News Weakly - 11/30/2024

Injustice
China released 3 Americans detained in China in a prisoner swap. Seems to me a "prisoner swap" is a fundamental injustice. Either justice demands imprisonment ... or it doesn't. "Well, if it serves another purpose, then it's okay" is not justice.

A Swift Kick
U.S. forces struck an Iranian-aligned militia group in Syria this week. Because shooting at militia groups is easy. And, after all, haven't we seen how effective it is to blow up radical groups ... who don't really care about losing their lives?

Not a Bad Transition
"Transition" used to refer to any change from one thing to another. Lately, it is mostly a reference to "transitioning" from one gender to another. Now even the White House is transitioning. Oh, wait! That's actually a real transition. Never mind.

Unrelated News
In an effort to win favor for their cause, pro-Palestinian protesters blocked the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade. They were sure to urge the crowd, "Don't celebrate genocide!" which, as we all know, is the primary purpose of Thanksgiving. I mean ... what kind of stupid is that? To be fair, most protesters seem to think that angering people not involved in their cause is the best way to get them on board, but ...

California ... Need I Say More?
They're at it again. An owner of an oilfield in Los Angeles County is suing California because California, essentially, has opted to ban him from pumping oil out of his property. As we all know, the government always knows what's best for us, even if it puts people out of business, removes freedoms, locks them in their homes, and who knows what else? Whatever it takes, California aims for a better world ... under their one-world government.

Fake News You Can Trust
Why is there so much on the Bee about Kamala and drinking? Hmm. On the Middle East, they're reporting that Israel has asked Hezbollah to wait by their pagers for a message on the ceasefire. And, going along with the "California" item above, Trump is proposing a 25% tariff on goods imported from California.

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

"Did God Say ...?"

The recent series on "TULIP," culminating, of course, with "P" -- the perseverance of the saints -- has stirred up all sorts of questions and challenges. There are two main objections to the notion that, if we are once born again, we can never become ... unborn again. One is, "I don't think so. It is a clear violation of human reasoning." Let's set that one aside for the moment and agree to go with Scripture on this. The other is, "But, doesn't the Bible say ...?" There are, we must all acknowledge, texts that seem to say you can lose your salvation. The aim, then, must be to align the two. That is, we must figure out a way to understand the "You can't lose your salvation" texts with the "You can lose your salvation" texts and not "against.".

If you're thinking I'm about to do that for you, I'm afraid that's beyond the scope of my writing. It would be a long piece, indeed. Perhaps there is an easier approach. There is a technique in which one goes from the known to the unknown, from the explicit to the implicit. Maybe that will help. So, we read, "And I am sure of this, that He who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Php 1:6). Option 1: Paul was wrong. He had a false sense of confidence ... in God's abilities. That's obviously not possible if Scripture is breathed out by God (2 Tim 3:16-17). Option 2: He meant something different. But ... what? It's too clear, too explicit. Option 3: The text means what it says ... which seems like the only option. Or we can look at Jesus when He said, "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. 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 10:27-29). Option 1: Jesus didn't mean "No one is able to snatch them out of My hand." It was hyperbole. He meant "almost no one." But, if not "no one," who can? "Well, at least every believer can snatch themselves out of His hand." That's a very large "no one." If it was hyperbole, it was poor hyperbole. Option 2: He meant something different. But ... what? It's too clear, too explicit. Option 3: The text means what it says. Or we can ponder what he meant when Jude wrote, "Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you blameless before the presence of His glory with great joy, to the only God, our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen" (Jude 1:24-25) Option 1: Jude said God is able to keep you from stumbling. That doesn't mean He actually would. No, you can stumble and He won't interfere. But ... what's the point if God does not do it? Option 2: He meant something different. But ... what? It's too clear, too explicit. Option 3: The text means what it says.

Just three examples. The texts regarding God keeping His own, from "foreknown" all the way to "glorified" (Rom 8:29-30), leave no room for our interference. They are explicit, clear, and unequivocal. If, therefore, we know that God will complete what He began, doesn't lose any, and is able to keep His own from stumbling, we know that salvation cannot be lost because God is keeping us. If we accept that premise from these (and many more) texts, then I would contend that the "warning" texts aren't as clear or explicit, and it is entirely possible, even necessary to see how they fit in with what we know about God keeping His own rather than arguing that He does not, even cannot.

Thanksgiving, 2024

I wrote up an entry for Thanksgiving Day earlier and was all set to go with it. It was primarily Scriptures on giving thanks. (Go figure.) Then I started ruminating on some of the Scriptures I had listed. One of them caught my attention, and I decided to write a different entry. Here it is.

There are lots of biblical injunctions to give thanks (1 Thess 5:18; Psa 100:4; Php 4:6; Col 3:15, 17; Col 4:2; etc., etc.). One that stood out to me, though, was

Give thanks to YHWH, for He is good, for His steadfast love endures forever. (Psa 107:1; Psa 136:1)

It is, on the surface, just like all the others, but ... I see something more, something different.

Lots of texts command us to give thanks, and I can think of at least one that warns of what happens if we don't (Rom 1:21). This one, however, tells us why. "Give thanks to YHWH," it says. That is a command. Then it says "for." That's a reason. Why should we give thanks to God? Because He is good. It's a simple statement of fact, yet it is broad. "He is good." How good? Paul wrote that "God causes all things to work together for good" (Rom 8:28). Broad. James wrote, "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change" (James 1:17). "Every good gift" is from God. That's good. James also said, "Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds" because God is in that, too, and it's for our good (James 1:2-4). Give thanks to God, then, because He is that good. The verse isn't done. It commands us to give thanks and it tells why -- He is good. That is followed by another "for." The psalmist has an explanation of the reason He is good: "His steadfast love endures forever." That, dear readers, is stunning. He has chosen to set His love on us, not because we are magnificent creatures. We are not. We are, at the outset, enemies of God (Rom 5:10; 8:7). God chooses to set His steadfast love on us ... forever. For that reason, He is good. For that reason He is good to us. Because of His steadfast love, He makes everything that happens to us work out for good. Because of His steadfast love, He provides every good thing. Because of His steadfast love, He makes every painful thing serve His purposes for our best.

The world has mostly forgotten Who we are giving thanks to today. It's God. We believers know why we're giving thanks to Him today ... and every other day. He is good. He is love. His steadfast love never fails, so He is always good to us. Give thanks. God knows we have every reason to do so.

In Essentials, Unity

The pastor preached about "essentials." He wanted us to be sure that we're majoring on the "essentials" and not on the "non-essentials." I mulled over the term. What constitutes "essentials"? I said last week that doctrines of "TULIP" were not "essentials." By that I meant I can (and do) still fellowship with Arminians (partial or full) even though I think their version is wrong. So what are we talking about?

