Halloween

Halloween over the past decades has exploded in America's love of holidays. Not a few people I've talked to have told me that Halloween is their favorite holiday. Homes I've seen have more decorations for Halloween than any other, including Christmas. In 2023 Americans spent over $12 billion on Halloween. How should Christians view this ... holiday? (I question the term "holiday" because of its original intent as a day held holy.) The Bible is clear on Halloween. It mentions it ... not once. Still Christians all over are quite adamant about what's right for Christians on Halloween. They may/may not celebrate it. It is/isn't a celebration of Satan. Recognizing Halloween is/isn't a sin.

Isn't Halloween a pagan holiday (where "holiday" is actually "holy day")? Just about everyone you ask will tell you it is, rooted in a Celtic festival called (but not pronounced) "Samhain." (It's pronounced "sow-in.") That story was from Sir John Rhys (1840-1915), a Welsh scholar who made the claim but didn't provide much proof. It stuck. Modern scholars aren't convinced. Samhain was a Celtic celebration of the change of the season celebrating the Otherworld. Halloween was invented by the church around AD 835 to honor those who had died, especially martyrs. November 1st was "All Saints Day," so October 31st was "All Hallows Eve," shortened today to "Halloween." Who plagiarized whom is still up in the air, but the two celebrations at least similar in time of year merged practices and now we have events that no one even remembers what they originally commemorated.

How, then, should Christians respond? Obviously, celebrating the evil is out. On the other hand, Scripture celebrates martyrs. Glorifying Satan and his minions is clearly an improper response for Christians, but is it wrong to get together, have some exchange of candy, etc., even recognize those who have died for the faith? Here's what I believe. It's not, explicitly, in Scripture. Recognizing the wrong of celebrating evil, I'm not sure Halloween necessarily is only that. I know of many, for instance, who pass out tracts with their gifts of candy. What I do know is "greater is He who is in you than he who is in the world" (1 John 4:4). On the other hand, that which is not of faith is sin (Rom 14:23). It's not wise to take these matters lightly. It's not wise to overburden them. The Christians that tell me, "Halloween is Satan's night" (and they have told me that) are mistaken (Psa 118:24). The Christians that tell me, "There's no danger in a little 'devilish' fun" are equally mistaken. We always need to check our motives and not violate what we believe to be true. And, always, we must ask ourselves, "Does it glorify God?"

For Such a Time as This

I grew up in a strong Christian family. I learned good practices and good doctrine and good behavior. I always understood that God was sovereign, but ... only mostly sovereign. Later, I began to get inundated with Scriptures on God's sovereignty and I ran into a problem. Scripture doesn't describe God as "mostly sovereign." It doesn't describe Him as sovereign ... contingent upon me. He's absolutely sovereign. "He does all that He pleases" (Psa 115:3). "The mind of man plans his way, but YHWH directs his steps" (Pro 16:9). "I know that You can do all things, and that no purpose of Yours can be thwarted" (Job 42:2). "So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires" (Rom 9:18). "Ah Lord YHWH! Behold, You have made the heavens and the earth by Your great power and by Your outstretched arm! Nothing is too difficult for You" (Jer 32:17). "All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, but He does according to His will in the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of earth; and no one can ward off His hand Or say to Him, 'What have You done?'" (Dan 4:35). "The king's heart is like channels of water in the hand of the LORD; He turns it wherever He wishes" (Pro 21:1). On and on and on. And it became unavoidable. God wasn't sovereign; He was Sovereign. As Paul put it, the only Sovereign (1 Tim 6:15).

I remember processing that after the first wave washed over me. Really? Sovereign? He does whatever He wishes? Really?? I thought, "That would mean that ... Hitler, was God's will. That He planned it, intended it for good (Gen 50:20). All the evils over the centuries were still evil, but God allowed them to produce good (Rom 8:28)." And I thought, "Wait ... that would mean that I was God's best choice as the father of my sons. Nope! Can't be!" Of course, the weight of Scripture overwhelmed my resistance and I finally settled that issue in my mind. It has become a rock of safety, in fact.

Esther was a nobody, a captive Jewish girl in Persia. Her claim to fame? She was pretty. Circumstances worked out to bring her to the attention of the king and she became the queen. Then forces were at work to completely eliminate the Jewish people in Persia, and she was asked to talk to the king. That could result in her execution. Her cousin, Mordecai, said, "If you remain silent at this time, relief and deliverance will arise for the Jews from another place and you and your father's house will perish. And who knows whether you have not attained royalty for such a time as this?" (Est 4:14). Esther was a nobody who was the right person at the right time for the right task. She obeyed and saved the Jews. Because God is absolutely Sovereign. That's all of us. You and I are in our individual circumstances not by chance, but by design. We are who we are where we are because God has designed us to be so for such a time as this.

Gratefully Loved

The word is "oxymoron." Most probably know that word, but for those of you who don't, it refers to a literary device that combines two apparently contradictory terms to convey a new idea. Like, "old news" or "jumbo shrimp" or "virtual reality" or "awfully good" or "military intelligence." One that often comes up is "happily married." Ladies and gentleman, I am a living oxymoron because I am precisely happily married. I love my wife. She loves me. We don't have significant disagreements. We don't have conflicts over what to do, where to go, what to eat, how to spend our money, any of the standard conflicts in the majority of marriages. We fit. We are well-suited for each other. We are ... happily married.

I was thinking the other day that, while I'm quite certain my wife loves me from her words to her deeds, I don't know why. I'm not a real ... catch. I'm not rich, handsome, loads of fun, sexy ... any of that stuff. When I first met her, I asked what she wanted in a husband. Short, thin, bald, no facial hair, on and on about characteristics that were the opposite of me. I often suffer from delusions of adequacy -- I know I'm not great, but I think I'm "good enough" in a lot of areas. Yet, every time I start to think that, something happens to tell me it just isn't so. I'm human, prone to error, make mistakes. I'm useless around the house for fixing stuff. Digital is more my thing. I am no great catch ... and still, she loves me. Still. Without reserve. Which only makes me appreciate, value, and love her more.

Jesus, speaking of the sinful woman who cleaned His feet, said, "Her sins, which are many, have been forgiven, for she loved much; but he who is forgiven little, loves little" (Luke 7:47). I am awed every day, it seems, that Jesus loves me and died for me. I'm no catch for my wife, but I was His enemy (Rom 5:10). I'm not an extremely capable worker for my wife, but He chose the foolish and the weak (1 Cor 1:26-31). In terms of God's standards of perfection (Matt 5:48), I'm not even in the vicinity, but He ransomed sinners (Matt 20:28). Daily I'm aware that I'm not what I should be. Clearly He didn't choose me because He thought I was. And for that, I am extremely grateful and amazed that He loves me. For that I love Him more and more.

Delight?

Psalm 1 says that the godly man avoids sin. Instead, "His delight is in the law of YHWH, and in His law he meditates day and night" (Psa 1:2) David wrote, "Delight yourself in YHWH; and He will give you the desires of your heart" (Psa 37:4). Now, that's something, isn't it? There's something different in the word "delight" that is beyond mere "enjoy." It means great pleasure -- "a high degree of gratification."

According to the Psalms, we're supposed to delight in the law of YHWH. Strike that. Replace it with the definition. We are supposed to find a high degree of gratification in God's law. Really? We're supposed to find great pleasure in God. Note the promise that accompanies that. If we find our highest pleasure in God, He will give us what we desire. Of course, that's not a "health and wealth" gimmick. Obviously if our greatest joy is found in what God wants, then He'll give us our heart's desire -- what God wants.

The concept of this kind of response to God -- delight -- is throughout Scripture. He isn't our task master. He isn't just our ruler. His intent is that He would be our highest joy. Is He yours? Do you delight in the Lord? How much? What do you delight in? If not Him, what? And why not Him? It goes beyond acceptance or connection. He wants to be our greatest joy. When He is, we will find greater joy.

Suffering

The last one was a bit long, but you seemed to like it, so here's another theme in hymns.

I want to explore, for a moment, the unusual slant the hymns have on suffering. Their viewpoint seems to be different than ours. Now, of course, most Christians would say they were willing to suffer for the sake of Christ. We in modern day America don't have too much of that occurring, so we can easily concur that suffering for Christ is the right thing. How, then, do we respond when our employer fires us for talking to a co-worker about Christ during a lunch break? Righteous indignation? Or peaceful acceptance of our suffering for the sake of our Savior? The question gets harder. You believe that suffering for your faith is the right thing to do. You see it as right, even admirable. You have a great deal of respect for the martyrs who gave their lives through the centuries for the sake of Christ. But how do you respond when a parent snubs you because they don't like your choice of jobs or spouse? This isn't a matter of religious conviction. There's nothing commendable in this. Or how do you respond when you are in an accident on the freeway and lose a leg? There's nothing noble in this. You haven't been persecuted for your beliefs. This is just suffering. Do you degenerate to the "Why, God?" syndrome that beats angrily at the door of heaven demanding an answer from the Creator as to how He could do something like that to one of His own?

The hymns see suffering in a much different light. While we differentiate between sacred and secular, religious and real life, they seem to meld the two. Look at "Be Still, My Soul":

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.

