Breaking Barriers

Our culture today likes to think that they're breaking barriers. Don't limit people to heterosexual; let (one of the stupidest phrases I can imagine) "love be love." (Stupid because without a clear definition of "love" -- like we have today -- you're enabling all sorts of evil, like pedophilia, bestiality, marrying your pillow ... on and on.) Or, how about how we're throwing off the old (rational, scientific, as-old-as-human-existence) "boys are boys and girls are girls" and substituting ... everything and nothing at all? Or those racial barriers, which we're tearing down by erecting new ones where the white people (all of them without exception) are the bad guys -- just another barrier. Now, if you pay attention, you might begin to see that Jesus was all about breaking barriers, too.

Jesus said, "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" (Matt 5:43-44). Now, that is a barrier broken. Jesus said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave" (Matt 20:25-27). Wow! Talk about tearing down a barrier! Jesus said, "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 18:3). Bang! Another barrier falls! In fact, Jesus said He came to "give His life as a ransom for many" (Matt 20:28). Jesus came to bring down the barriers between a holy God and sinful Man. Seriously, He took down lots of barriers ... more than we realized He could.

So, Jesus was about tearing down barriers, right? Well, sort of. He was also in favor of erecting them. He said, "If anyone would come after Me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow Me" (Luke 9:23). That's a significant barrier. He told Nicodemus, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God" (John 3:3). Cannot see it? Huge barrier. Jesus ripped down the false judgment of the Pharisees when He said, "He who is without sin cast the first stone" followed immediately by erecting a new barrier by telling her, "Go and sin no more." (John 8:7, 11). So, in fact, Jesus was in the practice of knocking down barriers, but not for the sake of barriers. He was busy redirecting false thinking to true thinking, of removing lies and substituting truth. He tore down walls keeping people from what was actually true and erected walls to block people from the lies they embraced. Unlike our culture, which is busily tearing down walls that were intended to keep us safe and erecting walls to keep us from the truth. So ... not the same thing.

Threat to Democracy

It seems as if this presidential race has run on the "threat to democracy" platform. The left has pounded the drum that Trump is an "existential threat to democracy" for most of this year (and before) (and they were startled when "patriots" tried to eliminate that "existential threat" with assassination). Why? Primarily because Trump questioned the results of the 2020 election. Now, I wouldn't think questioning the results of an election was a "threat to democracy." I mean, Gore did it in 2000 and Hillary did it in 2016 and ... well, a lot of people are doing it ... without being an "existential threat." I would think verifying election results would be in support of democracy. But, no, Trump kept (I think still) saying that the election was rigged. The media (primarily) declared, "There is no evidence for widespread election fraud." Look at that a moment. First, it does not claim "Election fraud was proven false." No, they claim "no evidence." They do it despite the evidence, but the claim is not "proof," but the lack thereof. And then there are those "weasel words." "No evidence" (in their book) of "widespread" (undefined) election fraud. I didn't think anyone was claiming "widespread" fraud. In the 2020 election 3 swing states had a small gap between Trump and Biden. Three states decided the outcome. That's not "widespread" but neither is it insignificant. But they swept the evidence and the question under the rug and call Trump the "threat to democracy."

I'll tell you what is a threat to democracy. Fascism or a monarchy or a dictatorship or an oligarchy or the like -- those are threats to democracy. An overbearing, over-controlling, over-stepping government -- that's a threat to democracy. You know what else? A republic. You see, America is not a democracy; it is a republic. We vote in representatives and they make the rules ... without concern for the voters'. Their only accountability is "Can I get reelected?", and folks like AOC have demonstrated that that's not an issue. The American political system is a threat to democracy. We have a two-party system. Each party offers a candidate before we decide who will be our leader. So we end up with so many goofballs, none of which should be in office. A democracy would give us a list of names and we vote and the one with the highest number wins, but we don't do that. We don't even want to do that. So we eliminate actual democracy, substitute a two-party system, and then fold in a Republic ... and complain about Trump.

The founding fathers of this nation revolted against their government because, as an example, "No taxation without representation." Well, I can't think of the last time I voted in a representative who represented my views. For most of my life it has been "hold your nose and vote" elections, some slightly better than others. For the 21st century, it seems it has been "Never them" votes, where you're not voting for a candidate, but against an opponent. That's not democracy. It's not even a representative government. So, fine, you want to call Trump an "existential threat to democracy"? Go ahead. I'm no Trump fan. But keep in mind that you are perpetrating "an existential threat to truth" when you do. And that's on you.

How To Dress For Church

I didn't intend it -- it wasn't the point -- but there has been some discussion recently about how we should dress in church. I'm afraid we've missed the point. Oh, I know, people feel one way or another about that, but I don't. They say, "Clothes make the man," but it's simply not true. It's not about what you wear to church. What, then?