There are "cardinal" doctrines and "peripheral" doctrines. There are fundamental truths, without which we do not have a Christian faith, and there are other doctrines that don't affect salvation. A saying often (wrongly) attributed to Augustine says, "In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity." What is the difference? Paul spoke of matters "of first importance" (1 Cor 15:3). There are certain beliefs that, if they are false, Christianity is false. These are the "essentials." Note, it's not whether you believe them; it's whether they are true. For instance, God claims to be the only God (Deut 6:4). Paul claims the death and resurrection of Christ are "of first importance" (1 Cor 15:3-7). He says, "If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain" (1 Cor 15:14). That's what I'm talking about. If it is not true that Christ rose from the dead, your salvation does not exist. That is, it doesn't matter if you believe it's true or not. Is it true? These are the things that must be true if Christianity is to be true. These and others. Christ is God (Php 2:6-11). Jesus was God incarnate -- God in the flesh (1 Tim 3:16). Salvation is by faith through grace apart from works (Eph 2:8-10). Jesus is the only way (John 14:6; Acts 4:12). The trustworthiness of Scripture (John 17:17; 1 Tim 3:16-17). These are essential truths without which Christ is of any value, faith is of any use, and salvation is available to anyone.

Scripture talks about other things. For instance, Paul says, "Whatever is not from faith is sin" (Rom 14:23). The principle of Christian Liberty allows for personal convictions regarding non-essential things. There is very little in eschatology that requires agreement in order to be saved. There is room for disagreement on some things. However, with a faithful adherence to Scripture and a willingness to abide by God's Word, much of these "gray areas" go away when we interpret Scripture with Scripture and let God be true though every man a liar.

Let's Talk About Sex

There's nothing like a good title to grab your attention, eh?

We live in what some have called a "sexular society." The fundamental ruling principle today is sex -- "I want what I want and no one has the right to deny me." But sexual immorality is such an oft repeated topic in Scripture that believers and unbelievers alike cannot deny that God's Word has a real problem with sexual immorality -- specifically, sex outside of marriage. So, clearly, we've been lied to, and we don't even know it. Sex is not about physical pleasure. Sex is not even about emotional or physical intimacy. Oh, I'm not saying those aren't components; God is an amazing Creator and worked all that in. But that was not the point. God made sex first for procreation (Gen 1:28) and second for ... a miracle. The biblical description is "they shall become one flesh" (Gen 2:24). Jesus confirmed it (Matt 19:5). Paul repeated it (Eph 5:31). In fact, it was this very concept that caused Paul to warn the Corinthian believers against sexual immorality (1 Cor 6:16). In a sense, God designed sex to be magical ... and we've whittled it down to "a good time" in our society today. We -- including Christians -- see it as "fun" and "pleasurable." We can find books, even Christian books, about how to have better sex, what techniques to use, steps to take ... kind of a "Users Manual." But it's all bogus, because the point is always "How can I get better sex?" And that's not the point of sex.

As in all things, sex was designed by God for His glory (1 Cor 10:31). Now, how does that feel laying it next to the typical sexual mindset ... even of Christians? "Sex ... for God's glory ... how can that be?" We might wonder, but it is true. So Scripture first (and repeatedly) makes it clear that sex is for marriage only. Any deviation from married sex is a deviation from God's purposes. But Paul points out that God's version of "married sex" stands our human understanding on its head. "The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband" (1 Cor 7:3). He classifies it as "duty," and not a commitment to my own satisfaction; it is a commitment to my spouse. He says, "The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does" (1 Cor 7:4). That is so foreign to our human perspective that we aren't really clear on how that works. When a husband and wife engage in sexual relations, the requirement is "My body is not mine." That's an absurdity to most minds. "Of course my body is mine! And I expect her/him to satisfy me!" Paul turns that around. Paul says I'm supposed to surrender my body to my spouse. It's never about me.

Human sexuality is an exceedingly complex thing. From the outside -- varieties of sensations and techniques that are uniquely experienced by each individual -- and from the inside -- the thoughts, feelings, even spirit involved that are extremely individual -- we're complicated and interrelated people. When Peter told husbands, "You husbands in the same way, live with your wives in an understanding way ..." (1 Peter 3:7), he said a mouthful. Our task is to live a lifestyle and a lifetime of learning our wives, and sex is part of that ... a very complex part. We humans tend to distill it down to "recreation" that is certainly mostly physical and primarily "about me" -- "What do I want? Are my needs being met? What feels good to me?". God intended sex as a vastly larger concept that is lost on unbelievers and even believers. Paul explains that this thing we call "sex" that results in "they shall become one flesh" is intended as an illustration of Christ's relationship to His Bride, the Church -- a great mystery (Eph 5:31-32). It is, therefore, extremely important to God and, thus, to us. Boiling sex down to a mere physical act or even a physical and emotional and spiritual intimacy misses the main point. God is to be glorified in the act that He designed in order to show this exceedingly great mystery -- Christ loves the Church and is "united as one" with her. No sex manual, no sexual procedure, no mere physical pleasure will satisfy that purpose. We cannot afford to boil it down as the world has done to "friends with benefits" or "my sexual satisfaction." Anything less than God's full design is an insult to God, and when we fail to grasp His purposes, we sell ourselves short.

God's Will in Salvation

In Scripture we have two stories that coincide closely in time. Two people have visitations from an angel and receive wildly unexpected, even similar news. One was a priest named Zacharias (Luke 1:1-20) and the other was a betrothed virgin named Mary (Luke 1:26-38). Both were told there would be a child in their futures. Both questioned the news. Zacharias asked, "How will I know this for certain? For I am an old man and my wife is advanced in years" (Luke 1:18). Mary asked, "How can this be, since I am a virgin?" (Luke 1:34). Very similar responses ... very different outcomes. Zacharias was rendered mute until his son was born and Mary responded, "Behold, the bondslave of the Lord; may it be done to me according to your word" (Luke 1:38). What was the difference? Zacharias was questioning the angel's veracity, and Mary was inquiring about the method. Zacharias assumed it was too unlikely and was skeptical while Mary assumed it was true and allowed an unlikely explanation. In the discussion of Man's sin condition, God's choice of who to save, and all that, we will always have dissenters. For the most part, the dissension is civil and, even, biblical. "I don't see how what you're saying coincides with what I see in Scripture." All well and good. But it often degenerates from there to an unkind and unnecessary battle. What we need is more Marys and less Zechariases. What we need is believers who say, "I will abide by God's Word whatever it really says -- all of God's Word -- and change my understanding accordingly" rather than "That can't be, because it violates my thinking."

Let's look at an example. One text I see so very often in that discussion to "prove" that God doesn't choose whom He will save is an oft-quoted text from Peter's second epistle. His readers, apparently, were concerned about when the day of the Lord would come, and Peter was trying to calm them down. So, he wrote that there would be scoffers,

But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:8-9)

There it is, clear as day. God wants everyone to be saved. Undeniable, right? But ... is it?

