "We're His sheep if we believe," but Jesus said that, in order to believe, you first have to be His sheep. Further, Jesus said "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me" (John 10:27) and "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out" (John 6:37). So the sheep are the called, they recognize His voice, and they certainly come. Beyond that, when Jesus was talking about "My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink" (John 6:55), some of His followers had difficulty. So Jesus asked them, "Does this cause you to stumble?" (John 6:61), knowing some of them did not believe (John 6:64). So He said, "This reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father" (John 6:65). The reason some of them did not believe was that it wasn't granted by the Father. So those whom the Father gives will come and those whom the Father has not given cannot.

Jesus here declares that God loves His creation as shown in the offering of His Son. Anyone who believes in His Son will have eternal life. That's astounding! But it isn't a random love or arbitrary. "Whoever" tells us we don't know who they are, but He knows (Rom 8:29). Their names were written in the book of life from the foundation of the world (Rev 17:8; Eph 2:20). "Whoever" then is everyone He knows will come, His sheep are known before they did -- those He calls and who recognize His voice and surely come. A magnificent love that does not fail.

My Ways Are Not Your Ways

I've been watching the series, The Chosen, over the years. If you aren't aware of it, it's a series on the life of Christ. It is, of necessity, a fictionalized series -- we don't have the detail of events and conversation required to make now 4 seasons of this kind of thing -- but it includes a lot of actual accounts from the Gospels. For that I give it mixed reviews. It can be interesting to see the events from the pages of Scripture come to life, but it's disturbing when it becomes "true" even though we know some parts are fiction. Take, for instance, Thomas's role. He supplied the original wine for the wedding at Cana which ran out, prompting Jesus to turn water to wine. Of course, that first part wasn't in the Gospels. He was engaged to his business partner, Ramah, who (spoiler alert) gets murdered in season 4. Again, not in the biblical accounts. Thomas suffers a crisis of faith. Why didn't Jesus heal Ramah? Once more, not on the official record. And when, shortly thereafter, Jesus raises Lazarus from the dead, Thomas is ready to jettison Jesus entirely. Again, not in my Bible. I'm not aiming this at The Chosen; I'm talking about the concept. Thomas (and others -- all?) believe that a good God and a good Messiah would not allow His own to suffer loss. And we see that in our own times and even our own lives. Where is God when it hurts? Why would God allow ... fill in the blank? How could a loving God allow this travesty of justice? You get the idea.

I would like to point out a couple of things here. First, from a purely rational position, what are we thinking?? Is it our belief that a good and loving God would never allow any of His people to suffer loss? If that was true, then we'd have a long line of very, very old people still around who were loved and, therefore, didn't die. Believers would never be sick, poor, injured, or sad, because that's what we expect from a good God. Can you see that it's nonsense? The problem there, of course, is that God is not like us. He's not limited in time or thinking to our limited time and thinking. He's got a bigger idea of good. So, for instance, when Joseph's brothers begged forgiveness for ... you know ... aiming to kill Joseph, he answered, "You meant evil against me, but God meant it for good" (Gen 50:29). Yes, evil occurs. Yes, it is often even intentional. But God ... God allows evil for good to happen. Just because we don't see it doesn't mean it's not true. God even claims that He causes calamity (Isa 45:5-7). Second, then, is the biblical argument. In Daniel, Nebuchadnezzar boasted of his majesty and was cursed by God to eat grass and live wild for 7 years. When he was restored, he said, "He does according to His will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay His hand or say to Him, 'What have You done?'" (Dan 4:35). After Job suffered the loss of wealth and family and, ultimately, his own health, his wife told him to curse God and die. He responded, "You speak as one of the foolish women would speak. Shall we receive good from God, and shall we not receive evil?" (Job 2:10). If our fictional Thomas had been in either place, he would have answered, "I can! I can declare God in error. I ought to receive only good from the hand of God!" And so, it seems, would a lot of us.

The question comes down to faith, doesn't it? If you believe in the God of the Bible, you must be settled with "Not everything will be peachy for me" alongside "God causes all things to work together for good" (Rom 8:28-29) You must be okay with "His thoughts are not our thoughts" (Isa 55:8). Mind you, it is thoroughly rational. If the God of the Bible is in the heavens, He will not be like us, He will do things we don't understand, and, whatever else they may be, they will be good and loving. And it's thoroughly biblical. Let's not allow the universal principle of "Me first" cloud our faith in the truth of "God first." Let's keep our eyes on Jesus, accept His intentions as good, and accept from the hand of God both pleasant and unpleasant. Blessed be the name of the Lord (Job 1:21).

Expression

In biology they have a term: gene expression. The term refers to the process in which the data in an individual gene is used to produce the function that the gene is intended to produce. It's in everything that has genes, from bacteria to human beings. Gene expression is the term for the observable trait that the gene produces. According to biology, there are somewhere between 19,000 and 20,000 genes in the human genome, all coded into the DNA strands. These determine our appearance, our abilities, our weaknesses and strengths, our sex, our lives. Physically, we are what we are as a function of the expression of our genes.

Jesus said, "The good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth what is good; and the evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth what is evil; for his mouth speaks from that which fills his heart" (Luke 6:43-45). That is, the kind of person we exhibit ourselves to be is the expression of the kind of person we are inside. Our actions and attitudes, choices and decisions -- all that we live out -- are expressions of an inner truth. So a false prophet can be discovered by observing his or her "fruit" (Matt 7:18-20). A person born of God can be observed by his or her life (1 John 3:9). Human character is a type of "heart expression" where the true person inside always becomes visible outside.

Humans are not sinful because they sin; they sin because they're sinful. It is the expression of the heart (Gen 8:21; Jer 17:9). But believers are born again (John 3:5-6) where the old passes and all things become new (2 Cor 5:17). Believers, then, have this certainty: God has produced a change in us, not by our doing, but His. "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him" (2 Cor 5:21). His purpose is to conform "these whom He predestined" into the image of His Son (Rom 8:28-30). And we can have every confidence that "He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus" (Php 1:6). An external expression of an internal, spiritual work done in those who follow Christ.

A Mystery

Paul wrote of marriage, "This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church" (Eph 5:32). The mystery is the union of a man and a woman designed by God as "marriage" (Eph 5:31; Gen 2:24; Matt 19:5). So it is no surprise that marriage has been under attack ... since the beginning. We see this in Deuteronomy when Moses writes about divorce (Deut 24:1-3). Jesus said he wrote it "because of the hardness of your heart, but from the beginning it has not been this way" (Matt 19:8). The Pharisees balked at the concept of marriage for life (Matt 19:3) and the disciples found the concept alarming (Matt 19:10). That is, the union of Christ and the church has been an enemy of Satan from the beginning, and so has marriage. It seems our time is just a prime example.

It's interesting. In the garden of Eden, God laid the primary responsibility of marriage on Adam -- to care for his "helpmeet" (Gen 2:18). You know, as in "Christ and the church." So when Paul told wives, "Be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord" (Eph 5:22-24), he was just carrying on this theme. Why should wives be subject to their husbands as to the Lord? Because God had designed marriage so that husbands are responsible for their wives (1 Cor 11:3) ... like Christ takes care of the church. So the husband's job is to love his wife (Eph 5:25). Not as the world does; as Christ did. He gave self up for her (Php 2:5-8). That kind of love. That kind of care. It's huge, men. No "self" involved. But that's not the end of the description of the task of the husband. This "giving self up for her" had a purpose.

... so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless. (Eph 5:26-27)

Husbands, did you know that was part of your primary assignment in caring for your wife? Give self up, yes, for the purpose of sanctifying her. How? Cleanse her by the washing of the water with the Word. God has assigned husbands the task of bathing their wives in the Word in order to make them holy and blameless. Now, I don't know about you guys, but I'm not the best example of accomplishing this assignment from God. Hit and miss at best. And this ought not be. God gave me this wife in order to give myself up and see to her spiritual washing in the Word. It's never too late to start. It's called repentance.

ACTS

In 1883 a periodical called The Continent published a model of prayer that some of us have come to know and, maybe, even use. It is the acronym, ACTS -- Adoration, Confession, Thanksgiving, Supplication. The structure was designed to have us approach God with reverence (adoration), repent from our sin (confession), remember His blessings (thanksgiving), and finally make our requests known (supplication). It's not biblical ... as a mandate, that is.