There doesn't seem to be any discrimination between the sacred or the secular. It speaks of "the cross of grief or pain." That could be any grief, any pain. The last verse speaks of "disappointment, grief, and fear," of sorrow and change. These sufferings have little to do with one's beliefs or faith. They are sufferings common to everyone. Each of us suffers disappointment, fear, and the trauma of change.

What does the hymn provide in the way of comfort? "The Lord is on thy side." "Thy heavenly Friend through thorny ways leads to a joyful end." How does the hymnist deal with pain? She places her trust squarely on the reliable Lord of the universe, the One whom "the waves and winds still know." "He faithful will remain." Other hymns agree. "Precious Lord", for instance, places our lives in the hand of God, resting in Him to take us through the trials. This attitude changes entirely the face of difficult circumstances.

"How Firm A Foundation" trusts God to take us through fiery paths, and adds a further twist to the problem of suffering. "The flame shall not hurt thee; I only design thy dross to consume and thy gold to refine." Can you actually believe that God is at work in the suffering, that He is using it for your good (Rom. 8:28, 29)? This would almost make suffering desirable, wouldn't it?

"It Is Well With My Soul" gives different enlightenment on the question of "Why do bad things happen to good people?" and some help on how to handle it. The second verse is as follows:

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.

This blurs the line between secular and sacred. It attributes suffering to Satan. From this vantage point, suffering for your faith differs little from other harsh circumstances. It all comes from Satan, and it is all under God's control. (The book of Job illustrates this perfectly.) Further, the verse looks to Christ's regard for "my helpless estate," to His death for me as comfort during my trials.

In "Nearer, My God, To Thee," there seems to actually be a request for suffering. In the first verse the hymnist states a longing to be near to God, even if a cross is required. Darkness (verse 2) and woes (verse 4) are seen as welcome friends that bring one closer to God, and death brings the ultimate closeness (verse 5).

Scripture supports this view. Peter says that insomuch as we share in the sufferings of Christ, we should rejoice (1 Peter 4:13 14). Paul told the Corinthians that suffering allows us to experience the comfort of God and to comfort others (2 Cor. 1:3 6). Beyond that he says, "Our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all." (2 Cor. 4:11 18) To the Colossians he said, "Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church." (Col 1:24) He saw suffering as adding to the cause of Christ! James tells us to rejoice in suffering because God is at work building perseverance and maturity (James 1:2-4). Peter says we were called to suffer (1 Peter 2:21), and that suffering weans us from sin (1 Peter 4:1).

How different is our view today? We see suffering as barely tolerable in the case of the sacred, but unacceptable in the realm of the secular. We flee pain at the onset and pursue no course that looks like trials will be included. Further, we see hard times as God's stamp of disapproval. Clearly the one who is suffering has angered God somehow. We have built churches around healing the wounded and ministries around binding the suffering. The pursuit of pleasure and escape from pain has become our lifestyle - our god.

What a unique view of suffering the hymns have! The hymnists see suffering as the loving work of God in the lives of His children. It is not pleasant, nor is it unbearable. God is disciplining His children for their good (Heb. 12:1-11). His aim is to form their character into a reflection of Christ. God, in fact, cares more about character than comfort. Shouldn't we? Scripture says that suffering provides comfort for us and others, brings glory for the future, adds to Christ's work, builds maturity, and drives us from sin. The hymn writers wanted that. How can we not?

News Weakly - 10/26/2024

Who's Minding the Coop?
The report is out. Apparently last year "multiple incursions" of drones hit sensitive military and intelligence sites in the US, some as large as 20' long. Indications are they were ship launched. The incursions lasted for more than two weeks. In all this, the military ... did not respond. Like the decision to let the Chinese balloon drift across the entire nation, the government opted to smile for the cameras. So if the military is not allowed to protect our secrets or their installations, who is protecting us now? I know: our "nanny state" government. "Shh, there now, relax. We know what's best." Yeah, right.

Who Knew?
I always thought it was New York City, but Chicago is "the rattiest city" in the U.S. ... for 10 years running. You go, Chicago. Maybe it will distract from the black-on-black crime that plagues your city.

Thanks for the Laugh
The story is of little significance. A couple people were arrested after releasing 200 minks from a Pennsylvania farm. I just liked the headline on my news feed. "Minks released, two arrested." Apparently, despite the headline, no minks were actually arrested in the making of this story.

Thanks for the ... Bidenomics
The US housing crisis worsened with home sales falling to the lowest level since 2010. I'm wondering if Dems really think 4 more years of this is a good thing.

A Fearsome Force
A Florida mother is suing Google's AI for her 14-year-old son's suicide. Apparently the mother failed to regulate her son's activities online or teach him the difference between reality and fiction. He became deeply attached to his chatbot "friend" and killed himself because he couldn't live outside that world. On one hand, AI is nonsense. No such thing. Just try an "AI search engine" and you'll see. On the other hand, AI is developed by amoral developers, making it intrinsically dangerous. And, in the end, the heart is deceitful and desperately wicked. Should we trust ourselves to AI with that hanging over us?

Fake News You Can Trust
Perhaps the worst allegation yet on Trump. A woman claims he touched her inappropriately with classified documents while praising Hitler. That ought to do it. Two stories side by side: Kamala told a citizen, "You're at the wrong town hall" after they tried to ask her a question followed by Joel Osteen telling a man, "You're at the wrong church" after he proclaimed, "Jesus is Lord." But this was my favorite this week. Apparently even Dominion voting machines are refusing to vote for Kamala.

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

My Thoughts

"My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways," declares YHWH. "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways and My thoughts than your thoughts." (Isa 55:8-9)

The text is clear; it's not ambiguous. And most of us acknowledge that. Sure, sure, God's thoughts are not our thoughts. So, if that's so ... how come we don't believe it?

It has been said you can always tell what a person believes by what they do. After Al Gore introduced his "inconvenient truth" about the problem of global warming, he showed up at a university where I worked. He came to deliver his message about how our aircraft and SUVs are killing the planet, arriving in a private jet with his entourage followed by a train of SUVs. What did Gore believe? Obviously not his own warning. So we claim to believe that God's thoughts are not our thoughts and then complain that God is not thinking like we are. What do we believe?

When we see difficulties, we respond, often, with ... distrust. "Where is God when it hurts?" "Why would a good God do ...?" "Is He even there?" God says, "Hey, I don't think like you do. I don't operate like you do." And, "Trust Me." Joseph saw it. "You meant evil against me, but God meant it for good" (Gen 50:20). Job saw it. "YHWH gave and YHWH has taken away. Blessed be the name of YHWH" (Job 1:21). It's there, all the time. We must not expect Him to be like us. Indeed, we can't afford Him to be like us. We need a God whose thoughts are higher than ours and whose ways exceed our capacity. We can trust Him even when -- especially when -- we don't understand.

Grateful

I just spent some time in California with my mother, celebrating her birthday. It was, as always a good time, a blessed time. We had a group call to include the siblings that were out of state, too. It was very nice. In the conversation, it was noted that my mother is known for one, very specific trait. "How are you, Mom?" one sibling asked, "And don't say 'grateful'." Why? Because we all know that my mother's singular descriptive of her everyday existence is "grateful." She's grateful for health and comforts, for friends and family, for running water and the ability to walk ... on and on. When my father died almost two years ago, she was grateful. Grateful that he was no longer in pain, that he was at home with the Lord, that she would join him again someday. Grateful. A good descriptor of my mother.

The command of Scripture is broad: "In everything give thanks; for this is God's will for you in Christ Jesus" (1 Thess 5:18). That's right: "In everything." The author of Hebrews writes, "Through Him then, let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that give thanks to His name" (Heb 13:15). Gratitude as a lifestyle. The original, common downfall of humans has been a lack of gratitude (Rom 1:21). Giving thanks to God, then, seems to be a matter of critical importance.

I don't know about you, but I'm quite sure I'm not nearly as good at that as I ought to be. I'm not even nearly as good at it as my mother is, and she's another human with human frailties like me. The standard I'm supposed to meet is to give thanks in everything. I'm barely sufficient at giving thanks for the pleasant things. I clearly have some work to do in the area of gratitude. I can only hope that the day might come where people ask me, "Please don't say 'grateful'. We all know you're grateful." Don't worry; I haven't arrived at that point yet.

Promises, Promises

We like the promises of God. They're so sure, so solid, so comforting. Well ... mostly. Like the one Jesus made in His High Priestly prayer.

"I have given them Your word; and the world has hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world." (John 17:14)

"Wait, now ... hang on. We are promised to be hated by the world?" Yep. Another sure promise. It's odd, then, that we complain so much about it. It's strange that we whine because what Jesus said would be the case is the case.

No, it's not odd that we don't like being hated. What is odd is that we're surprised and even offended. Like Job told his wife, "Shall we indeed accept good from God and not accept adversity?" (Job 2:10). In fact, there is another promise associated with the one that says we'll be hated for His sake.

"Blessed are you when men hate you, and ostracize you, and insult you, and scorn your name as evil, for the sake of the Son of Man." (Luke 6:22)

Interesting. "Blessed are you when men hate you ... for the sake of the Son of Man." Blessed? That's what He says. In the biblical version of "persecution" (versus our modern understanding), "persecution" ranges from martyrdom on down to "when people insult you" and "falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me" (Matt 5:11). Insults and false accusations count, in God's economy, as "persecution. And the proper response is, "Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great ..." (Matt 5:12).