Notice the word "wishing" in that sentence. The word is the one used for "will". So some translate it "desire" and some translate it "will" and some translate it "want" and some translate it "wish." The Green's Literal Translation (LITV) says God has not "purposed any to perish, but all to come to repentance" (2 Peter 3:9). We're not speaking here of mere "wishful thinking." In fact, putting together an Omniscient, Omnipotent, Sovereign God who indulges in "wishful thinking" seems like a silly concept. So what is Peter saying? He's not saying, "God really, really wants everyone to be saved ... but just can't pull it off." No, this is a matter of God's will. What is God's will? That there would not be any that perish.

What shall we conclude then? Does God fail? Does He not get His will done? We know that Jesus said, "The gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it" (Matt 7:14). We know that Jesus said, "Many are called, but few are chosen" (Matt 22:14). Clearly not all will be saved, much to the outrage of self-styled universalists. And clearly that's God's plan (Rom 9:18). If God planned to save everyone, He could accomplish it. He hasn't. So what is Peter saying?

It's interesting how we all seem to "fill in the blanks" on our own on this text. "God is not willing that any should perish," it says. Any what? We all assume "any humans." But why? It's not in the text. So the "any" is defined somewhere else in the text. Where? Right in the same verse. "God," he says, "is patient toward you." Inserting "all mankind" as the subject of "any" in that text is arbitrary. Peter was talking to "you," to believers, to the people of God, to Jesus's sheep, if you will. Jesus said He had many sheep "not of this fold" and He would bring them in also (John 10:16). Peter isn't talking about all mankind; he's talking about the elect. "God is not willing that any of you perish," not "all mankind." And God never fails, so Peter is assuring his readers that all the elect will indeed be saved before Christ returns.

In truth, the common interpretation that it means that God's will was to save everyone and just couldn't pull it off is a serious problem. It undercuts His Omnipotence. It undercuts His Sovereignty. It undercuts His character. It subjugates the Supreme Father to being essentially a butler working hard for His masters, the human race, but, doggone it, just not being able to take care of them all. He tried, but He couldn't do it. And, of course, that ends the reliability of Jesus and the reliability of Scripture and ... well, say farewell to any reliable Christianity. If Peter intended to tell us that God willed to save everyone and failed, we're in real trouble.

Treasures and Hearts

Jesus was famous for His statement,

"Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in or steal; for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. (Matt 6:19-21)

We've all heard it. We all nod and say, "Amen, Preacher!" Or something like it. And we all go on our merry way, like James's man who sees himself in the mirror and forgets who he is when he walks away (James 1:22-24). The text could almost be considered to be aimed directly at American Christianity. Americans are all about storing treasures on earth. "The one who dies with the most toys wins" is a popular saying. American Christians often suffer from the same malady.

Jesus offered the statement as a sort of litmus test. "Here's the test," He seemed to say. "What do you treasure? Look at what you treasure and you can tell where your heart is." What do we treasure? We treasure stuff -- comfort, well-being, money. We treasure less concrete stuff -- fame, power, that sort. We treasure America, don't we? I mean, genuine Christians are deeply exercised over the state of the union, who is in charge, will our nation thrive or recede, that kind of thing. More simply put, where do we spend our time, money, energy? In what are we most deeply invested? There, dear readers, is your treasure and there is where your heart is. So if we skip church on Sunday because our kids have a soccer game or we just don't seem to have time to pray and read our bibles or if loving our neighbors or making disciples is too much work, or if you hear yourself say, "I'm not sure I can give to that need because I'm saving up for a boat" ... these kinds of things tell you where your treasure is (or is not) and, therefore, where your heart is.

Interestingly, our attention seems to hang on "treasure." Mine did right there in that last paragraph. "Where is your treasure?" The real problem is not your treasure; it is your heart. The real consequence of a misplaced treasure is a misdirected heart. And we muddle through, struggling for temporal treasures rather than investing in eternal treasures because our hearts are not in eternity. I'm not sure I can face myself if that's true about me. Are you okay with it?

News Weakly - 11/23/2024

What's In A Name?
The word, "squaw," originated in the Algonquian languages. The English settlers that lived there borrowed it to reference a young, unmarried, Native American woman. Apparently, over time, the Algonquians became racists, because California (like others have done) plans to rename places that use this "racist term" for a Native American woman. It's crazy, I know, but it's not just California. It's a nation gone mad. (Like renaming teams named to honor Native American bravery and prowess.)

Cause and Effect
If Ukraine uses American weapons on Russia, Putin is warning he'll consider it aggression by the U.S. ... and act accordingly. Theoretically, NATO could end the war between Russia and Ukraine by simply saying, "No, we are not allowing Ukraine to join NATO." They won't. And Biden has green-lighted the use of American missiles on Russian soil. So if we get repercussions we don't like, don't blame it all on Putin.

Access Penalty
Tolls have been used on roads for a long time, primarily to pay for construction -- old and new -- decrease travel time, and generate revenue for local government. New York City would like to use it ... to decrease traffic -- to penalize people for coming into the city. I mean, what could go wrong? "Hey, why is business down? Fewer people are coming in." Your government working for you.

Can You Say 'I Don't Think So'?
Ukraine claims Russia fired an ICBM on the city of Dnipro. If it is true, it's the first use of ICBMs in the conflict. The West is denying it was an ICBM. Logically, firing an intercontinental weapon at your next door neighbor when you've plenty of standard missiles to do the job is just ... stupid. And Ukraine fired their American-supplied long-range missiles at Russia just two days before, so ... what did they expect? I'm saddened that Ukraine and Russia are fighting. I'm concerned that Ukraine's leadership may be ... less than trustworthy. As the story above says, Russia is promising repurcussions. I'm somewhat concerned that Zelenskyy could lie us into a greater war with Russia. So I'm so glad that we are in the hands of a living God.

I Don't Even ...
A "piece of art" consisting of a banana duct-taped to a wall sold for $6.5 million at auction this week. If I actually thought a banana duct-taped to a wall was art, I could have saved $6.5 million and duct-taped my own banana to my own wall. But since that's not actually art, I'll further save myself the embarrassment of having a banana taped to my wall ... that I have to change once a week. A $6.5 million proof that we live in a crazy world.

Your Best Source for Fake News
Maybe it was the Bee's "Pick On Baptists" week. One article said the latest Baptist pin-up calendar just showed photos of casseroles. Another reported the SBC voted to allow dancing ... as long as it's the "Trump dance." Finally, for all you Monty Python's "Holy Grail" fans, Biden has authorized Ukraine to use the holy hand grenade against Russia. (Sorry, non-fans. You'll have to figure that out on your own.)

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

TULIP - P

Well, we've made it to the end. We're at the "P" of TULIP. "P," of course, is for Perseverance of the Saints. Now, when I was younger, I believed myself to be a "Calvinist" because I believed in "Once Saved, Always Saved" (OSAS), and those misguided Arminians thought you could lose your salvation. Imagine my surprise when I discovered that I was a one-point Calvinist, rejecting those first 4. But, of course, God had the last laugh. I ended up embracing the TULI (or so) and rejecting the OSAS. So ... what does that "P" signify?