Jesus started His famous prayer with the addressee -- "Our Father, who art in heaven" (Matt 6:9-13). So starting with recognizing to whom you are speaking is just a standard means of addressing. But if you look at Daniel's prayer in Daniel 9, he does follow this ACTS pattern (again, not by way of mandate, but simply that we can see). Daniel's prayer begins with "O Lord, the great and awesome God, who keeps His covenant and lovingkindness for those who love Him and keep His commandments ..." (Dan 9:4). Adoration. But adoration of God's greatness pushes Daniel directly into Confession. He confesses for 10 verses, in fact, often bouncing off of God's character. "Righteousness belongs to You, O Lord, but to us open shame" (Dan 9:7). "To the Lord our God belong compassion and forgiveness, for we have rebelled against Him" (Dan 9:9). That sort of thing. He confesses the sins of his people and includes himself in it all ... for 10 verses (Dan 9:5-14). (That is, confession seems to be a big thing here, at least for Daniel.) After a lengthy confession, Daniel thanks God for what He has done. "And now, O Lord our God, who have brought Your people out of the land of Egypt with a mighty hand and have made a name for Yourself, as it is this day" (Dan 9:15). Thanksgiving. And based on God's greatness and God's goodness, Daniel can bring his requests. "O, my God, incline Your ear and hear!" (Dan 9:18-19). You might note that his requests are specifically "not on account of any merits of our own" (Dan 9:18) and specifically "For Your own sake, O my God" (Dan 9:19).

This outline -- ACTS -- isn't a biblical mandate, but it might be a helpful guide when you pray. And, let's be honest, anything that helps us pray more is a good thing, isn't it? After all, the command is to "Pray without ceasing" (1 Thess 5:17).

It Is Well With My Soul

Here's another of my favorites.

It Is Well With My Soul
Horatio Spafford

When peace, like a river, attendeth my way,
When sorrows like sea billows roll -
Whatever my lot, Thou hast taught me to say,
It is well, it is well with my soul.

Tho' Satan should buffet, tho' trials should come,
Let this blest assurance control,
That Christ hath regarded my helpless estate,
And has shed His own blood for my soul.

My sin - O the bliss of this glorious tho't -
My sin, not in part, but the whole,
Is nailed to the cross, and I bear it no more:
Praise the Lord, praise the Lord, O my soul!

And, Lord, haste the day when my faith shall be sight,
The clouds be rolled back as a scroll:
The trump shall resound and the Lord shall descend,
"Even so" - it is well with my soul.

The hymn has quite a story behind it. Perhaps by understanding some of the events surrounding it, the meaning will be clearer. Horatio Spafford was a lawyer in Chicago in 1871 when the Chicago Fire destroyed his lakeshore real estate and his finances along with it. Having already lost a son to premature death, he decided to take his wife and four daughters on a trip to England to join D.L. Moody on one of his campaigns and to get some much needed rest. Business forced him to delay his departure, so he had his family go on ahead, intending to join them as soon as he could. Soon Spafford received word that the ship had sunk. He waited anxiously for word of survivors and finally received a telegram from his wife that read, "Saved alone." Spafford hastened to join her in England, and as he sailed past the spot where his four daughters had drowned, he wrote, "When peace, like a river, attendeth my way, when sorrows like sea billows roll - whatever my lot, Thou hast taught me to say, ‘It is well, it is well with my soul.’"

Horatio Spafford knew God. It could only be an abiding relationship with the Almighty that would enable a man enduring such loss to say, "It is well with my soul." He echoes the words of Paul who says, "I have learned to be content" (Php 4:11-13).

What did Spafford know of God that held him in such peace? His second verse tells us. "Let this blest assurance control, that Christ hath regarded my helpless estate and has shed His own blood for my soul." To him, knowing that God loved him enough to die for him was enough. God had no requirement to do so, and the cost to Him was great - His own blood. What greater love could there be?

I think Mr. Spafford tied greater weight to his sin condition than most of us do today. He saw the forgiven state of the Christian as enough from God. His third verse dwells on the bliss of that thought. He saw forgiveness as glorious, and complete. He regarded God's pardon as the end of the question, with sin no longer a concern. "Not in part, but the whole." Paul says the same. We are crucified to sin. "Do not let sin reign." (Rom. 6:12) Praise the Lord, O my soul! So many Christians today struggle with sin. They see their shortcomings - which are real - as an obstacle to their relationship with God. There is even a sort of superstition mixed in, as if God will curse us if we sin but bless us if we don't. They see God as turning away when they fail Him, and in some cases their large numbers of failures amass such a perceived wall between themselves and the Almighty that they give up and walk away hopeless. But sin - "not in part, but the whole" - has been nailed to the cross. We bear it no more. It is forgiven, past, present, and future. God sees us as clothed in the righteousness of Christ (2 Cor 5:21). He stands ready to commune with us at all times. We need merely to confess, for our benefit, our failure to obey, and we can continue the relationship. Would that we saw our sin condition and its payment at the cross in the same light as this hymn does.

Like so many of the hymn writers of the past, Spafford looked forward to the coming of the Lord. He longed to be home. While many today aren't sure they want Christ to return just yet, he asked that God "haste the day." When all is said, it is there that peace is finally ours. It is in the knowledge of the transcendent God, the God who is holy and just, who is able to make all things right, the soon and coming King, that we can ultimately rest. His faithfulness is our repose. And His return is our hope. As the hymn alludes, "even so, come quickly." It is God's presence that brings final peace.

We, too, can enjoy this response to difficult circumstances. We can learn, with Paul, to be content in all situations. The truth is simple. If we know the God we serve, "who can be against us?" If God is God (and we are not), what more can we require? We can agree with Spafford and say, "Whatever my lot, Thou hast taught me to say, it is well, it is well with my soul."

News Weakly - 8/24/2024

Proving Futility (Rom 1:21)
According to recent guidelines from the EEOC -- the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission -- it is governmental policy that "misgendering" someone (specifically, here, in the workplace) is illegal. To refuse to use the pronouns someone might prefer or to require them to use the bathroom "or other sex-segregated facility consistent with the individual's gender identity," for instance, is "harassment" creating a "hostile work environment" and could cost you. Texas AG Ken Paxton has filed suit to block it. You see the problem, don't you? If "sex" is biology and "gender" is ... a social construct for the expression of "sex," then "sex" and "gender" are not the same thing, and requiring "gender identity" to drive access to "sex-related" things is confusion. They aren't the same thing. But apparently we're not paying attention ... to ourselves. The Supreme Court seems to get it. They blocked expansion of the Title IX rules aimed at including "gender identity" which, clearly, those that made the law had no intention of doing.

Just Impeachy
The GOP dropped an impeachment report on President Biden as the Democrats kicked off their convention this week. They accuse Biden of peddling influence and obstruction. Those who embrace the Left will call it lies and those who lean to the Right will say, "Yeah, we already knew that," but, bottom line, there's nothing to see here. Biden is not running for reelection. His next step is retirement, and impeachment will have little effect there. Not entirely sure what the intent here is, but, hey, whatever the GOP wishes to accomplish (as if we would expect any accomplishments from government, right?).

Ain't Science Grand?
According to recent research, people who scroll through videos to avoid boredom suffer from increased boredom. The behavior, they say, makes the experience "less satisfying, less engaging, and less meaningful." The popular fix is only making things worse ... like many of our "popular fixes."

Oh, Yeah ...
The DNC had its convention this week. Yawn. Now, if you think I say that because I'm opposed to the DNC, I'm pretty sure, if you look back, I said pretty much the same thing about the GOP version. Not news. "Kamala is great yada, yada, yada ... Trump is an existential threat blah, blah, blah." But if I don't mention it, someone is going to be ... miffed.

Puny God
A government report says that too much fluoride is linked to lower IQ in kids. You know ... the levels in our drinking water. Although science said it was good for them before. It still amazes me that people prefer to worship Science as their god rather than ... you know ... the actual God. Puny god.

To Thine Own Self Bee True
The Bee lived up to it's "Best source for fake news" motto this week with the DNC convention. No, Black people were not turned away because they didn't have the required photo ID. No, Michelle Obama did not exit the DNC on an "Eat the Rich" palanquin (look it up). No, Joe Biden was not found in a dumpster behind the DNC Convention Center. But you might forgive them for thinking it might be so.

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
________
P.S. I joke about "It must be true; I read it on the Internet" because I consider it a necessity to test what I read and hear rather than taking everything at face value. It seems, however, that I'm in the minority. It is stunning how people, regardless of their political leanings, etc., will hear a speech like Harris's final speech at the DNC Convention or read a conspiracy theory from their favorite blogger and believe it because it was stated as true. Our media -- news, Internet, social, etc. -- has demonstrated that it is "of the devil" -- from the father of lies. They lie regularly and get away with it because no one is fact-checking and, if they are, they're falsely fact-checking. We have become a gullible nation of sheep following whichever shepherd sounds good to us and we wonder why our government and national morality is such a mess.

Scaring the Devil

It has been said that Satan's worst fear is when believers believe even when there is no reason to. Maybe. I'm not sure that's quite right. We are told, for instance, that we walk by faith, not by sight (2 Cor 5:7). Does that mean we can't see anything? I don't think so.

Picture the Israelites at the Red Sea. In front of them is a vast expanse of water and behind them is Pharaoh's army breathing down their necks ready to recapture and re-enslave them. They weren't happy (Exo 14:11-12). Moses figured God would fight for them, but he was wrong. God told him, "Why are you crying out to Me? Tell the sons of Israel to go forward" (Exo 14:15). So Moses followed instructions, stretched out his hand, and the sea was parted. Now, which of you would have been the first to walk into that? Based on what? Israel's salvation (literal in this case) was a step of faith. They had to go where it seemed impossible to go with nothing to confirm it. They were walking by faith. Without sight? Oh, no, there was sight -- hindsight. They had lived through 10 "impossible" plagues in the recent past, culminating in the deaths of every firstborn in Egypt ... except their own. Their trick? Blood on the door. So if the God that could pull off all that offers you a way forward that is not clearly seen but is clearly indicated, you take it. You walk not by sight, but by faith.