We face this kind of stuff almost every day. Followers of the "god of this world" hate us for being followers of Christ. So-called "Christians" berate us for being ... Christians. Jesus told us, "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). He said it was expected (Matt 10:35-36) and necessary (Matt 10:38). So, if you feel like the world hates you at times, relax. It's certainly true. Jesus said it would be. But, don't worry; rejoice. This world is not our home, and the difficulties we face for single-mindedly pursuing Christ produce great reward. So, let's quit complaining and start rejoicing.

Legacy

A legacy is anything handed down from the past. I'm thinking of the concept of a legacy as a way to be remembered. How will you be remembered?

I think of David, the young man that God referred to as "a man after My own heart" (1 Sam 13:14). Now, that's a legacy, isn't it? Despite David's failings, God considered David someone pursuing God's heart. I'd love to be remembered that way. Scripture describes Stephen as "full of grace and power" (Acts 6:8). Mind you, Stephen wasn't a king or an apostle. He was, in fact, a "deacon" -- he waited tables. And he "saw the glory of God" (Acts 7:55). Imagine being remembered that way. An angel appeared to Daniel and called him "dearly loved" or "highly esteemed" (Dan 10:11). Dearly loved ... by God. It was the characteristic that the angel felt was most necessary to be expressed. It would be amazing to be called "dearly loved by God." Or how about Abraham? If you've read the story of Abraham, you've seen that he was chosen by God ... to be chosen. He was the father of the nation of Israel. And he had special promises of God. So, when he came across a threat, he ... folded. "She's my sister!" (Gen 12:13). Nice, Abraham, way to trust God. He did it twice (Gen 20:2). And to top it off, he tried to "help God out" by fathering a child with his wife's maid, Hagar (Gen 16:1-2). And, yet, in the end, Scripture lists him in the "Halls of Faith" (Heb 11:8-10; 17-19). I'd love to be known as a man of faith.

You can list your own versions. Maybe people you've known. My mother is a woman whose life is radically marked by her attitude of gratitude for anything and everything God gives. A good legacy. George Muller kept a list of requests and answers and recorded over 5,000 answered prayers. He started 117 schools and ran orphanages and traveled over 200,000 miles as an evangelist ... before the days of airplanes and automobiles. He was regarded as a man of prayer. Excellent legacy. What will yours be? How will you be remembered? I would suspect that a good aim would be to be thought of as someone who sought to glorify the Lord (Matt 5:16; 1 Cor 10:31). Are you building a legacy that points to Him?

Political Speech

I didn't write this. It actually came from Mad Magazine back in 1970. But I really like it, and this seems like the perfect time amidst not merely the campaigns, but the hatred being fed to us, to have this little moment of fun. Please be aware. This is a lot of wordplay. You may need a dictionary if wordplay isn't your thing.

I can hardly stomach the political ads and the nonsense that is classified "political speech" these days. Most of it is nonsense. "Don't vote for my opponent; he/she is a jerk." Practically nothing about why I should vote for you. Just all the reasons I shouldn't vote against you. Oddly, your opponent told me the same thing about you! Years ago I read this absolutely marvelous All-Occasion Non-Slanderous Political Smear Speech. Loved it. Turns out it's still available! So here it is for your enjoyment.

Guaranteed Effective All-Occasion Non-Slanderous Political Smear Speech
By Bill Garvin
MAD #139, December 1970

My fellow citizens, it is an honor and a pleasure to be here today. My opponent has openly admitted he feels an affinity toward your city, but I happen to like this area. It might be a salubrious place to him, but to me it is one of the nation's most delightful garden spots.

When I embarked upon this political campaign I hoped that it could be conducted on a high level and that my opponent would be willing to stick to the issues. Unfortunately, he has decided to be tractable instead -- to indulge in unequivocal language, to eschew the use of outright lies in his speeches, and even to make repeated veracious statements about me.

At first, I tried to ignore these scrupulous, unvarnished fidelities. Now I do so no longer. If my opponent wants a fight, he's going to get one!

It might be instructive to start with his background. My friends, have you ever accidentally dislodged a rock on the ground and seen what was underneath? Well, exploring my opponent's background is dissimilar. All the slime and filth and corruption you could possibly imagine, even in your wildest dreams, are glaringly nonexistent in this man's life. And even during his childhood!

Let us take a very quick look at that childhood: It is a known fact that, on a number of occasions, he emulated older boys at a certain playground. It is also known that his parents not only permitted him to masticate excessively in their presence, but even urged him to do so. Most explicable of all, this man who poses as a paragon of virtue, exacerbated his own sister while they were both teenagers!

I ask you, my fellow Americans: Is this the kind of person we want in public office to set an example for our youth? Of course, it's not surprising that he should have such a typically pristine background -- no, not when you consider the other members of his family:

* His female relatives put on a constant pose of purity and innocence, and claim they are inscrutable, yet every one of them has taken part in hortatory activities.
* The men in the family are likewise completely amenable to moral suasion.
* His second cousin is an admitted Mormon.
* His uncle was a flagrant heterosexual.
* His sister, who has always been obsessed by sects, once worked as a proselyte ... outside a church!
* His father was secretly chagrined at least a dozen times by matters of a pecuniary nature.
* His youngest brother wrote an essay extolling the virtues of being a homosapien.
* His great-aunt expired from a degenerative disease.
* His nephew subscribes to a phonographic magazine.
* His wife was a thespian before their marriage and even performed the act in front of paying customers!
* And his own mother had to resign from a women's organization in her later years because she was an admitted sexagenarian.

Now what shall we say of the man himself?

I can tell you in solemn truth that he is the very antithesis of political radicalism, economic irresponsibility, and personal depravity. His own record proves that he has frequently discountenanced treasonable, un-American philosophies and has perpetrated many overt acts as well.

* He perambulated his infant son on the street.
* He practiced nepotism with his uncle and first cousin.
* He attempted to interest a 13-year-old girl in philately.
* He has declared himself in favor of more homogeneity on college campuses.
* He has advocated social intercourse in mixed company -- and has taken part in such gatherings himself.
* He has been deliberately averse to crime in our streets.
* He has urged our Protestant and Jewish citizens to develop more catholic tastes.
* Last summer he committed a piscatorial act on a boat that was flying the American flag.
* Finally, at a time when we must be on our guard against all foreign "isms", he has coolly announced his belief in altruism -- and his fervent hope that some day this entire nation will be altruistic!

I beg you, my friends, to oppose this man whose life and work and ideas are so openly and avowedly compatible with our American way of life. A vote for him would be a vote for the perpetuation of everything we hold dear.

The facts are clear; the record speaks for itself.

Do your duty.

At the Cross

Remember, the topic here is teaching and admonishing in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs. Not just one hymn this time.

Paul wrote, "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. (1 Cor 15:3-5). In keeping with the importance of the cross, it seems that a common subject in hymns is the cross. Perhaps my reference material isn't comprehensive enough, but I found a profound lack of choruses and praise songs with the cross as the central issue. The question of "why?" can be inconclusive and alarming. The fact remains that the cross is as much a central theme in Scripture as it is in hymns; in fact, more so. Paul said, "We preach Christ crucified." (1 Cor 1:23) He told the Corinthians, "I determined to know nothing among you except Christ and Him crucified." (1 Cor 2:2) We are to live all of life with a view to the cross (Heb 12:2). The daily operation of the Christian life is the taking up of one's cross (Matt 10:38; 16:24; Mark 8:34; Luke 9:23; 14:27). It is at the cross that we learn how to love (Eph 5:25; Rom 5:8) and how to view trials (Rom 8:17,18; Phil 3:10; Heb 5:8; 1 Peter 4:1,13).

The hymns join in this theme with vigor. "How Great Thou Art" devotes an entire stanza in awe of the cross.

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.

Isaac Watts spends his entire time "At the Cross" recognizing the unfathomable wonder of what occurred there for us:

Alas, and did my Savior bleed, and did my Sovereign die?
Would He devote that sacred head for such a worm as I?

Was it for crimes that I have done He suffered on that tree?
Amazing pity! Grace unknown! And love beyond degree!

Another Watts hymn, "When I Survey the Wondrous Cross," puts all of life in perspective through the filter of Christ's sacrifice:

When I survey the wondrous cross on which the Prince of glory died,
My richest gain I count but loss and pour contempt on all my pride.

Forbid it Lord that I should boast save in the death of Christ my God.
All the vain things that charm me most I sacrifice them to His blood.

See from His head, His hands, His feet, sorrow and love flow mingled down.
Did e'er such love and sorrow meet, or thorns compose so rich a crown?

Were the whole realm of nature mine, that were a present far too small.
Love so amazing, so divine, demands my life, my soul, my all.

Toplady's "Rock of Ages" is the argument based on salvation by the blood alone. His main point: "In my hand no price I bring. Simply to Thy cross I cling." Elizabeth Clephane takes the argument a step further, claiming that the cross is the place we should be living. "Beneath the cross of Jesus I fain would take my stand," she says, and goes on to explain why. Further, she urges us to remain focused there by telling what she sees:

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.

Perhaps this is why we avoid the cross in our songs today. While we certainly enjoy the concept of God's love, we don't like the concept of sin. Self-esteem may be damaged. Guilt might be imparted. Our fragile egos can't stand the stress. And a look at the cross certainly produces stress when we see the need. God required DEATH because of my sin.