We've seen, from Scripture, that Man is a sinner and, therefore, sins. It's in his nature. That nature touches every part, making him dead in sin, hostile to God, and God's enemy. The only hope, then, is God's work. He has chosen some to save, not on their own merit, but for His purposes. He has provided the solution to their sin in the Atonement, which Christ completed perfectly for the ones God has chosen. And, leaving nothing to chance, the Spirit applies grace to the chosen without requiring their permission. He regenerates, provides repentance (2 Cor 7:9; 2 Tim 2:25) and faith (Rom 12:3; Php 1:29; 2 Peter 1:3). Now, this "dead in sin," "hostile to God" sinner has a changed heart and comes, in faith and repentance, to receive that Atonement. And ... then what?

If you read the Scriptures you will find that believers can lose their salvation and cannot lose their salvation. That is, you'll find verses to support both perspectives. Interestingly, all of the "lose your salvation" passages (e.g., Heb 6:4-6; Matt 7:21-23; Ezek 18:24-26; 2 Tim 2:11-12; Rev 3:5; etc.) are from Man's perspective, and all of the "can't lose your salvation" passages are from God's perspective. So, which is it? First, consider. The term often used for "salvation" is "eternal life." Now, if "eternal life" can stop ... it's not eternal, is it? John wrote, "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him" (John 3:36). That's "has" -- present tense. Paul told the Philippians to "work out your salvation" ("See? You can lose it.") for "it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure" (Php 2:13). Our work versus God's work. Jesus said, "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 10:29). "Oh," some say, "but I can." Alright, so you're "no one"? Jude wrote that God is "able to keep you from stumbling, and to make you stand in the presence of His glory blameless with great joy" (Jude 1:24). Paul wrote something very similar. "For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus" (Php 1:6). I can only conclude, then, that God is the means by which everyone who comes to Christ will be saved, and that without fail.

I said at the outset that I rejected OSAS. I believe that's an error. It suggests it's possible to become saved and never change. It's not. John wrote, "No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God" (1 John 3:9). A believer can sin, but he can't make a practice of it "because he is born of God." John also wrote of those who "went out from us." Of them he says, "they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us" (1 John 2:19). I cannot make a coherent argument that God is willing and able to save to the end all who believe ... and can't. So I'm going with God on this one. That's why I prefer to call this last point "the Perseverance of God for the Saints." I'm offering one last Scripture for you to consider: Romans 8:31-39. You're likely familiar with the text. Note, however, the sentence right there in the middle. "Who will bring a charge against God's elect? God is the one who justifies" (Rom 8:33). There it is, the connection between "Unconditional Election" and "the Perseverance of God for the Saints." But read the whole thing. It's much larger than this connection, and it is certainly no less than this connection. We trust in God ... for life, for salvation, for being kept, for everything. That's a certainty.
________
One last thought. The ideas that comprise TULIP that I've just laid out this past week are not "essentials." At least, I won't divide from fellow believers who don't agree. But I want you to see that I haven't offered you philosophical speculations or some "tradition." I've offered Scripture. You're certainly free to understand these Scriptures in a different way, but you should be able to admit that, even if you don't agree, these doctrines come from Scripture. At least we should be able to agree on that. If you disagree with the interpretation I offer, please be careful to align Scripture rather than refute it.

TULIP - I

We're up to "I" in this series. We started with the problem: Man's radical depravity that cuts him off from God without any means of remedying it himself. We went to "U" which says that God, therefore, chooses whom He will save without regard to their own merits. He saves on the basis of His own purposes. Then to "L" where we see that the Atonement -- our only means to salvation -- was intended to pay for all the sins of those whom He has chosen ... and does so perfectly. And then there's "Irresistible Grace."

Remember. These are all linked. Radical Depravity requires that God chooses whom He will save without regard to their merits ... because they have none (Sovereign Election). Particular Atonement holds that those who are sovereignly elected have their sins paid for. So, the next question is, how effective is God's choice of you? Can you refuse? Does it all boil down to me and my choice? So, again, let's look at what "Irresistible Grace" does not mean. It does not meant that God's grace cannot be resisted. Clearly people all over the world resist the Holy Spirit all the time (Acts 7:51). What it does mean is that, if you are among the elect, at some point the Holy Spirit will certainly overcome your resistance and you will be saved. Does the Bible agree?

On one hand, Scripture is clear that "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him" and I will raise him up on the last day" (John 6:44). Jesus said, "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me" (John 6:37). No exceptions. In Antioch in Pisidia Paul left the Jews and took the gospel to the Gentiles, and "as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed" (Acts 13:48). Note how "appointed" precedes "believed." Jesus gave the same cause-and-effect concept when He told the Jews, "You do not believe because you are not of My sheep" (John 10:26). That is, in order to believe, you have to be first "one of My sheep." In Romans 8 where God tells us why "all things work together for good" according to God's purpose, he explains, "For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified" (Rom 8:28-30). There is no break in that chain, starting from "foreknew" all the way to "justified" and "glorified" ... and there is no mention of anything we do to cause or prevent it. Paul knowingly upset his readers when he wrote, "So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires" (Rom 9:18). Nothing about us being in the loop. John wrote that we are born again "not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1:13). Not your birth, not your will, not your choices -- just God. Clearly, then, everyone that the Father gives the Son will indeed come to the Son and not by their own skillful efforts or willingness. God successfully overcomes the hostility of Natural Man (Rom 8:7) by first redeeming him and then applying grace ... without the permission of the recipients, as it were. We are, as we all know, saved by grace and not of ourselves (Eph 2:8-9).

Given the extent of the problem -- our "dead in sin" nature -- God requires a means of salvation that does not rest on the unsaved. He chooses on the basis of His own purposes, redeems those whom He chooses, and regenerates those He has redeemed. If left to our own devices, we would accept none of that. We couldn't understand; we wouldn't receive. So He does it. He does it all. In Paul's terms we are all "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction," ready for the wrath God so willingly has to give (Rom 9:22), and He graciously makes of us vessels of mercy (Rom 9:23). No thanks to us. No merit to us. No dependence on us. He ... just ... saves ... whom He chooses and with perfect efficiency. How about, instead of "Irresistible Grace," we call it "Effectual Grace"?
________
For your added reference: Rom 5:8; John 10:27-29; Php 2:13; 2 Cor 4:6; Rom 1:16; etc.

TULIP - L

Okay, so far we have "T" where mankind as a whole are sinners from birth, dead in sin, hostile to God, without hope. So how would anyone get saved? First, we have "U" where God chooses whom He will save ... which is good since none of us merit His choice. He chooses for His own purposes and has already, before time began, recorded everyone who will be saved. What else is needed? Well, we need some method of being saved. We need what Scripture calls "atonement" -- an "at-one-ment" whereby our sins are forgiven and set aside and we can have peace with God. That's our "L" -- Limited Atonement.