There are times -- many times -- when we "walk by faith, not by sight" in the sense that we can't really see what's coming, what the plan is, how it will work out, even what exactly to do. "Trust Me," God says. And we do ... or we don't. We can because God has always been faithful and is actually Sovereign. Because we know that God is too wise to be mistaken and too good to be unkind. Because we know that God can do all things and do them well. Nothing is too hard for Him. The better we see that in hindsight, the easier it is to walk into an ocean. Which is Satan's worst fear -- believers who believe when the reasons to believe are not readily apparent. I'd like to make a practice of terrifying Satan that way.

Competing Loves

We live in a world of competing loves. That sounds, perhaps, more dramatic than it is. All of us -- every last one -- have a host of competing preferences whose hierarchy determines our choices. "Do you want broccoli or pizza for dinner?" would be decided by which you prefer. And which you prefer can change. "Yesterday I chose pizza (obviously), but I'm watching my weight now, so I prefer to eat more healthy. Give me the broccoli." Competing loves.

We've seen this played out a lot in the last couple of decades. This prominent figure will come out against, say, homosexual behavior as immoral ... right up until their son or daughter comes out ... as homosexual. Then they have a change of heart. Maybe it's not immoral. Why? Did the morality of it change? No. It was a collision of loves. "Sure, I love right and wrong, but I love my son or daughter more." And it doesn't seem to matter if we're talking about self-professed believers here. Christians do it, too. "I used to think that it was against Scripture for a woman to be a pastor, but then my daughter went to seminary and was hired as a pastor, so now I think it's okay." That is, love for family dictates the meaning of Scripture.

Jesus had something to say about this. When He called together His twelve, He told them, "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword" (Matt 10:34). Tough words, Jesus. In what sense? "He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me" (Matt 10:37). Ouch! So we do live in a world of competing loves -- all of us -- and the primary question is "Which love is supreme?" Is it Christ at the apex, sorting out all others, or is it something ... anything ... else? That answer will drive a large number of decisions in our lives.

More Than These

In the last chapter of John's gospel, Jesus arranged a fish breakfast with His disciples and repeated the ol' "Cast the net on the other side" trick so they caught a great number of fish. So they cooked up some fish and had a chat in which we encounter the famous "Do you love Me?" sequence between Jesus and Peter. Three times Jesus asked Peter, "Do you love Me?" Three times Peter assured Him he did. Three times Jesus told Peter to "tend the flock." Setting aside any variations in the Greek word for "love" (because sometimes that is a misleading trail) and accepting at face value the "three" was a correlation to Peter's three-times denial of Christ before the Crucifixion, making this a restoration of Peter, what, exactly, did Jesus mean when He asked, "Simon, son of John, do you love Me more than these?" (John 21:15)?

You see, there are a few possibilities here. Did He mean more than "these other disciples love Me"? Or was it "Do you love Me more than you love these other disciples?" Or maybe "these" doesn't refer to the other disciples. Maybe He was asking about fishing. "Do you love Me more than you love your former life, your former profession, your fishing, the things you knew of life before?" I think it's a tough question. Could Peter know how much they loved Him in contrast to how much he loved Him? That seems like a difficult question for anyone. And a bit unfair. He could know if he loved Jesus more than he loved his fellow disciples, but was that what Jesus was going for? It very well could be since the repeated command was to tend the flock -- His fellow disciples. But, Jesus's teaching on "love Me more" (Matt 10:37) before was aimed at family because that was a tighter bond than any other. It would likely not be an issue with a group of people all trained to love God more and to love Jesus more than any other.

It would seem, then, that Jesus's love comparison was between how much Peter loved Jesus and how much Peter loved his former life. At the beginning of the story, Jesus had appeared multiple times and, it seems, Peter's response was, "I'm going fishing" (John 21:3). Indeed, his lead brought all the others with him. I think Jesus was pointing out a potential problem for Peter, a blind spot as it were. Peter wasn't aware that he still retained a comfortable love for his old life -- fishing -- and Jesus was telling Him, "Yes, tend my sheep, but not in fishing. Tend them in pursuing Me." He was urging Peter, "Now that I'm leaving, don't go back to your old life. You have a new assignment -- tend the flock ... with a focus on Me" (1 Peter 5:1-4).

Can I Get a Witness? (1960)

My earliest memory was when I was 3 years old. I don't remember most of the events. I don't remember my mother putting me to bed that night with what she thought was a case of the flu. She discovered the next morning that her diagnosis was incorrect when she couldn't wake me. I don't remember the next 24 hours at all ... because I was in a coma. She took me to the doctor who diagnosed me with meningitis H-Flu. The doctor told her that it typically kills in 24 hours. And the doctor told her they had no treatment. I don't remember the trip to the hospital, never heard the discussions between my parents and the doctors regarding prognosis and options. I wasn't aware of the experimental drug they gave me and only found out later that others had died from it. No one told me that all my family's friends and congregation and family were praying for me.

My first memory, then, was waking up in a crib. I know ... that sounds mundane, but I was 3, for Pete's sake, and I wasn't in a crib anymore. Worse, the first thing I saw was that my wrists were strapped to the sides of the crib. Now that wasn't normal. I looked down toward the end of the crib and saw my right leg suspended in a sling of some sort. There was a huge glass bottle of fluid (everything is huge to a 3-year-old) hanging there with a tube that came out and ran through a needle into my ankle. A nurse looked up from my ankle and said, "Oh, you're awake. You're okay. You just let me know when this bottle is empty, okay?" And she walked out. Eager to do my job (truth be told, eager to get that needle out of my ankle), I called, "It's empty!!!" She came back, smiled warmly, and said, "No, it's not. Don't worry; you'll be okay." She was right.

Later, that ankle got infected, and to this day I have a scar there. I see it every time I put my shoes on. It's not a bad thing. I wouldn't lose that scar for anything. It's a reminder, every day, that doctors and medicine and skilled workers -- and there was no shortage of any of those -- didn't save me at the age of 3. God did. It's a reminder, when I'm questioning my life, that God saved me for a purpose -- for His purpose. It's a reminder that, no matter what my opinion of me is, God has a use for me. Why? Because I've seen it. Because I'm a witness to God's grace and mercy in practical, 3-year-old terms and in broad, spiritual, unfathomable terms.

What Are You For?

We recently attended a "Celebration of Life" for a friend who went to be with the Lord at a church we didn't attend. On the way out of the parking lot, I noticed a sign: "Know what you are for." You get it, right? The sense is, "We know what you are against, but what are you for?" They know we're against ... what ... drinking and dancing and fun of all kinds, homosexuals and heterosexuals and omnisexuals having sex, gay rights, abortion rights ... well, a lot of things. But what are we for? I would argue that most unbelievers and a significant number of believers aren't clear on either -- what we are against and what we are for.

We are, first and foremost, for God. In every sense. We are made for Him, live for Him, long for Him, seek for Him. We are in favor of what He is in favor. We want what He wants. That's what we're for. What does He want? He wants, in everything, to be glorified (1 Cor 10:31). He wants to be honored for who He is (Rom 1:18-21). He wants to be regarded as Holy (Lev 10:3). What are we for? We favor what God favors and want what God wants. What, then, are we against? We're against people going to hell. We're against people falling short of God's glory. We are opposed to the pain and suffering that sin brings. We don't want people, deceived by Satan, missing out on all that God wants for them.

The truth is sometimes (too often) we get sidetracked on these things. Jesus didn't come to make people more moral. He came to ransom sinners (Matt 20:28). He did address the problem of sin, but His purpose was to give abundant life (John 10:10), not correct behavior. His function wasn't to point an accusing finger at people, but at the problem that He came to overcome. We should keep that in mind. Our "righteous indignation" over "those people" isn't part of God's plan. We are to be lights in the darkness (Matt 5:16), recognized by our love (John 13:35), not our "moral superiority." We've obviously confused them and even ourselves in this. Let's keep our eye on the prize -- Jesus.

How Great Thou Art

O Lord, my God, when I, in awesome wonder,
Consider all the worlds Thy hands have made,
I see the stars, I hear the rolling thunder,
Thy power throughout the universe displayed.

Then sings my soul, my Savior, God, to Thee,
"How great Thou art! How great Thou art!"
Then sings my soul, my Savior, God, to Thee,
"How great Thou art! How great Thou art!"

This (one of my all-time favorites) was originally a poem entitled "O Store Gud" written by a Swedish pastor after experiencing the might of God's nature in a thunderstorm and the beauty of God's nature in the forest and stream he speaks of in the second verse. He wrote it in 1886, but it was translated in the 1930's by a missionary to Russia, Reverend Stuart K. Hine. Reverend Hine added the third verse in Russia, and the fourth in England.