We won't accept that. We nod our heads and agree, but we don't really believe it. We stand, with fists raised, and defy God to prove our guilt. "I'm just not that bad, God," we protest loudly. "I haven't killed anyone ... if you leave out that 'hating your brother is murder' stuff. I'm no sex offender ... as long as you leave the 'lust equals adultery' thing out of it. I don't worship other gods ... let's not talk about the idolatry of greed." And we glibly compare ourselves among ourselves and stand firm on our conviction that we're not that bad. But the truth is this. The standard is God and His perfection, and we are sinners from the inside out. We have all but blotted out the image of God in us and replaced it with the arrogant Self.

The cross was costly. It showed the great extent to which God would go to save worthless ones like us. It demonstrated love toward the unlovable. Its horror graphically illustrated the horror of our sin and the depths of our depravity, contrasting us with the perfection that was Jesus Christ. It is only when we see this, only when we realize this, that we can grasp the cross with both hands, cling to it quite literally, for dear life.

Beyond that, living in the shadow of the cross is the sole place to abide:

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. (Gal 6:14)

"O Sacred Head, Now Wounded," taken from a much longer seven-part medieval poem, devotes its entire text to Christ's head as He suffered on the cross:

O Sacred Head, now wounded, with grief and shame weighed down,
Now scornfully surrounded with thorns Thy only crown,
How art Thou pale with anguish, with sore abuse and scorn!
How does that visage languish which once was bright as morn!

What Thou, my Lord, hast suffered was all for sinners' gain;
Mine, mine was the transgression, but Thine the deadly pain.
Lo, here I fall, my Savior! 'Tis I deserve Thy place;
Look on me with Thy favor, vouchsafe to me Thy grace.

What language shall I borrow to thank Thee, dearest Friend,
For this, Thy dying sorrow, Thy pity without end?
O make me Thine forever! And should I fainting be,
Lord let me never, never outlive my love to Thee!

Spafford devoted an entire verse of "It Is Well With My Soul" to the bliss of Christ's blood shed for us:

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!

Many, many more hymns are devoted to the cross. Pick up a hymnal sometime and look in the topical index. You'll find multiple listings under various topics such as Atonement, The Blood of Jesus, The Cross, and The Crucifixion. Their titles betray their content. "Beneath the Cross of Jesus" "Near the Cross" "At the Cross" "When I Survey the Wondrous Cross" Title after title speaks of the cross and their focus there.

Why this "morbid" preoccupation? Why should they--and, by implication, we--spend so much time looking at the cross? You have the answer. The central theme of Scripture is the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ at the cross. In that single event, all of life changes. Where there was only the certainty of righteous judgment now comes the hope of grace and mercy. Where there were only our fruitless attempts at virtuous living is now freedom. Where there was fear of punishment now comes love.

And the Bible doesn't stop its crucifixion focus at the Resurrection. Certainly we serve a risen Savior, but we see His character magnified large enough for us to recognize at the cross, and the Scriptures are sure to point this out. So everyday, practical living is derived from looking at the cross. Husbands, how are you supposed to love your wives? What does it look like? Look to the cross. Love her "as Christ loved the church and gave Himself for her." (Eph 5:25) Now look at the cross and see how that looks. That means that when all were reviling Him, He did not return the insults. That means that when all had forsaken Him, He still died in her place. That means that although it cost Him everything, He willingly gave all for her, withholding nothing for Himself. All this and more we see at the cross.

Are there difficult circumstances in your life? Do you suffer? How do you deal with it? Look to the cross. "If you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in His steps." (1 Peter 2:20,21) "Since Christ suffered in His body, arm yourselves also with the same attitude, because he who has suffered in his body is done with sin." (1 Peter 4:1) "I want to know Christ and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in His sufferings, becoming like Him in His death." (Phil 3:10) "Have this mind in you which was also in Christ Jesus . . . He humbled Himself and became obedient to death even death on a cross!" (Phil 2:5 8) "Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; Who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God." (Heb 12:2) By looking at the cross, we see that suffering has a purpose, and that we are not alone in it.

These are just a couple of examples of the biblical perspective on the cross. In fact, the crucifixion of Jesus Christ touches every aspect of the Christian's life. Why should we be so focused on the cross? How can we not be focused there? It is the focus of God's Word. It must be our focus, also.

News Weakly - 10/19/2024

Liar, Liar
Good news! Inflation is down! But ... since 2021 the cost of living -- the CPI, the Consumer Price Index -- has gone up 20%. Now, hang on, how is that? Well, inflation says, "Prices change this much in the last time period" while CPI says, "From this date to that date the price of goods has changed this much." So when your friendly neighborhood government tells you, "Good news! Inflation is down!", just remember. That's not indicative of what you were paying in 2020 versus what you're paying now. Thank you, Democrats.

I'm Confused
The Pentagon granted more than 800 honorable discharges to veterans who separated from the military because they were homosexuals during the period when the military didn't allow homosexuals. It was the "Don't ask, don't tell" era where the military looked the other way if you didn't make it an issue. So apparently these 800+ did not violate the rule that they actually did violate. I didn't realize that "We don't allow homosexuals" was rescinded retroactively. But, then, our world has no problem bending reality to suit its whims.

Law Enforcement You Can Count On
The FBI decided that their report of a 2.1% decrease in violent crime in 2022 was more accurately a 4.5% increase which, of course, is mostly the same ... except, of course, not. But if it offers a positive talking point for the current administration, then why not ... lie? "Did we say down? Sorry. We meant to say UP."

Lies and Statistics
We often get and give statistics to make our points. We often fail to realize how easy it is to use statistics as plain, ordinary lies. Like this week when I watched a whole series of stories of this company and that organization laying people off and ... "US weekly jobless claims unexpectedly fall." Because, you see, "jobless claims," while suggesting the health or lack thereof of our job market, is a truly misleading number. They ignore those who are farmworkers, those who are no longer looking, those who don't report, those who are looking but not filing, so many silent caveats. But, rejoice, America, despite all the price increases, all the jobs lost, all the real-world concerns, the Biden administration has improved the job market ... according to the statistics.

Waiting for Mine
A lot of kids have gotten into debt to get a college education. Mind you, a college education isn't what it used to be. More like a college indoctrination. Mind you, the number of people who actually end up in the field in which they got their degrees are relatively few. Mind you, no one twisted their arms. But Biden has approved $175 billion in student loan forgiveness for nearly 5 million people ... just because. Where did he get that money? Your pocket. So, I'm wondering. I've got a home loan. Maybe I can get loan forgiveness? No? Why not?

Kamala in the Bee
The Bee has had it in for Kamala Harris of late. Go figure. One headline says that Democrats are perplexed why a candidate that no one has voted for is slipping in the polls. Another says that Kamala's campaign has been forced to hire gay actors for their ads because they can't find any straight male supporters. A third tells of a patient who explained to his doctor he was thinking of voting for Harris, so the doctor gave him a testosterone injection. We're not exactly sure on where the Bee stands on Harris.

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

Parallax

Parallax is the effect that occurs when an object is viewed from different positions. Take, for instance, a clock (with hands). If you look at the clock face head on, the time will read one thing. If you look at it from the side, the hands will appear to have moved, and you'll get ... the wrong time. Lenses increase this effect, especially when the lens is water. So if you're trying to read a meter or some such thing and you want an accurate reading, you need to account for parallax -- for looking at the correct angle.

Scripture is a lot like that. There is the true interpretation. That is found by looking at it head on. Then there are false interpretations. You get those by looking at it from an angle. Perhaps you're reading the Bible through a "health and wealth" lens and you read, "'I know the plans I have for you,' says YHWH, 'plans for peace and not for evil, to give you prosperity and hope.'" (Jer 29:11). "Ah!" you say, "There it is! God promises prosperity!" Except that "prosperity" is interpreted through a "health and wealth" angle and the outcome is distorted. Maybe you're reading through a Social Justice Warrior lens and read, "Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God" (Luke 6:20) and say, "See? God is most concerned about those in poverty, the neglected, the marginalized!" And you come to a wrong conclusion. Perhaps you're using a skeptic's lens. Scripture, then, can be helpful, but not authoritative. Certainly not completely reliable. And you come to a wrong conclusion. These are a few of examples of parallax in Scripture interpretation. We all run the risk. We all need to check our "angles." We all need to be sure we're not looking at God's Word askew.

It's not hard to adjust for parallax. You simply look at it from a variety of angles. It's not hard to adjust for parallax in Scripture interpretation. You simply look at it from all Scripture. Scripture itself assures us that God's intention is not your health and wealth, but your eternal, spiritual condition. Scripture itself assures us that God's concern is not earthly poverty, but spiritual poverty. Scripture claims to be God-breathed, complete, and effective, not erroneous and questionable. By taking in the whole of God's Word, I think you'll find that most of this problem of parallax -- looking at Scripture from the wrong angle -- can be overcome. The only question is if you are willing. Many of us like our parallax and aren't willing to part with it ... even if it's wrong.

St John, the Calvinist

Way back in May of 2008, one of my sons graduated from a Christian college. During his senior year there, he did a paper on the Gospel of John. He sent me a copy of that paper, and I stretched it into this little observation. (I bring it up now because the topic has come up a few times of late in comments.)