This one is one of the most hotly contested points. "Limited Atonement??? Christ died for all sin!" So, as before, I need to explain that "Limited Atonement" is not about limitations to the Atonement Christ made for our sin; it's about the intent. Here's the question. When Christ died on the cross, when He died for sins, when He said, "It is finished" (John 19:30), to what was He referring? What was His aim? Did He die to forgive all sin for all mankind for all time? Or ... not? Scripture is abundantly clear that not all will be saved. John wrote, "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name (John 1:12). Clearly there's the "other shoe" there: "Those who do not receive Him do not receive the right." Jesus warned of Hell more than anyone else. He told of those, in the end, who would call Him "Lord, Lord" and He would reject them (Matt 7:21-23). So, quite clearly, not all sin was forgiven at the cross. "Well," I've often heard it said, "you have to accept the forgiveness." The illustration is used of the prisoner on death row who is pardoned by the governor. The warden goes to him and shows him the pardon, but the prisoner refuses to accept it. So, the warden carries out the execution. Surely you can see the massive injustice perpetrated on a pardoned prisoner who is, essentially, executed without fault simply because he wouldn't accept the pardon. That's a variety of things, but "justice" is not on that list. If all sin was paid for at the cross, all humans are forgiven and God is obligated by His own justice to welcome them all into heaven.

What does Scripture say? Jesus said, "The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many" (Matt 20:28). "Many," not "all." (Also Matt 26:28; Heb 9:28.) Paul said that Jesus purchased "the church of God" with His own blood (Acts 20:28). Jesus specifically did not pray for the world, but for His own (John 17:9). The author of Hebrews says "those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance" (Heb 9:15). That's the elect, not everyone. In Revelation 5:9 they sang a song of praise to God who redeemed us "out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation." Clearly Christ didn't intend to pay for the sins of all mankind and, thus, save all mankind. He did, however, pay for all the sins of His people (Matt 1:21; 1 Peter 3:18; Titus 2:14). Christ made atonement for sin, but His intent was to pay for the sin of those whom He intended to save.

"Limited Atonement," then, misrepresents the idea. A better term would be "Particular Atonement." It's not about the extent of the Atonement, but the intent. Did Jesus intend to pay for all sin for all mankind and fail, or did He intend to pay for the sin of the elect and succeed? Scripture is clear that Christ's sacrifice was sufficient to cover the sins of the world. "Particular Atonement" simply says that He never intended to do so, so His sacrifice is not efficient for covering all sin. That was never His aim. It does not apply to all sin. But, thank God, it applies to all the sin of all who believe, without limitation and without our contribution. Jesus paid it all for those He has chosen.
________
As usual, I'm providing more reading for your examination: John 10:15; Eph 5:25; John 3:16; 1 John 2:18-19; Isa 53:11; Mark 14:24; John 15:13; Rom 3:25; etc.

Please note: the most common error I see when people are contending over this topic is to bring up Scriptures that appear to show the opposite. That's all well and good, except trying to prove your point by making Scripture contradictory simply makes Scripture unreliable. Agree or disagree, but make sure you are harmonizing Scripture and not pitting Scripture against Scripture. If you believe that Jesus paid for sin for all mankind for all time, what do you do with the texts that say otherwise? If you believe that Christ paid only for the sins of the elect, what do you do with the texts that seem to say "all"? Don't gloss it over. Let God be true though every man a liar.

TULIP - U

The so-called "Five Points" aren't just 5 random ideas. They are a rational line of thinking. They feed into each other. They begin with the premise of "T," what I prefer to call "Radical Depravity." We are dead in sin, incapable of even understanding the things of the Spirit, without hope or the inclination to change. In fact, we are hostile to God (Rom 8:7). The obvious next question is, "Now what? What hope is there?" Enter the concept of "U." The "U" refers to "Unconditional Election," but that, again, can be misleading.

In its memory tool form, Unconditional Election refers to the question, "What is it in me that causes God to choose me?" Before we answer that, let's set aside an immediate objection. "God doesn't choose! I do!" Nice thought, but consider two facts. First, if the Scriptures on the "T" part are accurate (biblical), we lack the capacity to choose. Second, and the real objection, is the objection that God does the choosing. Don't be deceived. The doctrine of Election is not a Calvin thing. It is throughout Scripture. God chose Noah. God chose Abraham. God chose the nation of Israel (Deut 10:15), and not because they were so wonderful (Deut 7:7-8). In the New Testament, Jesus told His disciples that they didn't choose Him, but He chose them (John 15:16). The doctrine that God chooses whom He will save is all over Scripture. We can discuss how He chooses, but there is no room to question that He chooses. The claim, then, is that God chooses whom He will save not on the basis of anything in the ones He chooses. His choice is not conditioned on the chosen. It is "unconditional" in that sense. Maybe "Sovereign Election" would be better.

Scripture repeatedly says that God's choice occurred before time began. It says, "He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world ..." on the basis of "the kind intention of His will" (Eph 1:4-5). The Revelation says the names of those who will be saved are "written from the foundation of the world in the book of life" (Rev 13:8; Rev 17:8). Scripture says we are chosen "not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace (2 Tim 1:9). In his example of Esau and Jacob, Paul wrote, "... though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls ..." (Rom 9:11). Paul concludes, "So then it (God's choice) does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy" (Rom 9:16). God chooses, then, not on anything in us -- anything we do or are -- but according to His purposes.

Those who object often call such a God "capricious." "That would mean God's just playing with us without cause or reason." No, it doesn't. It means that we are not the reason. It means that He does have reasons and purpose; it's just not us -- our merits, or our choices ("the man who wills or the man who runs"). His reasons are entirely His own. "Unconditional Election" doesn't mean "random" or "capricious." It means that God does not choose whom He will save based on the objects of His choice. It means that He clearly chooses whom He will save and He is sovereign in that choice. Which, as it turns out, is very good since, left to our own devices, our own depravity would preclude God from choosing any of us.
________
For more reading on this principle, you can try Acts 13:48; 2 Thess 2:13; Rom 8:29; John 15:16; Eph 1:11; Jer 1:5. There are certainly more. Do your due diligence.

TULIP - T

I've said before that I don't like the common acronym, "TULIP," not because I disagree with the principles, but because the chosen memory tool misrepresents the principles. So, I'm going to look at "T" -- Total Depravity -- with the aim of eliminating the misconceptions and showing in Scripture what it really is. (Please note: I won't be presenting this as philosophy or fine arguments. I'm not using Calvin or anyone else. My source document is the Bible.)