The song is a prayer. One of the fascinating aspects of this prayer is that there are no requests. It is a prayer of adoration. This is almost unheard of in our time. We are a generation of self-centered people who defend and encourage self-centered attitudes and actions. We are the focal point of our own universe. Even in our prayers we focus on asking God for what we want, for what would make us happy. This prayer focuses entirely on God and His greatness. Let's listen in as the hymnist talks to God.

Note first the address: "O Lord, my God." "Lord" speaks of God's sovereignty, His lordship. In theological terms, it speaks of the transcendence of God, the God above all. "Lord" isn't a familiar term to modern day Americans. We are an independent nation that worships freedom and independence. We prefer not to recognize anyone as master over us. We have no present-day role to use as an example of the meaning of the term. But we must learn to recognize -- "realize" (that is, to make that which is true real to ourselves) -- that God is Lord. This isn't an opinion. This is a mandate. Any view that strays from the position of God's absolute sovereignty is in error.

The second aspect of the address, "O Lord, my God," is the term "my". To call Him God is correct. There is none other. He is the one and only God. But the term "my" personalizes the relationship between God, the Sovereign, and me. Theologically, this speaks to His immanence. Martin Luther said that Christianity is a religion of personal pronouns. We constantly read expressions like "my God," "My people," "my Lord." This points to the personal facet of God, the amazing truth that God is interested in me. No other religion in the world carries this concept of personal relationship. But Jesus said that God knows the number of hairs on my head. That's personal. He wants us to know Him. That's astonishing. We can pray with Moses, "Teach me Thy ways, O Lord, that I might know Thee." (Exo. 33:18-23)

The prayer goes on to recognize God through creation. This is a common occurrence in Scripture (e.g., Psa. 19; Rom. 1:20). All of creation points to its Maker. All created things bear the fingerprints of their Creator. One consideration of nature is "worlds". The word covers many concepts. Above us there are a myriad of galaxies, stars, solar systems -- worlds. But in the microscopic level there are chemical structures made up of molecular structures comprised of atomic structures -- worlds. In our world there are food chains, life cycles, ecosystems, weather patterns -- worlds. God’s hands, the hymnist says, made each of these. (This takes us back to the personal God.) And each of these, as in the thunderstorm, is a picture of God's power.

The only reasonable response to a glimpse of this sovereign, yet personal, transcendent, yet immanent God is, "How great Thou art!" The hymnist sings it with his innermost being, his soul. The soul encompasses one's mind, will, and emotions. A glimpse of God must impact us at these deepest of levels, or it wasn't real. The soul turned toward God has no room for self.

And when I think that God, His Son not sparing,
Sent Him to die, I scarce can take it in;
That on the cross, my burden gladly bearing,
He bled and died to take away my sin.

Paul says "God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." (Rom. 5:8) The recurring theme of God's love appears all through Scripture (e.g., John 3:16; Phil. 2:5-11; Rom. 8:32). It seems, however, that we have taken that grace for granted, as if we somehow deserve God's love. The hymnist didn't see it that way. "I scarce can take it in," was his thought. Romans says that God was perfectly willing to reveal His glory by demonstrating His wrath (Rom. 9:22). We have gone to great effort to earn His wrath (Romans 6:23). We are, according to Scripture, God-haters (Rom. 8:7; James 4:4). Yet, Christ demonstrated grace - unmerited favor - on the cross. If I have personal worth, intrinsic value, then there is no grace. He merely practiced wise economy. But the fact is Christ died for us because He wanted to, not because we are so valuable.

"On the cross . . . He bled and died." Crucifixion was the worst way to die. Physically, it was designed for the utmost in pain and torture without immediate death. The whipping, the nails, the continuous physical torture of merely breathing while every bone came out of joint, all designed for slow death. Emotionally, it was devised to humiliate. It was a public torture in which the criminal carried his own instrument of death. He hung naked on the cross in front of all that watched. But the only record of Christ crying out was at the spiritual torment of the cross. At the moment of separation from His Father, He cried, "My God, why have You forsaken Me?" He had never been separated from God. He had never known sin. Yet He became sin for us.

Perhaps most remarkable about that day on the cross was the simple, inescapable fact that Jesus chose to do it. No one required it of Him. He could have said, "No." The hymnist recognized this fact. "My burden gladly bearing, He bled and died to take away my sin."

How can we see this and not answer with the writer, "Then sings my soul, 'How great Thou art!'" When we take for granted the immense love and grace demonstrated on the cross, we display our ignorance and self-centeredness.

When Christ shall come, with shout of acclamation,
And take me home, what joy shall fill my heart!
Then I shall bow in humble adoration
And there proclaim, "My God, how great Thou art!"

The last verse is a common concept among hymn-writers. Many hymns looked to the return of Christ, to the day that we would be with Him. It was a joyous thought. The prospect of being in the presence of the Almighty God, the company of our Lord and Savior, was too wonderful to imagine.

We were designed for that condition. It was Adam's original condition in the garden, walking with God. We are incomplete here without that fellowship, so we immerse ourselves in spurious pursuits to fill that void. Meanwhile, Jesus promised to prepare for our arrival (John 14:2,3). What delight to know that He is anticipating our coming! Would that we would see it with such joy.

Hine had no misconceptions about that day. We have ideas of sightseeing in heaven or visiting with biblical characters. He saw his proper response to God's presence as bowing in "humble adoration." Bowing to anyone is not a popular concept in our culture. We are proud people who defer to no one. But Scripture readily reveals that this is the most common position of anyone who came in contact with God. We have failed to see the difference between coming boldly into the presence of God and coming arrogantly into the presence of God. That we can stand in His proximity at all should utterly amaze us. Somehow we have contracted a cavalier attitude that God is some "big guy" upstairs who winks at our sin because He loves us. We mustn't fall into that thought trap.

The hymn is aptly titled, "How Great Thou Art!" It speaks of God's sovereignty as Lord - His transcendence - as well as his personal care for us - His immanence. In it we see Him as the joy of our souls and the sole worthy focus of our hearts. And we see ourselves as needy, sinful people. We see the need to turn the eyes of our souls to Him. He must increase, and I must decrease.

News Weakly - 8/17/2024

When Kamala Came to Arizona
Kamala is on record as opposing voter ID, but when she came to a rally in Arizona, she required government-issued IDs to get in. Because voting isn't that important, but she is. The double standard is strong with this one.

Filed Under "General"
No headline here; just an observation, a question. Why is it that nearly all mainstream media coverage of the current campaigning paint Kamala and Walz in a purely positive light and Trump and Vance in a purely negative light? No shades, even. If a news item comes out about something negative in the Harris/Walz side, the story includes a defense. If something negative is offered on the Republican side, the story typically includes a refutation of anything negative. It just seems so blatant that I can't figure out why it's not news on its own. How long has it been since we had a "Walter Cronkite," a news outlet that gave us the news and not the propaganda and recommended way to think? Why is it that even my suggesting such a thing makes people scratch their heads like I'm talking gibberish? It seems our current media lives in that middle state between outright terrorism -- "We live in terrifying times, so think what we want you to" -- and propaganda. And the public no longer has the right to know ... that obvious truth.

Socialism? Check!
Ilhan Omar, a House Representative from Minnesota, is well known for her positions. The media recognizes her as "progressive" and even "radical progressive." She favors amnesty for illegals, advanced minimum wages, free college, universal healthcare, killing babies in the womb, etc. -- a socialist's socialist. The fact that she just won her primary again in a state that boasts of Walz as their governor tells us a lot about the majority of Minnesotan political views, doesn't it?

Inflated
The story says it was "good news for Vice President Kamala Harris" -- inflation decreased. What does that mean? It decreased by one-tenth of a percentage point -- from 3% to 2.9%. That doesn't mean prices decreased; it means that the rate of increase isn't as steep as it was. Our government is not bringing prices down, improving our financial conditions, making our lives more affordable. They're just slowing down the harm ... one-tenth of a percent. So clearly we need to elect Harris. Makes sense? No, not to me, either.

Low-Hanging Fruit
Tim Walz clarified that he was not "stealing valor" -- he was just redistributing it. Like any good socialist, right? Then there was the story about the woman promising to fix things if we vote her into office ... you know, the woman currently in office who hasn't managed to fix anything. But, don't worry. Harris promises to announce her policy positions just as soon as polls tell her what they are. (Oh, look ... she's started already.) Like any good politician.

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

Thought Experiment

Let's say you were a Christian and you wanted to follow Christ. Let's say you got a visit from Jesus, an angel, something clearly a message from God. Let's say that this message told you, "It's God's plan to eliminate the United States in its world systems -- capitalism, democracy, that sort of stuff -- and it's God's plan to do that by using Kamala Harris and the rest of the Far Left Dems to bring America to her knees. Vote for Kamala." Would you do it? Or would you say, "No, that's not in the best interest of everyone. That's not the best way to go."? Stupid hypothetical, I agree, and not one I'm suggesting is even remotely true. I just wanted to pick one that was "out there." Because, while voting for Kamala as an act of obedience to a God that wants to bring down the U.S. is silly, the hypothetical concept is not. Indeed, Peter faced just such an event in Acts.