You've all heard of John the Baptist. I'm quite sure you've never heard of Saint John the Reformed. Truly, it would be nonsensical. The object of the Reformation was not to make the Church better, but to return it to a biblical condition, and since John was writing the Bible, he, by definition, couldn't be Reformed. And, of course, since Calvin didn't come along for another 1500 years or so and Calvinism itself didn't really come about for another hundred years or so, it wouldn't quite be right to refer to him as "John the Calvinist." That being said, I'd still like to introduce you to Saint John the Reformed by demonstrating how John in his Gospel concurs with Calvinism in its "TULIP" basics.

Total Depravity holds that humans beings are sinful at their core. They are incapable by nature of coming to God. While most people today believe in the intrinsic goodness of the human being, Total Depravity holds to the intrinsic evil of the human nature. In the Gospel of John we read this: "He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, yet the world did not know Him" (John 1:10). This speaks of a core problem. If it was so that a few didn't know Him, you could chalk it up to a problem of the few. John says it was a world-wide problem. Worse, John goes on to say, "He came to His own, and His own people did not receive Him" (John 1:11). You may wish to excuse the world; they didn't know, right? However, His own people had been given centuries of notification that He was coming ... and they missed it. This is a problem of humans being sinful at the core. In Matthew Jesus said, "I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 5:20). Of these scribes and Pharisees, the minimum standard of righteousness that Jesus held for all people, Jesus said in John's Gospel:

If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of My own accord, but He sent Me. Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear My word. You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But because I tell the truth, you do not believe Me. Which one of you convicts Me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe Me? Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God" (John 8:42-47).

What, then, is John saying about the nature of the most righteous people in the nation? They are liars and not of God. And John 6:65 may not sound like an argument for Total Depravity, but look at it anyway. Jesus was explaining why it was that some of His disciples didn't believe in Him. He said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to Me unless it is granted him by the Father." What does this have to do with Man's core problem of sin? It's in the basic phrase, "No one can." Jesus makes the same claim in verse 44 of the same chapter. No one can. Human beings, on their own, lack the ability to either believe or to come to Him. That, dear reader, is Total Depravity.

Unconditional Election is the premise that God chooses whom He will save without that choice being conditioned on something of merit in the one being chosen. It is an echo of Paul's "lest any man should boast." It says that I have nothing to offer God to incline Him to choose me ... and neither does anyone else. He chooses without condition of the Elect. What does John say? First, John has one of the clearest statements on Election that you'll find anywhere in Scripture. Jesus told His disciples, "You did not choose Me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in My name, He may give it to you" (John 15:16). Who chooses whom? Jesus is not unclear. "Oh," the other side objects, "but God chooses whom He chooses based on the fact that He knows in advance they will choose Him." It sounds nice, I'm sure, but John, again, objects. "To all who did receive Him, who believed in His name, He gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1:12-13). Our birth into the family of God is not a product of our blood line ("not of blood"), our godly living ("not of the will of the flesh"), and not our right choices ("not of will of man"). (See also where Paul emphasizes the same fact in Rom. 9:16.) We become one of the Chosen Ones, the Elect, on the basis of God's choice alone. We don't choose Him; He chooses us. That, dear reader, is Unconditional Election.

Limited Atonement is one of the most disliked, most misunderstood concepts in the list of five. Most people think it refers to shortcomings in Christ's sacrifice. They think it is saying that Christ's atonement was only sufficient for the Elect. That is not the point, unfortunate name aside. Instead, the question that is being asked and answered in this doctrine is this: When Christ chose to die on the cross, what was His intent? Was it His intent to save everyone, or was it His intent to save the Elect? Was it His aim to provide forgiveness for all and He failed, or was it His aim to provide atonement for the Elect and He succeeded? John's Gospel, in fact, is one of the most common places to find the claim that Christ died with the Elect in mind. You'll find it in two specific places. In John 10:14-15 we read, "I am the good shepherd. I know My own and My own know Me, just as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for My sheep." Notice that He doesn't say He lays down His life for everyone. He reiterates this concept in His High Priestly prayer in John 17. Here He prays for His disciples:

I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours (John 17:9).

Jesus doesn't pull any punches here. He excludes the world explicitly from His prayer. He prays only for His disciples and "for those who will believe in Me through their word" (John 17:20). All believers, then, are in mind and those who will not believe are not. This is the intention of Limited Atonement.

Irresistible Grace argues that when that moment comes, the Holy Spirit is able to save a person despite their own possible resistance. It does not hold that the Spirit cannot be resisted. It is the claim that God is capable of saving anyone He chooses despite their objections. Does John comment on this? I think so. "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and whoever comes to Me I will never cast out" (John 6:37). Note that there is no question. There is no suspense. Will the Chosen come to Christ? There is no doubt. They will come. Jesus says, "I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to My voice" (John 10:16). John 6:44 says, "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day." Again, there is no question. Those who are drawn by the Father will be raised up on the last day. Of course, "come to Me" is certain as implied in the middle. Clearly, then, those who are His sheep will be drawn to Him regardless of the objections or resistance they might have. That goes to irresistibility. Just like Lazarus, the physically dead man, all of the Elect, though spiritually dead, when called by God, will come forth (John 11:43).

The Perseverance of the Saints is perhaps the most misunderstood and maligned by both those who disagree and those who think they are agreeing. The doctrine is sometimes called "Eternal Security". Sometimes it is incorrectly connected with "Once Saved, Always Saved" (OSAS), which isn't exactly the same thing. The two share the position that a spiritually dead person ("T") who has been chosen by God according to God's purposes ("U"), paid for by Christ's death and resurrection ("L"), and certainly called from death to life ("I") will absolutely remain one of the Elect and end up in heaven. The difference between OSAS and the Perseverance doctrine is that the latter includes the certainty that God's work of bringing a person to life will result in a fruitful Christian. John agrees. One of the most quoted proofs for Eternal Security is John 10:28-29.

I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.

John, quoting Jesus, gives very little wiggle room. Those who belong to Him are given eternal life. If that life is eternal, in what sense can it stop? You have to ask the same thing with John 3:36 and John 5:24. But that's the easiest question. He defines "eternal life" as "never perish" and says, not once but twice, "No one will snatch them out." Now, you can squirm all you want, but unless you are willing to qualify yourself as "no one", you have to admit that not even you can snatch you out of His hand. Jesus makes the same point earlier in one of the passages we've already peeked at.

All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and whoever comes to Me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will but the will of Him who sent Me. And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that I should lose nothing of all that He has given Me, but raise it up on the last day (John 6:37-39).

We saw this for Irresistible Grace, but Jesus also claims "I should lose nothing of all that He has given Me." Either He was mistaken and He would lose some of those whom the Father has given Him, or the outcome is certain and not one will be lost. Now, the fundamental difference between OSAS and Perseverance of the Saints is the question of fruit. John addresses this in a couple of places. In John 14:15 Jesus says, "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments." In John 15 there is the famous "Vine and the branches" metaphor. Those changed by God cannot help but produce fruit. (The entire epistle of 1 John is about that topic.) We already saw in John 15:16, "I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide." The Elect are chosen for fruit, and that fruit abides. Thus, Perseverance of the Saints, the idea that those whom God has saved will certainly be enabled by God to remain in Christ until the end, is an idea you'll find throughout the Gospel of John.

It can be questionable to pull an idea out of a single passage. I've pulled several ideas out of a single book. It doesn't take much effort, in fact, to find these concepts all over Scripture. I am convinced that John the Beloved, had he been around during the Reformation, would have concurred with these points that today form what is referred to as "Calvinism." You may not be convinced, but I would hope that you can surely see that the accusation that "Calvinism is not found in the Bible" is not an accurate objection. At least, it appears that John didn't think so.

Nothing But The Truth

Yesterday it was "counterfactual," almost a definition for much of what our society is embracing today. And there is a fundamental difference between "fact" and "truth." Facts are objective, verifiable information, not feelings or opinions. Truth is subjective. Facts are objects; truth is a subject. Genuine facts (because it is very possible to present something as "fact" that, actually, is not) are truth -- that which corresponds to reality -- but truth goes beyond fact. "The ball is on the ground" might be a statement of fact, but it takes truth to tell you exactly how it got there. It takes truth to properly interpret the facts. "The Bible says" can be a fact, but it takes truth to correctly explain the meaning. And objective truth -- that which stands alone as true without regard to how you or I feel about it -- must exist if there is a God, if any truth exists.

Most of our world, Christian or non-Christian, operates on opinion suspended in thin air. Most of us believe X, Y, and Z because ... well ... we believe it. Some of this is so entrenched in our belief system that no amount of reason or evidence will move it. Someone once said, "The human being has an incredible capacity to think logically, step by step, to the wrong conclusion." As a simple example, medical science tells us that children eating candy does not cause hyperactivity. It's just not medically true. Try to tell that to any mother of small children. They don't care what the medical science has proven; they've seen their kids with candy. And their belief in the dangers of giving kids candy to get them overactive is unwavering and unassailable. It's the same for most of us. We hold truths to be self-evident¹ ... even if they're wrong. We argue about politics as if the facts are plain and clear. We divide over theology not because the Scriptures are plain, but because we grew up with this one and will not accept that one. (The "pre-Trib Rapture" is a prime example of an "absolute truth" that is not absolute in Scripture.) We hold to incontrovertible "facts" that just aren't necessarily true. Most of the time, our beliefs are built on our feelings rather than any real truth.