"Total Depravity" suggests that Man (I suppose, in today's world, I have to explain that "Man" is not male, but "mankind," "humanity," the human race) is depraved, totally depraved, as bad as he/she can possibly be. That would (obviously) be a mistake. The principle is not that we are as bad as we possibly can be, but that sin has affected us to the very core. There is no part of us that is not touched. And it's a bigger problem than we imagine. Maybe "Radical Depravity" is better.

The Bible explains that God made humans perfect (Gen 1:31). That didn't change until Genesis 3, when the serpent tempted Eve and the couple leapt into sin. That fall affected all of Adam's race (Rom 5:12). All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Rom 3:23). If that's not bad enough, the ramifications of this condition are larger than we think. Scripture says we are sinners from birth. David cried, "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me" (Psa 51:5). Elsewhere he says, "The wicked are estranged from the womb; these who speak lies go astray from birth" (Psa 58:3). That is, we aren't just sinners because we sin. We sin because we are sinners. God said, "The intention of man's heart is evil from his youth" (Gen 8:21). We understand that we're all sinners, but Scripture says, "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one" (Rom 3:10-12). And, if you can believe it, it gets worse. Paul wrote, "A natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised" (1 Cor 2:14). That's a "cannot." Natural man lacks the capacity to understand the things of God. Why? Natural man is dead in sin (Eph 2:1-3). Instead, "The god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God" (2 Cor 4:4). We're not as bad as we could be, but we're in a hopeless condition of sin that permeates everything.

That is the concept of "Total Depravity." It's not that we're really, really bad people. It's that we're sinners at the core and neither capable of understanding the things of the Spirit or pleasing God. Until God intervenes, we are without hope (Eph 2:12). We've all heard the calls. We're all encouraged to choose Christ. What we fail to grasp is, left to our own devices, it cannot happen. We are a rebellious people, dead in sin, without the capacity to even understand. If Someone supernatural does not do something -- something radical -- it's a story with a dreadful ending. Sugar-coating or covering up the truth of human depravity only covers the real problem. But ... obviously ... I'm going to have to continue this series to offer a solution ... God's solution.
________
For more Scripture on this, I offer John 1:12-13; John 3:5-7; John 6:63-65; 1 Peter 4:6; Gen 6:5; Jer 17:9; Mark 7:21-23; Rom 8:7-8. Feel free to find more.

When Turnabout is Fair Play

I've been in the book of Acts lately and I noticed an interesting recurring concept. At the beginning of Acts, Jesus ascends to heaven and the church starts in Jerusalem. Literally thousands are coming to Christ. And, almost immediately, persecution begins. That's bad. But ... look what happened. In the persecution, Christians started fleeing Jerusalem. And the gospel went out. Oh, that's good.

By the ninth chapter the Pharisees are sending their hitman, Saul, to hunt down Christians in Damascus. That's really bad. Of course, on his way, Saul gets knocked down by a light, has a face to face encounter with Christ, and is radically converted. He becomes the Apostle to the Gentiles. Oh, that's good.

In Acts 13 the church at Antioch sent Barnabas and Paul on their first missionary trip with John Mark accompanying them. After some difficult encounters, Mark bails on them and returns to Jerusalem (Acts 13:13). That's bad. Later, when Paul and Barnabas were planning their second trip, Barnabas wanted to take Mark again and Paul refuses. According to the text, "And there occurred such a sharp disagreement that they separated from one another, and Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away to Cyprus" (Acts 15:39). That's really bad. Except ... they ended up creating two teams where there was originally one. Oh, that's good.

In Acts 18, Paul arrives in Corinth where he meets Aquila and Priscilla. Now, this married couple were in Corinth because they were kicked out of Rome by the Emperor Claudius (Acts 18:2). That's bad. Aquila and Priscilla became important figures in the church. They even trained Apollos (Acts 18:24-26). Oh, that's good.

Then there was the riot in Jerusalem where Paul ends up appealing to be tried by Caesar (Acts 25:12). A brilliant maneuver, it seemed, except that when they questioned him further, they found no reason to try him ... but couldn't release him because he appealed to Caesar (Acts 26:32). That's bad. But God planned for Paul to stand before Caesar (Acts 27:23-24) and Paul ended up in Rome. That's good.

I don't know if you've picked it up yet. It appears that God is in the habit of using "bad" things -- unpleasant, painful, destructive, even evil things -- to turn things to their best. It seems that God, in fact, causes all things to work together for good. Oh, wait ... I think I've seen that somewhere. Anyway, the next time you encounter difficulty, just remember this theme: "You intend it for evil, but God intends it for good." Every time. Without fail.

News Weakly - 11/16/2024

Lasting Echoes
On Election Night, 2020, we went to sleep hearing that Trump was far out in the lead. On the following morning, we learned he had been swamped, losing in key "swing states." This time, Trump made a clean sweep of the swing states. In 2020, Biden got some 81 million votes. In 2024, Harris got around 70 million votes to Trump's 75 million. One has to wonder. What happened? How did Trump lose the swing states in 2020 and sweep them in 2024? I suppose we cannot even ask if there was ... oh, my! ... possible localized election fraud in limited (you know, "swing") states in 2020 and not in 2024, can we?

Lesson Learned
New York City has been providing prepaid debit cards for illegal aliens ... oh, I'm sorry, "asylum-seekers." Mayor Adams is ending the program. Could it be that a program that pays for people to come illegally does not diminish the flow of illegals? Naw! I'm sure this is not a lesson learned.

Mean Ol' Israelis
The world stands by and watches as Hamas, Iran, Houthis in Yemen, and Hezbollah all launch a continuous barrage of missiles into Israel. It's so bad that the United Arab Emirates are calling on global leaders to de-escalate the situation. Why don't those mean ol' Israelis just take it? Why don't they just ... die? So much of the world is accusing the target of genocidal forces of doing genocide. Crazy.

The State of Education
Yale University, long considered an elite school, is going to offer a course on Beyoncé and her legacy. Because if their students can understand that, they can ... perhaps work the cash register at McDonalds. Maybe.

The Latest in WMDs
A driver in Zhuhai, China, drove his car into crowds at a stadium, killing 35 people and injuring more. He was unhappy with his divorce. They're calling it "taking revenge on society." China, of course, is moving to ban cars as weapons of mass destruction. Who needs a gun when a car is so effective?

Newsworthy?
I just liked the headline: "Flight avoids Mountain." I'm a little concerned that it's a news article. I figured "Flight fails to avoid mountain" would be newsworthy, but ...?

We've Come to This?
Netflix is making a movie about Mary, the mother of Jesus, and it's controversial. Catholics, of course, are upset because she appears to be in love with Joseph. Some Christians are upset because ... it's Netflix. But the real odd one was this. Some are upset because the part is being played by ... an Israeli woman. Seriously? It's "Palestinian erasure." They call it an offense because everyone knows Mary wasn't a Jew; she was Palestinian. Well, almost everyone. Welcome to a crazy world.