Peter at this point was the primary leader of Christ's church in Jerusalem and beyond. In Acts 10 we find him in Joppa visiting a tanner named Simon. (Acts 10:9-16) He was on the roof of Simon's house praying and he got hungry, and while they were fixing some food, he had a vision. A great sheet came down with all sorts of "illegal" animals -- animals Peter had been rightly taught all his life were unclean -- and a voice said, "Get up, Peter, kill, and eat." Peter protested. "By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean" (Acts 10:14). The voice corrected him. "What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy" (Acts 10:15). And the vision occurred three times. Peter, you see, was facing a crisis. He knew that voting for Kamala was the wrong thing to do. Oh, wait, wrong story. He knew that eating unclean food was the wrong thing to do. And he was right ... right up until God said otherwise. Well, you know the rest of the story. God had told a Gentile centurion to send someone to find Peter (Acts 10:1-8). The messenger arrived just as Peter's perplexing visions ended, and it all became clear. God was sending Peter to a Gentile (where Peter would never have been allowed to go before) to take him the Gospel (Acts 10:17-48). And Peter witnessed the Holy Spirit falling on unclean Gentiles ... and ordered them baptized.

No, I'm not suggesting that anyone at all vote any way at all -- certainly not the Kamala ticket. I'm asking you which you would choose. If God asked you to do something that you knew to be a bad choice, a wrong direction, an unwise option ... not the best ... would you do it? Or would you correct Him (as Peter did)? Would you explain that it's wrong and, apparently, so is He? If God were to hand you the loss of everything (as in the case of Job), would you accept it from the hand of a loving and righteous God, or would you correct Him and do "what's best"? Just a thought experiment ... that we all face from time to time in real life.

He Hears

The Scriptures repeatedly tell us that God hears us. David wrote, "YHWH hears when I call to Him" (Psa 4:3). Another psalmist wrote, "I love YHWH, because He hears my voice and my supplications" (Psa 116:1). I've seen that and heard that in a variety of places and ways (verses, songs, sermons, etc.), but it suddenly struck me as ... remarkable.

David wrote, "When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and the stars, which You have ordained, what is man that You take thought of him and the son of man that You care for him?" (Psa 8:3-4). Exactly. Why would the Creator of all things, the God of the Universe, the King of kings and Lord of lords take notice ... of us? I wrote a letter to a president years ago and didn't hear back from him (no surprise). Why would the Almighty deign to hear me? In the text above I think we miss the point the psalmist makes. "YHWH hears me! That's why I love Him. That's why He's so astounding. He hears me. Amazing!"

Paul commanded us to "pray without ceasing" (1 Thess 5:17). Because God hears. Jesus told us, "If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you" (John 15:7). Because God hears. Jesus wanted His followers to pray at all times and not lose heart (Luke 18:1-8). Because God hears. If He doesn't, there are reasons (James 4:3; Psa 66:18; Isa 59:2; etc.). You can fix that.

Impersonification

Let me just say by way of introduction that the word I used for my title exists, but doesn't mean what I'm writing about. Maybe you'll figure out my intent when you read on.

My first exposure to author Tom Clancy was the movie, Hunt for Red October. I enjoyed it, so I read the book. Now, you know how it goes with books and movies. Those who read the books generally say, "The movie was not like the book." But I found myself reading the book through the eyes of the movie. So I envisioned the Russian sub commander to be like the character played by Sean Connery and Jack Ryan looked and acted like Alec Baldwin and so on. As such, I didn't have much conflict between the book and the movie. No, that only happened after I started reading (and enjoying) other Clancy novels and then seeing the movies they made. Not good; not good at all.

You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. (Exo 20:4)

There have been times and places and people who have understood that text to ban ... shall we say, "art". Any "likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth." Others have argued that the reference is not to images or likenesses, but to worship (Exo 20:5). In our day, we're not too concerned about it for the most part. So we have paintings of God and pictures of Jesus and lots of angelic stuff, all the way to images and likenesses of people, places, and things. We have movies like The Passion of The Christ, The Jesus Film, and recently, of course, The Chosen. These aren't problematic to us. They are considered helpful, in fact, in getting out the Gospel. But here's the thing. Recently, nearly every online reference I've seen to Christ includes a picture ... of Jonathan Roumie who plays Jesus in The Chosen. People I've talked to say that now that they've seen The Chosen they've found that they read the Gospels with those characters in mind. And not just their images; their character and mannerism. (Most obvious would be the Matthew character played by Paras Patel as on the autism spectrum, making interaction with anyone challenging.)

Some would argue that "likenesses" of things and people in Scripture help to "flesh it out" as it were. I wonder. Does it serve to distract instead? Does it change the content or intent? We know, for instance, that all movies or shows about biblical things are fictionalized. Those who make them even with the best intentions have to make up dialog and character traits that we don't get from Scripture to fill in the gaps. Was Jesus actually like Jonathan Roumie portrays Him, or are we being fed an impersonation tainted by faulty ideas (my idea of "impersonification") that we, then, incorporate in our view of Christ? That doesn't even require intent on Roumie's part. It just requires mistaken ideas. And given Hollywood's animosity against all things "Jesus," I'd have to assume that not all of these are made with good intentions. So perhaps God meant, "Don't worship them." Is it possible for us to receive these likenesses and not insert them into our minds when we worthip? Are we doing ourselves a disfavor when we embrace these things? Are we even paying attention? Something to think about.

Can I Get a Witness? (1992)

I married the mother of my two boys in 1980. Twelve years later, she was filing for divorce. I was "too boring" and another man beckoned to her. In preparation for her departure, we were moving from the house we were renting to a smaller (and more affordable) apartment. So there I was, out in the garage, sorting stuff to keep or toss in the move. Digging through boxes, I came across one of those yellow, lined sheets of paper with my handwriting on it. What was this? I had written it some 12 years prior. In the early months of our marriage my wife had told me, "I hate you!" Now, you already know that I had lost my good job, so there I was, doing a low-paying night watchman job, and calling out to God. "Lord, what happened?" So I grabbed a piece of yellow, lined paper and started writing out the sequence that brought me to marry my wife.

When I considered marrying my bride, I was keenly concerned about God's will. Someone from the outside would have told me I was taking a negative approach. I kept throwing "roadblocks" in the way and telling God, "If you don't want me to marry her, stop me here." They weren't actually roadblocks. More like fleeces. And as I sat in that guard shack on that April evening, I listed the fleeces. I had some 28 times that I told God, "Stop me here. I don't want to pursue this if you don't want me to pursue this." And 28 times ... He opened the door. I concluded, that April, 1980 night, that I had certainly married this woman because it was God's will and not merely my youthful desires, so I would trust Him.

And now here I was, 12 years later, facing the end of the marriage. And, sifting through the flotsam and jetsam of 12 years of marriage, God saw fit to hand me this sheet of paper ... again. Why I kept it I can't tell you, but there it was, staring me in the face. Twenty-eight times that God had said, "Yes, this is My will." Too many to be coincidence. It dawned on me that, if the marriage had been God's will, then He also knew about this outcome all these years later ... and planned for it. That is, while the divorce was not God's "perfect will," it was certainly His permissive will, His plan, His direction for my life. Like Joseph, I could say, "You meant evil against me, but God meant it for good" (Gen 50:20). This was part of His "plans for welfare and not for calamity to give you a future and a hope" (Jer 29:11). God spoke to me that evening. "It's okay. I knew this was coming. It is in your best interest and part of My plan. I will never leave you nor forsake you." And I could say, "It is well with my soul." Is God real? I say so. Can He be trusted? I would declare it so. Does He cause well-being and create calamity (Isa 45:7)? Yes, He does. But He always does what's good and what's right. I can say so because I've seen Him in action for the past 30+ years after that, and He has done what was best. I'm an eyewitness.

The Original Sin

A longstanding doctrine of the Christian faith is the doctrine of Original Sin. The doctrine holds that humans are born with a sin nature because of Adam's sin. It's biblical, too (Psa 51:5; Eph 2:1-3; Pro 22:15; Gen 8:21; Psa 14:2-3; Jer 17:9; Rom 5:12; etc.). That is, we sin because we are sinners; it's in our nature. But that phrase there ... "because of Adam's sin" ... if Original Sin is because of Adam's sin, what is the Original Sin -- the sin of Adam?