The real issue (and I think this was touched on but almost entirely missed in the discussion) is not the clothes. There are no dress codes (or shouldn't be) in churches. Why? Simple. It's not biblical. We aren't told to wear a tie to church. We aren't told that shorts are okay. Clothes are not the point. What are we told? "By those who come near Me I will be treated as holy, and before all the people I will be honored" (Lev 10:3). Easy. Regard God as holy. In Scripture, everyone who had a close encounter with God was terrified. One of my favorite stories was the disciples on the Sea of Galilee in a storm and Jesus was asleep (Mark 4:31-. The disciples woke Him. "Don't you care that we're going to drown???" Jesus rebuked the storm, it halted, and the text says, "They became very much afraid" (Mark 4:35-41). You thought they were scared in a storm? That was nothing to seeing God in the boat with them. That was terrifying. We tend to think of God as a pal, a buddy, our friend. And, in a sense, He is, but we must not lose that "fear" factor. Moses thought of God as a friend when he cried out, "Show me Your glory!" (Exo 33:18). God spared Moses's life not by simply being merciful, but by covering him so he wouldn't die seeing God's glory. God is our friend; He's just not that kind of friend.

We fail to reverence God as we should, and that is a key, biblical problem. Not wearing a tie to church is not. I think of what Peter wrote to wives, "Do not let your adorning be external -- the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear -- but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's sight is very precious" (1 Peter 3:3-4). That's the idea. Peter wasn't commanding women to dress (or not dress) a certain way. He was telling them to have a spirit -- a character -- that reflected God. That character would show externally. So, no, what you wear to church is not the issue. Your attitude is. It's just hard to imagine shorts and flip-flops as an outward sign of an inner realization of a holy, holy, holy God. No, the shorts are not the problem, but how much does how we dress say about what's in our hearts? I don't know what's in hearts, so I won't respond to what others are wearing. But I cannot imagine walking into the palace of a king in shorts and flip-flops and a flippant, "Hiya, king" and regarding that as "respectful."

The Older Brother

Few of Jesus's parables are more memorable than the parable of the prodigal son (Luke 15:11-32). (As an aside, did you know "the parable of the prodigal son" is not in the Bible? Oh, the parable is, but nowhere does it mention a "prodigal" son. The word means wasteful and recklessly extravagant, so that's where the name comes from, but nowhere in the text is the word used. And we scarcely use it anywhere else either.) The most obvious character ... wait for it ... is, of course, the prodigal son.



The prodigal son is the main point. He's the "bad guy." He goes to his father and asks for his inheritance to squander it on wild living. Think about that. He is, in essence, wishing his father dead. He rejects his father, his family, his faith. He goes off, wastes all he received, ends up with the pigs, and finally ... I love this phrase ... "came to himself." He woke up. He realized his father's servants were better off than he was. So he repented. He would go tell his father he would be a servant. And, of course, the prodigal son is every one of us. We've sinned. We've rejected the Father. We've discarded "family." We jettisoned "faith." We all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God (Rom 3:23). We need repentance.

The next character we often mull over is this father. First, he acquiesces to his son's demands. It's not reasonable. It's not right. But he let's the boy go, knowing what was in store for him -- disaster. Then, when the boy comes slinking back with his tail between his legs, the father spies him "a long way off" and ran to him and embraced him. "My son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found." Why was his son "dead"? That kind of rebellion in Jewish culture was "fatal." You know the old, "You're dead to me"? That was the idea. They would often have a funeral for a disowned child. He was dead; he was lost. But the father ran and embraced him, brushed aside his plea for mercy, and threw him a party. If the prodigal son represents all of us sinners, the father clearly represents God, the Father. He lets us squander what He gives us and embraces us when we repent. "I tell you," Jesus said, "there is joy before the angels of God over one sinner who repents" (Luke 15:10).

All these interactions are memorable, but we often let the other guy remain in the shadows. The older brother. He was not pleased. He was angry at his father. (Think aout that for a moment.) He had been the faithful son, and his father never threw him a party. "But when this son of yours came, who has devoured your property with prostitutes, you killed the fattened calf for him!" (Luke 15:30). The father did not deny that his son had been there. He just asked him to rejoice that his brother was home. The text gives no indication that the older brother did. Who is he? The traditional line is the Pharisees. Maybe ... then. Today we have our own "older brother." You find them in "faithful" places like churches. They're warm and friendly to the "forgiven" -- the "in crowd" -- but not so much the soiled. I remember when stories circulated that Jeffrey Dahmer had come to Christ in prison, some were skeptical and some were outraged. "Really? A murderous cannibal?" We don't have to go so far as that to see it, though. "You heard about her, didn't you? She had an abortion." "You know, he cheated on his wife." "Did you know that in his youth he did drugs?" Or, the worst, "She voted for Hillary!" These objects of discussion are believers, forgiven, embraced by the Father. They were pursued and called and saved. Jesus died for them. But ... no ... they're not good enough for us.

The parable is really heartwarming. We see the Father, always ready to forgive. Thank God that's Him. We see the son, a truly profligate sinner who truly repents and receives both grace and mercy. Thank God we can, too. It's really, then, in the end, that older brother that is heartbreaking. There is joy in heaven when one sinner repents, but sometimes not so much among the "saved." And that's truly a shame. Don't be that older brother.