Fake News You Can Trust
The Bee offered the story of Democrats warning that abolishing the Department of Education could result in kids being too smart to vote Democrat. In other news, Trump's nomination of Matt Gaetz raises eyebrows. (You really need to see the picture to get that.) And the Department of Government Efficiency has identified 535 government workers who haven't done any work in years. (Hint: They work in the U.S. Capitol.)

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

Encouragement

Barnabas was an interesting character. His actual name was not Barnabas; it was Joseph. The apostles called him Barnabas because it meant "son of encouragement" (Acts 4:36). Barnabas was known as an encourager. We are told over and over to encourage each other (Isa 35:3; 1 Thess 5:11, 14; 1 Tim 5:1). The author of Hebrews wrote,

Take care, brethren, that there not be in any one of you an evil, unbelieving heart that falls away from the living God. But encourage one another day after day, as long as it is still called "Today," so that none of you will be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. (Heb 3:12-13)

We're aware of other commands regarding interpersonal communication. We are to "teach and admonish" (Col 3:16; etc.) one another. We're supposed to "correct" those who are in opposition (2 Tim 2:25). And, in all things, of course, we are to love as Jesus loved (John 13:34-35). But ... how are we doing with all that? It seems as if some of us have that "admonish" and "correct" thing down pretty good. How many of us would classify ourselves as "encouragers"?

Don't get me wrong. "Correction" is necessary. "Teach" and "admonish" are both important. I'm not denying it. It just seems that too many of us spend far more time on these important approaches than encouragement. The biblical word is parakaleō, often translated "exhort." It means to "walk alongside." It's the idea of "It's you and me in this; let's get through it together." It is aimed at strengthening the weak so they can go the right way. It is, in fact, a primary reason Jesus promised His disciples the Holy Spirit. He would be a parakaleō -- same root word, same root idea. In all our interactions, we are called to love, sacrificially, as Christ did. I don't know about you, but I could really use some encouragement from time to time. I would really appreciate an "I'm here for you; we're in this together" person. And, if that's true, I would bet that others would, as well. So I should be that person, too. I think, in fact, it's fundamental to the concept of "discipleship," isn't it? I doubt anyone is going to change my name to "Encourager," but I'd like to be worthy of it as a follower of Christ.

Exegesis vs Eisegesis

In biblical interpretation, these two terms are two possible approaches. Exegesis is the process of analyzing Scripture to see what it means. Exegesis views Scripture objectively. Scripture says what it means and means what it says. We just need to figure out what that is. You'll notice that the two words appear similar. The prefix, "ex" in the first word means "out of," so exegesis tries to take out of Scripture what is there, and the "eis" in the second word means "into". Thus, eisegesis is reading into Scripture. Eisegesis sees Scripture as subjective. The interpreter starts with his or her own presuppositions and reads Scripture through them. "It can't mean what it appears to say because that's not what I believe to be true."

Exegesis assumes the Bible is valid, complete, fully reliable ... "God breathed." If that is true, it makes no sense to bring our own preconceptions to interpret Scripture. A person might run up against a passage that goes against their own thinking. Exegesis would say, "Well, it appears that my own thinking ... is wrong." Eisegesis would say, "It can't mean that because I know ..." and there would be reasons outside the text to deny it. When exegesis says, "That's not what this text means," it's because of the text, the context, the whole of Scripture. When eisegesis says, "That's not what this text means," it's because of a prior commitment to something else -- my ideas, my beliefs, my understanding of the world, something, but not Scripture.

What can we derive from this information? Well, both methods will say at some point or another, "This is what that text means and that is not." Exegesis would say so out of a commitment to Scripture and the claim that it is God's Word. Eisegesis would do it out of a sense of personally superior knowledge not present in the Scriptures. All of us, at some time or another, will use both methods, some more one side than others. But the central question isn't my interpretation. The central question is whether or not Scripture is what it claims -- God breathed, and complete (2 Tim 3:16-17). Eisegesis suggests Jesus was wrong when He said, "Your Word is truth" (John 17:17). And, if exegesis is going to work, we must always keep in mind that the best interpreter of Scripture ... is Scripture. That means we need to know Scripture. The better we know it, the better we can interpret it. But, maybe, you have more confidence in your own ideas and understanding. We all do at times. I would suggest that's a very dangerous place to stand. Let Scripture be true (Rom 3:4).

Strange Stuff

The Bible is full of strange stuff. No, I'm not talking about miracles and such. There are just a lot of strange things written in there that, frankly, run counter to what we know ... or what we think we know.

Take the verse in Acts. Paul made an impassioned speech in the synagogue in Antioch in Pisidia, giving them the Gospel from Egypt to Christ (Acts 13:15-41). The Jews were outraged. So he took his message to the Gentiles. There we read, "And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed" (Acts 13:48). Now, hang on, Luke. "As many as were appointed to eternal life believed"? I thought we decided if we'd believe. The text carries a two-edged message. First, believing is a matter of prior appointment, and, second, everyone who is appointed will believe.

Jesus had an odd one in one of His discussions with the Jews. They, of course, weren't believing, and Jesus told them, "You do not believe because you are not among My sheep" (John 10:26). Isn't that backward? Don't we become His sheep by believing? Jesus put it backwards, didn't He?

I just read about Lydia in Philippi. Paul talked to some women by the river. One was Lydia, who was a worshiper of God. The text says, "The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul" (Act 16:14). Isn't that a bit ... invasive? Does God actually open people's hearts? I thought we came to believe under our own power.

One of my favorite Psalms is Psalm 139. In that psalm, David makes a strong declaration of the humanity of the unborn (Psa 139:13-16). That last verse is stunning. "Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in Your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them" (Psa 139:16). Now, ask anyone. They will tell you that we determine our own future, that we make our choices. In fact, savvy philosophers will tell you if it is true that every day is written in His book before I was born, then I have no free will. Clearly, someone is confused here.

We humans, Christian or not, have a lot of ideas that we cling to from tradition or being taught or whatever that are not, as it turns out, accurate. It would be wise of us to be on the lookout for that rather than assuming we've got it right while we hold onto false ideas. Some of them can be harmful.

The Heart of the Problem

We're at a juncture here in America. We're looking at a changing of the guard. We're looking at a Republican-controlled Senate and a Republican-controlled White House. More significantly, we're looking at a nation that voted to democratically elect an "existential threat to democracy." And we're all wondering, what to expect from this new world. May I suggest we might be looking at the wrong thing?

Nationally, the Democrats touted abortion as a key issue. They wanted to make it easily accessible and Republicans didn't. Obviously, this didn't make the difference they thought it would, but not because the nation wanted the Republican ideal. That's evidenced nationally by the referendums passed to expand abortion rights in so many places. In Arizona, the people passed Prop 139. It was quite recently that the state resurrected their constitutional abortion ban, only to have it shot down by the courts. So, in response ... they voted to make abortion legal, essentially, until birth. The proposition laid claim to "fetal viability" as if that's a known value, but added that any woman could choose to kill her baby in the womb if she felt it threatened her "mental health." Not her life, her mental health. Beyond that, the proposition included a rule that no laws could be passed in the future to change it. (I didn't even know that was possible.) The proposition passed by a sizeable margin, even as Trump won the state for the White House.