Scripture says, "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work" (2 Tim 3:16-17). With phrases like "breathed out by God" and "complete" and "equipped for every good work," it seems as if Scripture would be a reliable source of truth. How much of our discussion is rooted in Scripture? More, Jesus prayed, "Your word is truth" (John 17:17). If Jesus considered God's word to be truth, shouldn't we? And, of course, we have Jesus's own claim: "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me" (John 14:6). Jesus claimed not to merely speak truth, but to be "the truth." It seems obvious to me that we spend far too much time putzing about, pursuing self-structured "truth" and debating unsubstantiated "reality," when we should be dedicating ourselves to Christ and the Word. (And, as an aside, no, God cannot contradict God. Those who argue we should "listen to the Spirit" and hear Him say things that are in direct opposition to what He has said are deluded. As one singer put it, "Perhaps it was the devil that whispered in your ear.") With a firm grasp on what God has said in Scripture and in Christ (John 1:1; Heb 1:1-2), it seems we'd have more sure footing to discuss what is and what is not real. Because, Satan is called "the god of this world" (2 Cor 4:4) and "the father of lies" (John 8:44) and we carry deceitful hearts (Jer 17:9). A reliable truth source is essential, and we have it. Let's use it.
________

¹ Take, for instance, those "self-evident" truths from the Declaration of Independence -- that we have a divine right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Really? Everyone dies, liberty is always limited, and "the pursuit of happiness" is what has gotten our world into this mucky moral morass today.

Counterfactual

I don't know why; I just like the word. It rolls comfortably off the tongue. It means ... wait ... well, you might think it was obvious, but it's not. On the face of it, it means that which is counter to fact. However, in the world of philosophy it refers to imaginary thought exercises in which you consider what it would be like if ... something was different. What if you had taken a different job? What if you had married a different spouse? That kind of thing. So, okay, I suppose that's still "counter to fact." And what do we mean by "fact"? A "fact" is similar to a "truth," but it has more ... substance. It refers to something that actually exists, something that cannot be denied because it is, in essence, right there in your hands. Truth can be philosophical or simply ideas-based, but a fact exists in solid form, as it were. It is interesting, then, how much of our world operates today on a counterfactual basis.

There are lots of examples, but today's most obvious one has a name: "transgender." Transgender refers to the notion that Bill or Sally actually feels like they're a Jenny or Jack. In today's world, that means that Bill/Jenny actually is a female and Sally/Jack really is a male. That, dear reader, is a prime example of "counterfactual," yet our current culture defends it venomously. It doesn't take a religious zealot to tell you it's nonsense. It just takes common sense, an admission of the facts. No amount of "I feel" will change the chromosomes of Bill or Sally to produce the opposite sex. No medical process will give Bill ovaries or Sally testes. No hormone replacement process will instill a lifelong memory of female experiences in Bill or male living in Sally. We can dress it up. We can perform external operations like clothes and hair, even superficial surgeries to look more like the opposite sex, but the facts are nothing will change the biology and functionality of one to become the other. Facts.

Of course, my saying such a thing will get me labeled as "transphobic" or some such nonsense because our current society is virulently opposed to that kind of straightforward truth. I don't oppose those people who find themselves confronted with what was until very recently termed "gender dysphoric." It (correctly) referred to people who feel uncomfortable or distressed because the gender they feel they are differs from their biological sex. Why would I oppose these people? They're in trouble. They're in distress. They need help. Hating someone like this is as cruel and unkind as hating a baby born with birth defects. They don't need hate; they need help. No, I'm responding to the foolishness that our world has embraced that says the help they need is to jettison the facts, discard reality, and embrace their impossible dream. And I'm the hater? Our world dwells in counterfactual insanity. The Bible calls it "sin" (Rom 1:21) and "There, there, that's okay" is not a solution.

The Heart Is Deceitful

We are an arrogant and foolish race. We can see quite clearly the truth of an assertion and ignore it completely and consider ourselves wise. So when God says, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?" (Jer 17:9), we blithely ignore the evidence and the facts and press on. "Pshaw! We know better." And we don't.

You don't have to be a religious zealot to see it. Consider the current moral mantra of our day. We get it in different terminology, but it's all the same. "If it feels good, do it." "The heart wants what the heart wants." "Love is love." That is, the primary test of any moral question is, "Do I want it?" If yes, it's good. And that's not merely mistaken, it's crazy. Consider the dieting woman who goes into a bakery for a loaf of fresh-baked bread. With all those sweets arrayed before her, she must not think, "The heart wants what the heart wants" or the diet is destroyed. Or the neighbor who covets his neighbor's wife. "I want it, so it's good" would be devastating. Or consider the toddler who finds the pool unlocked and just must feel what that water is like. "The heart wants what the heart wants" is a recipe for catastrophe. But, here we are, walking through life with "love is love" as a justification ... which we clearly don't mean because "No, you can't marry three women and a dog" or "Wait, wait, incest is evil" and on and on. Where is your "love is love" now?

A long time ago God said that humans have deceitful hearts and we, on a daily basis, prove Him true. "I want" cannot be the basis for "I ought," but it's our standard method of determining what's good and right ... and so often it's absolutely wrong. Proving once again that the heart is deceitful ... and we apparently have a learning disability where the heart condition is concerned.

Worship Wars

It's not so much these days ... we've relegated "Boomers" to the trash heap as much as possible ... but there has been these disputes back and forth that have been termed "worship wars." It is, oddly enough, primarily a question of style. What musical style is acceptable/right/correct for worship? Now, if you look through your Bible, you'll see that "Contemporary Worship music" ... isn't mentioned. Still, we fight about it, even if in ever smaller circles as the older generation dies out and the younger generation gets venerated above its class or just deserts. But is the Bible silent on this question?

I was raised on "Rock and roll is of the devil" and "If the beat leads, sin follows." When I failed to find it in my Bible, they told me, "Just trust us." And when I read, "Praise Him with trumpet sound; praise Him with lute and harp! Praise Him with tambourine and dance; praise Him with strings and pipe! Praise Him with sounding cymbals; praise Him with loud clashing cymbals!" (Psa 150:3-5), I said, "That sure sounds like a loud band." And they assured me it wasn't. So, no, the Bible is not silent. There is the command to praise Him with instruments, including "loud clashing cymbals." I've been posting this series with the label "Col 3:16," where we read,

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

You see? Not silent. "Psalms and hymns and spiritual songs." God affirms in His Word different instruments and different styles. The classic categories of "hymn" vs "praise song" are problematic because both -- as categories -- seem to fall in that spectrum. And while we dicker over "hymns" vs "praise songs," we (sadly) ignore "teaching and admonishing" in those terms. Young or old, hymn or praise song, we typically prefer what makes us feel good and not what speaks to the truth.

I thoroughly dislike our "worship wars" because they are predicated on "I like" and "I don't like" and not what God says. Why not look for truth? Why not focus our minds on the truth and praise God with the truth rather than manipulated emotion? Paul there started with, "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly." That would be a great place to be in worship, founded on His Word, glorifying Him. (I think at times that the best hymn can be not quite as good as the simple praise song that is taken word for word from Scripture.) If we want to discuss the biblical truth around what is biblical and what is not, then I'm for it, but we would probably do well to drop bickering about what style is better than the other and go with God's instructions.

News Weakly - 10/12/2024

Is That Wise?
On the anniversary of Hamas's October 7 attack on Israel, Hamas launched rockets into Israel. Now, conventional wisdom would say, "If you're getting severely beaten, stay down and keep quiet." Apparently Hamas is more of a "Here I am! Kick me again!" kind of leadership.

Right Out of 1984
John Kerry has declared that a major roadblock for the US is ... the 1st Amendment. If we could just get rid of that pesky free speech and freedom of religion nonsense, we could really get moving on the mind control plans to eliminate opposition among the people. Don't worry, Mr. Kerry, a lot of people agree that their opponents should not have free speech ... and religion is right out.

It Figures
The MegaMillions Lotto is raising the cost of tickets to $5. I have never bothered, so it's no skin off my nose, but is anyone surprised that hyperinflation (250%) is hitting the lottery? Even greed is getting more expensive.

Free Enterprise?
A federal judge has ordered Google to open the Android app store to all. Mind you, Apple has had a tight grip on their version forever. I know because I've tried to write apps for them. It's not easy ... or cheap. But, the government is now in the business of forcing businesses to allow others to take their profits in a potentially dangerous manner that will undoubtedly leave Google to blame when some app steals private information. I mean, what could go wrong? I won't be holding my breath waiting for the courts to force Apple to ease up.

Victory And Defeat
For literally years now Jack Phillips has been in court in Colorado. He's the Christian baker who claimed that his religious beliefs precluded him celebrating "gay marriage" or "transgenderism." (Why both? Because once they found out the first one, they targeted him rather than avoiding him.) Colorado's Supreme Court dismissed another lawsuit this week against Phillips (Yay!) not on the fact of that the 1st Amendment demands it, but on procedural grounds (Boo!). Phillips continues to be harassed and intimidated for his beliefs and his adherence to them, and the courts both give him relief and dodge the question. Disappointing.