You might think it was eating the fruit of the tree, and perhaps you'd be partly right, but it was Eve that ate, then Adam. Yet, in Paul's first epistle to Timothy, Paul says that "it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression" (1 Tim 2:14). So Eve's sin was through deception, but not Adam's, and because of that Adam is responsible for Original Sin and not Eve. Solomon wrote, "Behold, I have found only this, that God made men upright, but they have sought out many devices" (Ecc 7:29). In creation, Adam (and Eve) were made "good." That is, they were made, in Solomon's words, "upright." They were made without sin -- without a sin nature. So Eve was deceived, but Adam "sought out many devices," as it were. Apparently, Adam wasn't doing his job. When the serpent asked what God said, her answer wasn't accurate. "God has said, 'You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.'" (Gen 3:3). He said no such thing. Apparently Adam failed to teach her correctly. And we know that Adam was there for the conversation with the serpent because, "When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate" (Gen 3:6). So, yes, Adam's sin was that he ate what God commanded him not to, but beyond that he failed to teach his helpmeet the truth about what God said and failed to intervene when she was deceived and he was not.

For punishment to be just, it has to fit the crime. I would say that the reason that part of the curse included, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat from it'; Cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you will eat of it all the days of your life" (Gen 3:17) -- because his failure was listening to his wife rather than God -- and "To the woman He said, 'I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, in pain you will bring forth children; yet your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you'" (Gen 3:16) Adam's sin is perhaps the most common sin among Christian husbands today. We fail to teach our wives (Eph 5:26-27). We fail to lead (1 Cor 11:3). Like Adam, we abdicate our God-given responsibility to live with our wives in an understanding way and honor her as a fellow heir of the grace of life (1 Peter 3:7). And, in return, she grasps the reins and runs with it and we can't figure out where we're going or why. Just deserts, they call it. And it's our own fault for not being the teachers and leaders and responsible heads of household that God ordained us to be. Like Adam.

Be Still My Soul

Lorna assures me we cannot have a "Music Monday" since no music, written or audio, is supplied, so I might as well put this on Sunday, right?

Be still, my soul! The Lord is on thy side.
Bear patiently the cross of grief or pain.
Leave to thy God to order and provide,
In every change He faithful will remain.
Be still, my soul! Thy best, thy heavenly friend
Through thorny ways leads to a joyful end.

Written by Katharina von Schlegel in 1752, the hymn displays a trust in a God almost unheard of today. Why? What did she know that many of us seem to have lost?

One of the most common commands to action in Scripture is "Wait," "Stand firm," "Be still." These are all the same concept. Why? "Be still, and know that I am God" (Psa 46:10). In knowing God there is peace. Why? Because of who He is, but also because He is at your side.

How did Katharina von Schlegel view God? To her, He was present and personal. She saw order and provision, and she saw Him as the sole source of order and provision. She saw Him as immutable and faithful, an anchor in a stormy world. She saw Him as the best possible choice, as a real friend, and wise enough to know the course to true joy.

Just as important as her view of God was her view of life. How she saw God directly impacted how she saw life. She saw that life was difficult, painful -- in her terms, a cross. But to her it was nothing to either deny or shrink from. Because her all-wise, all-powerful, all-loving God was at her side, she could bear patiently and allow God to order her world and provide for her needs.

Even here we lose our way. Of course, we say, God will provide for our needs, but we mean something entirely different than God does in His promise for provision. We have turned to a God who will give us what we want rather than to a God to whom we must surrender ourselves. We believe that He is there to satisfy us. David Wells says that we have learned this in our American consumer mentality. "In the marketplace, everything is for us, for our pleasure, for our satisfaction, and we have come to assume that it must be so in the church as well."¹ The current prevalent belief is that God is there for our indulgence, and when he fails to give us what we want, He is no longer our friend. "We imagine that for those who love God and are called according to his purpose, all things work together for their satisfaction and the inner tranquility of their lives." But the fact is that God has promised suffering - because He loves us and wants the best for us. He will meet the needs He knows we have. He will use difficult circumstances to provide for our good (Rom 5:3-5; James 1:2-4). But it is only when we recognize the loving character of God that we can face harsh conditions with joy, knowing that He has our utmost in mind.

Katharina's viewpoints are vastly different from the average Christian today. While we speak of an omnipotent, omniscient, loving, wise God, we tremble at the slightest disturbance in life. It is said that you are motivated by what you believe, and our motivation is self-preservation because we don't really believe that God is capable or reliable. It seems that most of us don't know the God that Katharina knew. We need to. We need to see Him in history, see Him in our experience, see Him in His Word, and see Him in others. We will be unable to reflect Him if we never view Him, never see Him as He is. It is the reflection of Him that is our goal (Rom 8:28-29). And when we view Him as He is, we can choose to proceed through painful circumstances, standing on His capabilities and love, and obtaining the prize He had in mind for us, perfection.

Be still, my soul! Thy God doth undertake
To guide the future as He has the past.
Thy hope, thy confidence let nothing shake.
All now mysterious shall be bright at last.
Be still, my soul! The waves and winds still know
His voice who ruled them while He dwelt below.

The question of God's sovereignty has been a raging debate in the church throughout the years. Is God really in charge? What about predestination? Where does man's free will come into play? The real question is, is God truly sovereign?

The hymnist looks to His sovereignty as an ultimate anchor. "Be still, my soul! Thy God doth undertake to guide the future as He has the past." A key to the confidence we can have in God is in that simple sentence. How can we be sure God will "guide the future?" Because He has guided the past (Isa. 25:1). We see it in history. We see it in Scripture. We see it in our own lives. The fact is God's track record, whether we recognize it or not, is absolutely perfect.

It is God in whom we trust. It is His character, His proven character, in which we have confidence. We trust His goodness to do good. We trust His omniscience to know what that is and all that it entails. We trust His omnipotence to carry out His plans. When we fear anything or anyone other than God, we are saying, "I'm not sure You can be trusted here, God."

The author had another source of confidence in God. She looked to the scriptural record. We can be still in our souls because of the proof in Scripture. Her prime example is Jesus calming the storm (Mark 4:35-41). The passage says Jesus rebuked the wind and sea, and it became perfectly calm. The reaction of the disciples was increased fear, for real terror is the presence of the Holy with the unholy. If we know God, circumstances are inconsequential because they are in His hands. It is God we must fear (Deut. 4:10; Psa. 111:10; Eccl. 8:12; 12:13; Heb. 10:31).

Be still, my soul! The hour is hastening on
When we shall be forever with the Lord.
When disappointment, grief, and fear are gone -
Sorrow forgot, love's purest joys restored.
Be still, my soul! When change and tears are past,
All safe and blessed we shall meet at last.

It is fascinating to me the consistent forward look of hymn writers. A majority of their songs and poems look to our ultimate union with God, either in His return or our death. Is this because of their great sorrow in life? Are they all suicidal? I don't think so. I think it is because of the immense joy set before them in the presence of God.

Most hymns point to God at work. There is great confidence in His work here and now. But to be with Him, united, perfect! Indeed, I believe it is this forward look that helped them toward their views of God. To recognize the here and now as satisfactory is possible because of who God is (Phil. 4:11-13). To see this as temporary makes it all the more enjoyable (Phil. 1:21-24). And anticipating being in God's presence in the future prevents too great an attachment to the present (Matt. 6:19-21). What cause to rejoice - to be someday in the presence of God!

Katharina ties it all together in this last verse. "Sorrow forgot, love's purest joys restored." Why be still? Because then, ultimately, the uncertainties and pains of life will be gone. We will know safety and blessing. "Now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I shall know fully just as I also have been fully known." (1 Cor. 13:12)

What cause to be still? In a word, God. His faithfulness and providence, His love and sovereignty, and the absolute certainty of being with Him. Be still, my soul!
________

¹ David F. Wells, God in the Wasteland, pp. 114 (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1994)

News Weakly - 8/10/2024

The Best We Can Get
A group known as Republicans for Biden is launching a campaign to urge anti-Trump voters (especially Republicans) to vote for Harris. Consider. This means that we don't vote for positions, policies, or principles, since the Democrats by definition are opposed to Republican versions. No, this means we vote against someone. Which, of course, has been the case for most of the 21st century, hasn't it? From the "Never Hillary" folks to the "Never Trump" folks and everything in between, we've been voting against rather than for anything for decades. Which gives some insight into the dismal politicians and twisted minds of the American people.

A Follow Up
Sarah Jones, a senior writer for the Intelligencer, offered "A Socialist's Case for Kamala Harris" last month. A real Bernie Sanders fan, Sarah will settle for Kamala ... specifically for her socialist positions. Sarah believes Harris is the best option for things like universal healthcare, free college education for all, student-debt forgiveness for all, and, of course, expanded death to preborn babies. If you're planning to vote on policies and principles, keep Harris in mind ... as one to oppose. But if it's just, "I hate Trump," well, you make your bed and you lie in it.

Strange Turn of Events
Since Ivy League schools are far left, it is a bit of a surprise that 5 Columbia University students and graduates have filed suit against pro-Hamas government individuals whose support for Hamas forced the shutdown of Columbia in the pro-Palestine demonstrations last semester. The suit includes AOC and Ilhan Omar among the names being sued. I guess there are Columbia students who don't appreciate "Death to America" and "Death to Jews" being chanted at their school under the protection of antisemitic government leaders. Go figure. Looks like Harvard will get a little of that, too.