Anti-Democratic
Trump questioned the results of an election and is castigated as "an existential threat to democracy." Walz says, "The Electoral College needs to go," and that's ... patriotic? The Electoral College is brought to you by the Constitution. Why isn't he labeled "an existential threat to the Constitution"? The Electoral College gives a voice to minorities like Wyoming or other places of lower populations where most of our "democratic" world is driven purely by population centers, erasing completely the voice of the "little guy." But, you go with that. Trump is the threat and "delete the Constitution" is the promising voice. Hmm ... I guess I am "anti-Democratic" if "Democratic" means "of the Democrats."

In an Upside-Down World
Singer Garth Brooks was openly accused of rape, an accusation he says is "a shakedown." He did what the legal system allows; he filed suit against his accuser. Apparently a woman naming a man who she says (true or not) raped her is good (and I don't think otherwise), but naming a woman who is lying in order to rob the man is bad. Tell me that's not an upside-down way of thinking. I'm all for protecting victims, but if the law doesn't arrest the man and she chooses to publicly name him, why should she retain anonymity?

Fake News You Can Trust
The report went under the radar, but apparently a polygraph machine exploded after Tim Walz passed it. Strange. Elsewhere, with hurricanes in the news, a controversy has erupted around the evidence that a Jew in Galilee had the ability to control the weather. Really something to examine.

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

Commanding the Impossible

Now, I know ... the world doesn't care wha the Word has to say about marital relations, but we Christians should. We often don't, but we should. But if you read what it says, you might come away thinking, "Oh, no. That's not right." You will read, for instance,

But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. (1 Cor 11:3)

Many a Christian wife and not a few Christian husbands will read that and say, "That's not right." It's clear. It's explicit. It's unambiguous. But "it's not right." Or so they say. You will read things like,

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, His body, and is Himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. (Eph 5:22-24)

Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, when they see your respectful and pure conduct. (1 Peter 3:1-2)

And that can't be right, can it? Wives submit? To him? It even specifies "even if some do not obey the word." Does that make any sense? Especially when you encounter what I call the "hyper-patriarchals" who have decided that "wives, submit" is a command for them to thoroughly dominate their wives. It seems as if God is commanding the impossible here. It's not unclear or ambiguous, but Christians choke on it.

If the commands to wives seem impossible, the commands to husbands, if examined as they are given, are more so.

Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her, that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that He might present the church to Himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. (Eph 5:25-27)

Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered. (1 Peter 3:7)

At first blush, it's easy. "Love your wives." Yeah, sure, easy. But ... the standard of that love is not. "Love your wives as Christ loved the church." Oh, that standard. How? "Gave Himself up for her." Yes, He died, but, as Paul explains, He did so much more. He didn't cling to His status as God, but humbled Himself ... to death (Php 2:5-8). That is the standard of love that husbands are supposed to meet. It certainly slays the idea of the domineering husband on the spot. The notion of a "man cave" becomes nonsensical. "I need me-time" is relegated to the crazy box. Love her by giving self up for her. Is that even possible? And then the next one rears its ugly head. "Likewise," it says. Like what? Like wives submitting to their husbands. "Likewise," in the husbands' version of submission, "live with your wives in an understanding way." What? Really??" It is a common axiom that men do not understand women. I saw a book in a bookstore once titled, What Men Know About Women. The pages were blank. And here it is, the obviously impossible, in command form. Husbands are commanded to understand their wives. To be students of their wives. To see them, to know them, to grasp their ideas and feelings and wants and all. Crazy wives ask, "Does this dress make me look fat?" and the godly husband will be required to know the right answer because he understands his wife. She won't have to answer "Nothing" when he asks, "Honey, what's wrong?" because he has been a student of his wife and gets it. Yeah, sure, that's an absolute, a perfect world -- likely, due to human nature and limitations, will never be this side of heaven -- but it's the aim, the goal, the command.

God, it appears, is in the business of making impossible commands. "Love God with all your heart" (Deut 6:5; Matt 22:37). "Love one other as I have loved you" (John 13:34; John 15:12). "Rejoice always; pray without ceasing; in everything give thanks; for this is God’s will for you in Christ Jesus" (1 Thess. 5:16-18). On and on. I'm sure you can think of a whole lot more. These two are just a couple of obvious examples: "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord" and "Husbands, love your wife to the exclusion of your self, and live with her in an understanding way." The temptation is to simply reject them. "We can't do it." It's either wrong or we're just going to refuse. These are the wrong conclusions. The right conclusion is, "Well, He said it, so we'll do it." We'll do it by the work of God in us both to will and to do His good pleasure (Php 2:13). So, Christ-follower, what will it be? Dodge the "impossible" in open rejection of the One you claim to follow, or aim for a miraculous obedience?

Ironic?

Politics is often a touchy subject. Take, for instance, the Trump. In the campaign season of 2016, I earned a lot of ire from friends and family because I spoke about and even blogged about what I considered to be the danger of Trump. I was so clear then that even the dreaded Dan T. linked to an entry and concurred wholeheartedly with my disavowal of my party's candidate. I remember in July, 2016, my wife and I were on a trip with my parents and were visiting my dad's brother and family. The topic of politics came up around the table and I held my peace until someone asked me directly. For the sake of honesty, I told them, "No, I won't be voting for Trump." My father was shocked and my uncle was actually angry. You see, what we knew about Trump was that he was a womanizer and bragged about feeling up women. Sure, he probably had some good economic sense and other ideas, but he had what I considered to be a deranged morality. To my family, at least, he wasn't Hillary, so any vote that was not for Trump was a vote for evil. My father said, "Sure, Trump's not a paragon of virtue, but his VP is going to be Mike Pence, and he's a Christian." "Dad," I said, "are you suggesting I vote for Trump hoping he'll get assassinated?" Isn't it interesting, then, that Trump won without my vote? Isn't it interesting, now, that nearly every Trump fan, Christian or otherwise, presented with the name, "Pence," turns up their nose in disgust? Trump castigated his own VP for failing to bend to Trump's will and hoped the mob would hang him. And his devoted fans agreed ... one of the warnings I had given about Trump. I warned that he would normalize the unthinkable for the Right and, even, for Christians, and he did.

I didn't shift in 2020. His record was mixed and he had done some good things, but any president can do some good things. His character hadn't changed and his supposed "conversion to Christianity" looked to be misinformation and I didn't think he would uphold my concerns for the nation, so I voted against him again. In neither case did I vote for the Left. My conscience wouldn't allow that, either. It didn't matter. My own friends and family were outraged again and I was the bad guy for voting my conscience. But here is the irony. While my friends were kicking me to the curb, as it were, for violating their sacred cow, the Left was kicking me to the other curb for ... being conscientious. They accused me of supporting Trump and loving Trump and still do to this day. My friends were mad at me for failing to do what my enemies are sure I did. And none of them are shifting today. I'm conversely a Trump-hater or I'm a Trump-lover (and certainly not a patriot or even a good guy). I can't win.

Can I let you in on a secret? I know, it's not fair. They won't admit it and it won't stop ... on either side ... but it's not an issue for me. I don't believe that the ends justify the means. I don't believe that it's okay to encourage wrong in the hopes of gaining something right. I don't believe that I should run my life on the lies of other people. And gaining the approval of others is not my aim in life. Let's face it, I've not been too successful at that this far in my life. Why bother now? So I will, once again, vote my conscience this year and live with the consequences ... from both sides. I'm only a little sad that voting my conscience so rarely gets anyone elected. That's either a sad commentary on my conscience or a sad commentary on my nation.

The New Command

A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. (John 13:34)

Jesus had a special dialog with His disciples on that last night in the upper room -- 4 whole chapters of the Gospel of John (John 13-16). In that time, He gave them this "new commandment." Love one another. Now, we all know that wasn't a new commandment. Jesus had quoted it back when He was asked what was the great commandment of the law (Matt 22:36-40). Jesus quoted it because it was from Lev. 19:8. This wasn't new. So why did He call it "a new commandment"?

The command to "love one another" wasn't new. What was new was the standard by which that love was measured. In the Old Testament, the standard was "as you love yourself." Of course, in today's society that's ambiguous, because we're all worried that some people don't love themselves enough. Scripture (no surprise) disagrees. Paul told husbands to love their wives as they loved their own bodies. "For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church" (Eph 5:29). That is, the simple fact that we feed ourselves means we love ourselves. That was the standard back then. Jesus called for a new standard. What was it? "As I have loved you." Hmmm, and what does that mean? You may have figured it out, but He didn't leave them to guess. In that same upper room dialog, He repeated His command and gave clarification.

This is My commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends. (John 15:12-13)

The assignment for each and every believer is to love one another in that way -- to lay down our lives for one another. In fact, if you think about it, Jesus had been doing that His whole ministry. He fed Himself and prayed alone at times -- took general care of His physical and spiritual health -- but everything He did was about others, not Himself. He didn't seek a career, find a wife ... do any of the things we all consider normal human behavior with our personal preferences at the center. He was about His Father's will (John 5:30; John 6:38). He was about the people to whom He was ministering. And, in the end, He physically gave up His life for His friends. He served as a living example of what He commanded.