Political Dad Joke
It looks like Kamala Harris has hit a Walz in her search for a VP. (Sorry.)

California Humanitarians
California is the closest thing we have to a "sanctuary state" with most of the big cities embracing illegal aliens, so it seems odd that the governor is promising to remove funding from cities and counties who do not clear homeless encampments. They clearly care about people who enter this country illegally and clearly don't care about babies before they're born, so I guess people who are homeless fall in the latter category in California.

Back to the Bee
The Bee is reporting that Trump is concerned that if he beats Harris in a debate the Dems might put up someone good this time. (Of course, the rest of the media is all pretty sure that she's the savior of the world.) VP-to-be Walz has clarified that he has never been to Iraq, but he has been to Minneapolis, which is essentially the same thing. He has a point. And a new video out from the Trump shooting is raising suspicion because it seems to show a Secret Service agent adjusting the Trump shooter's scope. Okay, perhaps that's too far.

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

Meet John Darby

John Darby (1800-1882) was one of the founders of the Plymouth Brethren. Darby's best known accomplishments were Dispensationalism and providing "the intellectual mantle" that made the doctrine of the pre-Tribulation Rapture respectable. Darby and C.I. Scofield (1843-1921) were the key figures in putting forward the most popular eschatological schema of our day, bolstered by the likes of Hal Lindsey and Tim LaHaye, etc. (Please do not read any disparagement to any of those named in that.) Prior to the 19th century, pre-millennialism held a timeline that went something like this. In the end times, there would be 7 years of tribulation (called "the Great Tribulation"), after which Christ would return, call His own to Himself, and take control of the world for a millennium. After this, the judgment and the end. The so-called "Rapture" was in their belief system, but occurred after the Tribulation. Pre-millennialists, then, were prepared to go through 7 years of Tribulation under the persecution of the so-called "Antichrist" (who, by the way, is not mentioned in the Book of Revelation -- just "the Beast") and under the protection of Christ (which could include up to and including martyrdom).

Enter John Darby. In Darby's studies, he determined that all those prior to him had misinterpreted (or were simply unclear on) the Scriptures on this subject. The "Rapture¹" was a shared belief with the Church fathers (1 Cor 15:52; 1 Thess 4:17; etc.) of a time when Christ would return and take His people with Him. Darby simply put that event at the start of the Tribulation (around 1820). Early Church fathers, however, believed they were in the Tribulation, so they believed in a post-Tribulation Rapture. (Some put the Rapture at the end, just before the final judgment.) Darby put it before the Tribulation. Prior to him, there are no records of anyone else holding that position.

There are several Scriptures that give us this quite certain "Rapture" -- this "taken up to be with Christ." Anyone who reads the Bible concurs that such an event will take place. The primary Scripture offered that would place it prior to the Tribulation is Rev 3:10 -- "Because you have kept the word of My perseverance, I also will keep you from the hour of testing, that hour which is about to come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth." This, however, doesn't require a physical absence, does it? And the pre-Tribulation Rapture concept has a few other difficulties. For instance, if God's people (and, as some claim, the Holy Spirit) are removed prior to the Tribulation, how are there believers in the Tribulation (e.g., Rev 7:1-8; Dan 7:21; Rev 14:12-13)? And why is the promise of Rev 3:10 (if that is the promise of Rev 3:10) kept from them? If Christ comes at the beginning of the Tribulation and at the end of the Tribulation (some like the "pre-wrath Rapture" that would occur at the midpoint of the 7-year period), isn't that a 3rd coming? So there are questions. Mine begins with, "What took the Holy Spirit so long to get this information across?" Who knows? Maybe the overbearing hold the Roman Catholic Church held on theology blocked Him. Maybe He did get it across ... but no one recorded it prior to Darby. Or ... maybe the pre-Trib Rapture isn't the correct understanding. I, for one, really like the idea of being "taken up" prior to the Tribulation described in Scripture, but that's primarily because I'm not keen on serious ... Tribulation. Maybe it will happen. I can see a version in which it does not ... and all God's Word and promises are still true. So I'm not going to make this my hill to die on. I'll just count on God to do what's right and look eagerly for His imminent return. If we end up going through the Tribulation, up to and including the possibility of martyrdom, I won't be standing in front of Christ saying, "You were wrong! You lied!!" I'll be okay with it. You'll have to decide that for yourselves.
________

¹ The term, "Rapture," does not appear in the Bible. Mind you, that is not sufficient reason to reject the doctrine. The term, "Trinity," doesn't appear there either. The Rapture got its name from the Latin rapturo in the Latin translation of the Greek word, harpazō, translated "taken up" or "caught up" in 1 Thess 4:17.

Arizona Animals

Thought I'd introduce you to some of the creatures of the Arizona desert.

The Whipscorpion is a gruesome sight. Six legs to walk with and two pincer arms to grab with and pointy jaws to eat with. And the kicker ... we found this in the shower. Turns out, as ugly as it might seem, they're kind of nice to have around. For humans, they might bite you hard enough to draw blood, but they're not venemous. They do like to eat scorpions, though, and the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

You think of squirrels and you think of wooded areas, trees, grass, the idyllic place ... but not the desert. Indeed, most of the squirrels here in the desert are very small. So we were pleased to see this guy hanging around. He's a Rock Squirrel, indigenous to the Arizona desert, bushy tail and all. This one hung around in the wash behind our house for a few years and then vanished. Don't know if he was someone's lunch or just ...? He liked to climb that fence you see behind him, grabbing two adjacent bars and arm-walking himself up until he got to a bird feeder. So I greased the bars and it was amusing for quite awhile. No squirrels were harmed in the process.

Of course, you think "desert" and you logically think "rabbits." This is the typical Cottontail Rabbit. This one is very young, in fact. Maybe 5" long. The odd part is the picture was taken outside the local Lowes hardware store. He and his family were living in among the pallets. I was more concerned about cars than coyotes for this guy. We get jackrabbits, too, but they're not as plentiful here as farther out in the desert.

Bobcats are not uncommon around here. Mostly harmless ... to humans. And they have, obviously, made themselves at home in our urban sprawl. This one was sitting on the wall of our yard keeping an eye on the birdfeeder as if he thought we put it there to attract birds to give him something to eat.

Obviously, you think "desert" and you definitely think vultures -- Turkey Vulture to be precise. They're found in more places than the desert, actually, but certainly in the desert. Vultures are ugly up close, most say. Those bald heads and beady eyes and, after all, they do eat dead things. But, in flight, they are magnificent. At a distance, the easiest way to tell the difference between a vulture and a hawk is that the vulture almost never flaps his wings. He just ... hangs there, drifting on air currents, cruising along. Quite majestic, actually. They get up around sunrise and find themselves a place to sun themselves to get ready for the day. You know, warm up a little, dry off the feathers, maybe get rid of a few parasites. I took this picture from my back porch and didn't realize until I looked at it later that the bird was staring right at me. "Hey! I'm not dead yet! Wait your turn!"

Last one for today. This is one of the smaller hawks. He's called a Cooper's Hawk (or Sharp-Shinned Hawk -- I can never be sure). They're very swift flyers. I read about one birder watching a Cooper's Hawk chasing a quail. He was gaining quickly, so the quail folded his wings and simply fell into the thicket for cover ... except the hawk was faster. He rolled upside down in flight, flew beneath the quail, and caught the quail in his talons, and flew off with lunch. Very impressive. These hawks prefer birds while others, like the Red Tail Hawk, like larger prey like rabbits and such. As such, this Cooper's Hawk, too, is pretty sure we put birdfeeders out as bait to attract things he likes to eat.


Try if you like, but you can't convince me that this stuff is "random" and "chance," the product of some mindless evolution. They are too complex, skillful, uniquely adapted, and carefully designed to be accidental. Oh, no, that's not reasonable at all, looking at creation.

Daniel's Prayer

In Daniel 9 we find Daniel on his knees. He had been reading Jeremiah, apparently, and was reminded that God had told Jeremiah that they would be in captivity for 70 years (Jer 25:11-12). Well, they had been in captivity now for some 66 years, so Daniel thought he'd pray. It's a magnificent prayer (Dan 9:4-19). It contains all the necessary components, as it were. He pays close attention to the character of God (Dan 9:4). Then he confesses sin (Dan 9:5-14). He confesses the sin of the people in terms including "we" because he found himself guilty of sin. He admitted that their enslavement was the just punishment for them. He recalled God's power and mercy in rescuing them from Egypt (Dan 9:15) and calls on God to save them not on account of any merits of their own, but on His great compassion and for His name's sake (Dan 9:16-19). A magnificent prayer, and a model for any of us.

There is, however, an error, a mistake, if you will. It's in his confession of sin. While we know now that sin is just a faux pas, a boo-boo, a little slip up, as it were, Daniel sees it as something else. He says it was rebellion (Dan 9:9). He calls it treachery (Dan 9:7). He makes it sound ... so bad. So bad, in fact, that Daniel thinks that their punishment of being hauled off to Babylon was a righteous act on God's part (Dan 9:16). Not us. We're much more benign than that. We're not greatly upset by sins. We're not too worked up over our breaches of God's commands. "Rebellion"? "Treachery"? No, of course not. God would be unfair if He simply failed to forgive us our minor errors and overlook our "missing the mark." He's a big God. He doesn't need to act so harshly ... does He?