We're all (or, at least, mostly all) aware of the command for believers to love one another. We're aware that it's supposed to be the hallmark of every believer (John 13:35). And we nod and think, "Well, I think affectionately of some of my fellow believers." And we miss the point. Jesus did not command affection. He commanded sacrifice. He didn't command warm feelings. He commanded death to self. We are supposed to be a people who are known for laying down our lives, literally or figuratively, for each other. I'm not entirely sure that's widely practiced enough among us to be something for which we are known.

One Thing

You remember the story. Jesus came to visit His dear friends -- Lazarus, and and his sisters, Mary and Martha. Martha went about her important hospitality job, but foolish Mary simply sat at Jesus's feet. Martha complained. "Tell her to help me." Remember Jesus's reply? "Martha, Martha, you are anxious and troubled about many things, but one thing is necessary. Mary has chosen the good portion, which will not be taken away from her" (Luke 10:41-42). The practical folk scratch their heads a little -- "But ... how will we eat ...?" -- but, you get the idea. It's important to sit at Jesus's feet.

I wonder, though, if we really hear what Jesus said. "Mary," He said, "had chosen a good portion." Yes, we got that. But look at what He said before. Martha was concerned about "many things." Frankly, much like all of us. Then He said, "But one thing is necessary." Wait ... what? Only one thing is necessary? That's what He said. And, in all honesty, most of us don't buy it. We have a whole lot of important, necessary things going on. Which should indicate a problem.

Jesus said, "One thing is necessary." That was, in Mary's case, sitting at Jesus's feet. Of course, it's figurative of a lifestyle. Are we "sitting at Jesus's feet," learning, when we're driving to work? Or sitting in church? Or talking to our spouse? Or making dinner? Or ...? Martha, in our example story, had the capacity to serve and sit at Jesus's feet in this sense. She opted to only serve. But the only thing that is important is being in the presence of Christ, waiting, expectant, listening, obeying. It is a lifestyle. And it is the only necessary thing.

A Superstitious Bunch

We're Christians. We know better. We believe in Christ, not all that superstitious nonsense. Right? You've probably heard of Santeria. It's an Afro-Caribbean religion that took African voodoo and merged it with Roman Catholic Christianity. It doesn't work, of course, but, as it turns out, we can be a real superstitious bunch. Superstition is "a widely held but unjustified belief in supernatural causation leading to certain consequences of an action or event, or a practice based on such a belief." On the face of it, it almost looks like a definition of the Christian faith, but we know better. As long as we're following the Word, our beliefs are "justified." We have reasons to believe. We have faith, not credulity. Credulity is an unfounded belief, and our faith has deep foundations. And still we buy into some superstitious ideas.

I think of the "health and wealth" theology, the "prosperity gospel." Pure, unvarnished supersition, pitting my faith (or lack thereof) against God's supposed temporal blessings. I think of "in the name of Jesus." It's a phrase we use loosely. I hear, "I pray the name of Jesus over you" as if it's some magical phrase that gets our "genie" to provide what we want. We sing about how beautiful Jesus's name is without thinking about the idea. "Jesus" isn't a particularly beautiful name. The name of Jesus, as it represents the person of Jesus, is as beautiful as Jesus is. It's not the name, but the person. We reject rabbit's feet and black cat curses, but we're pretty sure that if we don't do what God wants, He can't accomplish what He intends. We think that God "wants you to be happy." Nowhere in the pages of Scripture do you find that. He wants what's best for us, but that includes chastisement when needed (Heb 12:6). Job understood we don't merely accept good from the hand of God (Job 2:10). Happy? No. Blessed? Yes. Not the same thing. We like to think, "We're all God's children." We're all God's creation, but only those who are adopted into His family are His children (John 1:12-13). (If we were all God's children, what is adoption even for?) Other deeply ingrained superstitions haunt us. God won't love us if we're not good. Lie. You have to be good to get to heaven. Lie. Going to church makes you a Christian. Lie. If you don't choose the right thing, you can only get God's "plan B" at best. Lie.

We're actually a pretty superstitious bunch, and those are just a very few examples of how we are superstitious. Our best defense against such superstitions is to go to the Word (John 17:17). Jesus is the truth, and pursuing a lot of our own foolish ideas isn't very productive. We should be on the lookout for all our superstitious nonsense.

Oh, For A Thousand Tongues to Sing

Oh, for a thousand tongues to sing my great Redeemer's praise,
The glories of my God and King, the triumphs of His grace!

My gracious Master and my God, assist me to proclaim,
To spread through all the earth abroad the honors of Thy name.

Jesus! The name that charms our fears, that bids our sorrows cease.
'Tis music in the sinner's ears, 'tis life and health and peace.

He breaks the power of canceled sin, He sets the prisoner free.
His blood can make the foulest clean, His blood availed for me.

Hear Him, ye deaf; His praise, ye dumb, your loosened tongues employed.
Ye blind, behold your Savior come, and leap, ye lame, for joy.

Charles Wesley wrote this hymn on the occasion of the 11th anniversary of his conversion to Christ. It was inspired, it is believed, by a chance remark by an influential leader in his life who said, "Had I a thousand tongues, I would praise Christ Jesus with all of them." Originally there were 19 verses and it was entitled "For the Anniversary Day of One's Conversion."

How many of us recognize our conversion with such excitement? For that matter, how many of us recognize God with such enthusiasm? Wesley knew God in a way we have lost today. In theologians' terms, God has two aspects: His transcendence and His immanence. Immanence speaks of His immediate presence. We like to think of God as here, among us. And He is. Immanence points to His more personable attributes, like love, grace, and mercy. His transcendence speaks of His being above and beyond us. "Your ways are not My ways," says the Lord. The word that most clearly expresses His transcendence in Scripture is "holy." His holiness is His otherness. It is this aspect that we seem to have lost. David Wells says that the church in America today has "an infatuation with the love of God and an embarrassment at his holiness."¹ We see God in His closeness to us, His love for us. It is His holiness that scares us, because with that holiness comes righteousness, wrath, and judgment. Wesley sees God in His greatness beyond our comprehension.

What aspects of God's greatness does this hymn point to? "Redeemer" is the first description. He is the One who purchased me out of sin's penalty. "My God and King" are the next two. "My God" speaks of His personal nature to me, His immanence. "My God" speaks of His holiness, His otherness, His transcendence. "King" is a descriptive term that people of an earlier time would understand. Americans have little comprehension of the word, having no king of our own and valuing independence as we do. The king was the single ruler of all. His word was law. His judgments were carried out. His choices were final. Jesus is the King of kings, the Ultimate King. He is my King. He is, in that phrase, immanent and transcendent.

"The triumphs of His grace" is the next descriptive phrase. It is on that grace that we wholly lean. There is no place in God's view for my merit. I have earned no rights to attention, love, or mercy. My wages, my earnings, are death (Rom. 6:23). God first demonstrated His grace in the garden of Eden when He spared the lives of Adam and Eve when they sinned. "In the day that you eat it, you shall surely die." (Gen. 2:17) But they didn't die physically, and that is due solely to God's grace. God is not obligated to maintain the life of one who regularly engages in overthrowing His rulership, yet that is what we do daily. Every breath we take is testimony to His triumphant grace.

"My gracious Master and my God" is the next phrase that illustrates who God is. We've already looked momentarily at His gracious aspect. Master is a term that we don't like in America. We will be free. We will be independent. We will be slave to no man. God doesn't offer that option. It's His game. We can come to Him on His terms, or not at all. His claim is Master. Paul told the Philippian jailer that he must believe on the Lord Jesus Christ to be saved. (Acts 16:31) God requires control in our lives. Paul says we will be slaves, either to righteousness or to sin. (Rom. 6:16) We will have a master. Slavery is not a choice. God gives us the option of masters. To fail to choose God as master is to choose sin as master. There are no other choices, no in betweens. There is no independence.

The single name "Jesus" is next on the descriptive list. Wesley says that name affects our fears, our sorrows, our outlook on life, and our inner thoughts. Paul says that His name will be the name above all names. Many hymns and choruses pick up this same concept. "Jesus, name above all names." "Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, there's just something about that name . . ." "Take the name of Jesus with you." Today's world sees His name as an expletive, but God sees that name as the name. A failure to revere that name is a failure to revere the person. What does the name of Jesus do in your thoughts?

More than a name, Jesus carries power. Power to cancel sin. Power to set us free. Power to cleanse. His blood is effective in cleansing. Jesus carries power in name and in presence. For most Christians, it is Jesus that represents God's immanence, His presence with us, His love. It is the Father that represents His transcendence, His holiness. But Jesus is just as holy. ("I and the Father are one.") They are inseparable entities. While we may not comprehend, all of God's transcendence as well as His immanence resides in Christ.

For all that He does, for all that He is, we are called to praise Him. The purpose of man is to glorify God. All of creation was intended to point to God. Wesley says that one tongue is insufficient to point to God's greatness. He calls on God to assist him in glorifying God. If that seems somewhat contradictory, then we are failing to see man's depravity and God's right to our worship. We need God's assistance to do anything for God, including the act of praise. But man has no higher purpose than to point to the awesome and wonderful God who made him.

Do you ever feel inadequate in praise? Do you ever have a sense that one tongue is not enough for glorifying God, that you are incapable of affording Him the adoration He deserves? Do you ever sense that you cannot provide the honor and worship He so richly merits? If not, you don't know God either in His immense holiness or His intimate immanence. That should worry you.
________

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