Scripture, of course, is on Daniel's side. God cannot stand sin. Treachery against the Most High is Cosmic Treason. And God Himself calls our sin "treachery" (Lev 26:40). Daniel's prayer, then, is a model prayer for us. Recognize God for Who He is. Doing so will help us to see who we are -- sinners. Remember His goodness. Then, with God in His proper place and we in our proper place, we can ask of Him and He will answer. If we don't recognize the God of the Bible or ourselves as treacherous sinners against Him, why would we expect kindness and mercy from Him?

Can I Get a Witness? (1990)

I love this story because it's true, because it happened to me, and, ultimately, because it so clearly displays God's hand. During the decade of the '80s, I spent my time in the Air Force. In late 1989, two years into my 3rd 4-year reenlistment, I got a call from a friend I had worked with in the first enlistment. He offered me a job with a company in California. "Well," I told him, "I have 2 more years before I can even entertain it." "My vice-president is coming to Syracuse" (where I was), he told me, "and if you'll meet with him, he can interview you and make an offer." So, knowing it couldn't happen, I met with him. And he made me an offer -- more than $10,000 over the minimum I thought I'd need to live in California. Still ... two years. But God ...

It was soon after that we were notified that the government wanted to decrease the size of the military. They said that anyone that wanted out, from new enlistees on up, could get out. I was an instructor at the time and I went to my superiors and said I'd like to do it. "Oh, no," they told me, "the plan is to make this base the advanced training base for the entire northeast quadrant of the U.S. We can't let you go. In fact, we need 4 more like you just in your career field." So, I filed the request, expecting a "no." To my surprise and the surprise of my superiors, it came back approved. So, after 10 years in the Air Force, I was being let go with an honorable discharge (and 3 months of leave to finish out before I was discharged). I said goodbye to my group, packed up the family, and drove from central New York to southern California. We moved temporarily in with my parents while I secured the job I was offered and ... I was told there was no job. The company that made the offer was not only not hiring; they were going out of business. And I thought, "God???"

Well, I started searching in earnest for a job. I had experience in electronics up to and including teaching it. Should be lots of opportunities. I had lots of interviews, but no bites. My father visited Orange County and came back with a newspaper, so I looked in there, too. And I called one of the ads to see about an interview. They invited me up and I went and spent the day being interviewed by 6 or 8 different people. At one point, the VP of Electronics asked me, "Where did you hear about the job?" I said, "In the ad in the newspaper." He looked at the others and said, "Did we put an ad in the newspaper?" They all shook their heads. They hired me soon thereafter, waived my 90-day probation, and applied my benefits (including medical) immediately ... the day before my military leave and benefits ran out.

"Coincidence," some might argue. Perhaps. But when you pile "coincidence" after "coincidence" on top of each other until you have a whole column of them, "coincidence" doesn't seem to cut it. "Design" is a better word. "The hand of God" is more reasonable. Fortunately, all of it was out of my hands, so I take no mistaken credit for a great job that lasted the next decade until my wife and I left the state for "greener pastures" ... in Arizona ... so maybe not "greener," but you get the idea. You may wonder if there is a God or, maybe, just if He's personal or not, but I know it. I am an eyewitness.

Beneath the Cross of Jesus

Maybe I can make it "Music Monday"? We'll see ...

Beneath The Cross Of Jesus
Elizabeth Clephane

Beneath the cross of Jesus I fain would take my stand,
The shadow of a mighty Rock within a weary land;
A home within the wilderness, a rest along the way
From the burning of the noonday heat and the burden of the day.

Upon that cross of Jesus, mine eye can sometimes see
The very dying form of One who suffered there for me;
And from my smitten heart with tears two wonders I confess -
The wonders of His glorious love and my own worthlessness.

I take, O cross, thy shadow for my abiding place -
I ask no other sunshine than the sunshine of His face;
Content to let the world go by, to know no gain nor loss,
My sinful self my only shame, my glory all the cross.

Elizabeth Clephane was born in 1830. She was the frail daughter of a county sheriff in Abbotsford, Scotland. The hymn, published anonymously in 1872, was written one year before her death in 1868. It reflects her deep affection for God as well as her love for the Word of God. In the first verse alone there are seven references from Scripture.

The hymn focuses on the cross. Many today see the cross as an offensive thing. They would rather concentrate on the Resurrection or the life of Christ. It just seems like the cross is such an unpleasant and past event. But Elizabeth saw it as a place to abide. That is where she would gladly take her stand. ("Fain" is a Scottish word meaning "gladly.") Look at her view of the cross. She saw it as "the shadow of a mighty Rock within a weary land, a home within the wilderness, a rest along the way."

"The mighty Rock" is a reference to the Messiah taken from Isa. 32:2. We see this same Rock in Exo. 33-34 when Moses wanted to see God and in Isaac Watts' hymn "Rock of Ages." Scripture refers to Jesus as the Rock of my salvation, the chief cornerstone, a rock of offense. (Psa. 89:26; 95:1; Isa. 28:16; Rom. 9:33) David calls God the "Rock of my strength." (Psa. 31:2, 3; 62:7; 71:3) There are, in fact over 25 references in Scripture to God as "Rock." In the shadow of the cross we can see that unyielding Rock who walked all the way to Calvary to die for me and to become the basis -- the foundation -- of my salvation.

"A home within the wilderness" is a phrase from Jer. 9:2. It depicts the personal nature of my relationship with God, portraying His sufficiency and protection. The phrase also illustrates the separation from the world we live in - "the wilderness." We are called to "come out from among them and be separate." (2 Cor. 6:17) "What fellowship has light with darkness?" Paul asks the Corinthians. (2 Cor. 6:14) ("This world is not my home; I'm just passing through.") Our citizenship is not earthly. (Phil. 3:20) Yet we try with all our might to incorporate as much of our world as we can into our spiritual viewpoints. We have so blended the two that they have become nearly indistinguishable. The morality, the divorce rates, the lifestyles, the attitudes of too many evangelical Christians are almost no different than those of the world around them. But God calls to us, "Come home. My grace is sufficient for you." James warns us that friendship with the world is hostility toward God. "Whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God." (James 4:4)

"A rest along the way," from Isa. 28:12, is a reference to the peace of God that passes understanding. God ordained rest in the Sabbath. He refers to our ultimate rest as the sabbath rest. (Heb. 4:9-11; see 4:1-16) Unrest was never God's intention for our lives. So Paul exhorts us to "let the peace of God rule in your hearts." (Col. 3:15)

The hymnist takes a very personal look at the cross in the second verse. She visualizes Christ Himself hanging on that tree. And she sees clearly the truth of the crucifixion. Two truths stand when she looks at Jesus' death: His glorious love and her worthlessness. Today's therapeutic society would have Elizabeth in counseling in a heartbeat. Her Christian friends might have urged her to go. Our modern hymnals have so protested her comment that they have changed it. Our hymnals now read "my unworthiness." No one should consider themselves worthless. But, then, Paul would have had the earlier appointment with the therapist after his unpopular claim that he was chief among sinners and that no one was good. Now what kind of a self-image is that for a believer? It is a biblical one. The essence of God's saving grace is that I don't deserve it. By that, I mean we have no intrinsic reason to receive salvation. We have no inborn value, no innate goodness, no inherent lovableness. Paul told the Romans that God chose (not by force) to save us for His glory. (Romans 9:22, 23) God is not obligated by our weighty value to provide for us a means of escaping judgment or a way to know Him. But today's churches largely operate as a cult of self-esteem. We need to feel better about ourselves. We are people of value. Elizabeth Clephane disagrees. The cross shows me my sin condition.

In the third verse she states the only form of value she possesses. Her only value is Christ. Paul concurs ... repeatedly. "For me to live is Christ." "I count all things as loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ." Jeremiah quotes God as saying, "Let him who boasts boast in this, that he knows Me." (Jeremiah 9:24) By nature, we are worthless. The only real value to be found in us is Christ in us. The only way that can happen is His redeeming work on the cross.

The hymnist isn't done with her survey of the cross yet. In the final verse, her goal is to make that her dwelling place. "I take, O cross, thy shadow for my abiding place - I ask no other sunshine than the sunshine of His face." This is where we need to live. It is here, in the presence of the crucified Lord, that we see most clearly His unfathomable love and our utter depravity. It is here that we see the seriousness of God's demand for obedience and the consequence of our failure. It is here that we can see our worthlessness and His surpassing value. From the cross comes the strongest call to Christ-like character rather than self-serving ambition. At the cross we learn to endure suffering, a given for each Christian's life. At the cross, husbands learn to love their wives. At the cross, children learn to obey their parents. At the cross, Christians learn to love each other and bear one another's burdens. It is in the shadow of the cross that we all need to abide.