What's my point? There are Republicans and there are Democrats. Each wants a variety of similar and disparate things. Apparently, over on the side, the majority want to kill babies as a form of birth control. This only goes to show that government won't save us, that neither Democrats nor Republicans will make this a better world. Instead, it is the people, the individuals, the society that holds tightly to their self-centered, self-serving interests that will determine what comes next. It is said you can't legislate morality. Not true. We do it all the time. But what you truly cannot legislate is the morality of the heart, and we will continue to pursue things that drive us to the ground if God Himself does not intervene. The problem with this nation isn't government; it's human hearts. Yes, the heart of our problem is the human heart. Only God can change that. I, for one, am thankful that He always does what is right. The rest of the nation has to recognize where their "whatever I want is right" perspective is leading them. Government won't do that. Only God can.

Veterans Day, 2024

It's Veterans Day in America, a day in which we honor all who served to protect this country. Some think it's only those who fought. It's not. First, the number who fought as compared to the number who supported them is miniscule. Roughly 10% of the military sees combat. That's 90% serving as support. Second, without the support, the combat would be impossible. The task is massive, and without it combat troops would be without the necessities to do their job. So, we celebrate Veterans Day once a year for all veterans, combat or not, and thank them for their service to the nation.

Or ... we have. One begins to wonder. America is moving. Americans are changing. The military is shrinking. Funds are being diverted. Even fighting precepts are changing. We might want to hurt 'em, but don't kill 'em. From all of history where lots of civilians died in the process, we've arrived at societal outrage if one "noncombatant" dies ... without even being able to define or ascertain "noncombatant." (In Gaza, for instance, we're constantly hearing about civilians being killed, without regard for the fact that most of these "innocent civilians" gladly give their lives in the cause of destroying Israel.) Gallup reported that American confidence in the military is at the lowest in over two decades. Recruitment is down. The military has increasingly switched its focus to politics rather than national defense. And the impact of "diversity, equality, and inclusion" in a military setting has severely diminshed our readiness.

In the past, the military stood for an honorable occupation in which men and women sacrificed their own welfare and their own lives in order to defend the nation in which they believed. I served for 10 years in that capacity myself. These people deserved our thanks. They still do. As we begin letting go of this truth, we begin to show ourselves as less than grateful. If this nation is not worth defending, then perhaps it's time to stop. God raises nations and takes them down. Today we're taking this nation apart piece by piece with false versions of "racism" and "sexism" and all sorts of "isms" that were a problem but are now contradictory. Armies have changed, as evidenced in the Middle East where we're facing civilian terrorists. Warfare has changed. Values have changed. Perhaps it's time to decide whether the new version is better than the old, because it doesn't seem like we're deeply invested in protecting this new one and we're very happy to denigrate the old.

On Worship

I think I've just about run down the Col 3:16 theme. Some are getting tired of it, and I can see why. I feel like it's time to move on.
________
It's interesting that Paul told the Roman Christians to give their bodies as a living sacrifice as an act ... of worship (Rom 12:1). Now, hang on, Paul. We're American Christians. We know worship. That's the singing part of a church service. Okay, maybe a little more. I've heard people claim that the sermon is part, but I've also heard pastors argue that it's not. No, no, worship is just, primarily, a glad heart toward God. So what does this "present your bodies as a living sacrifice" thing have to do with feeling good about God?

I think we have an oddly modern, American view of "worship." Worship is, in essence, applying worth -- "worth-ship" if you will. Christian worship is applying the utmost value to God. And, as long as we're in this physical life, we're going to be in conflict with that very concept. Paul said, "No one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it" (Eph 5:29). We are, in fact, deeply in love with ourselves. So if worship is assigning to God the highest value, we'd have to give to Him that which we consider most valuable. In its most basic form, that's our own bodies. If we can offer to God that which we value most, that's worship.

Many of us are going to "houses of worship" today. It's only partly accurate, isn't it? Because, if "worship" is assigning the utmost value to God, then worship occurs anywhere. Anywhere that people assign to God the highest value, people are worshiping. In church, in the parking lot, at home, anywhere. We should, I believe, all be in the business of sacrificing self on the altar as an act of worship to our God ... as a good starting point for worship.

News Weakly - 11/9/2024: Election Edition

Top Story
The top story this week, of course, is the presidential election results, regardless of who won. In this case, it appears that Donald Trump has been reelected after four years out of office. Now, without reference to whether or not that's good or he's good, it has to be a phenomenal event, given the 8-year drive from the Left, from politicians to the media, to vilify and demonize this man. They've presented him as Hitler personified, a Russian shill, an existential threat to democracy, and, in all likelihood, the end of the world as we know it. In the story above, NBC says, "Through a firehose of false and polarizing information and smears of his rivals ... Trump painted America as a corrupt ... nation." Because, even now, he is the ultimate threat, and the Left and its media won't back down. Somehow, against all odds, he's been voted back in.

And, #2
The second item is almost as significant as the first. Voters have given the GOP control of the Senate. A Republican president with a Republican Senate can be a powerful thing. (I should note, however, that our Congress has been a major flop ... for the past 20 years or more, so I'm not holding my breath on this.) It may or may not be a significant outcome, but it does say something about the American people. Latinos swung from their Democratic history. The abortion question didn't fix the Democratic ticket. And we'll have to see the outcome in the House.

In Other News
In Annie, Get Your Gun, Annie sings, "My tiny baby brother, who's never read a book, Knows one sex from the other, All he had to do was look." Well, Delaware elected a guy that isn't quite as savvy as Annie's baby brother to represent them in Congress. Sarah McBride is listed as the first openly transgender person elected to Congress. (Here's a little tidbit for you. Look "her" up. You'll find "she" was a male at birth, but from all the sources I found "she" was born "Sarah Elizabeth McBride." I found no sources that would tell me "her" original, male name. Talk about a whitewash.) I think I would have voted for Annie's baby brother before I would have voted for someone who cannot tell the obvious.

The New American Standard
So, Trump won the White House and Republicans won the Senate, but America appears to be establishing another new standard: abandon the most defenseless. After the Supreme Court cleared the Roe v Wade obstacle, the "pro-kill-the-babies" group have gone on a rampage to make sure babies would die young. Seven states voted to make sure babies could still be killed in the womb. The demand to be allowed to kill babies as a contraception method says really horrible things about too many Americans.

To B, or Not to B?
As a result of Harris's loss, there is a swell of interest in the 4B movement. It's a Korean movement that pushes women to refuse heterosexual marriage, childbirth, and dating men. The aim is to punish men for Trump winning. The outcome, of course, if taken to its natural conclusion would be the end of the human race. There! That oughta teach 'em.

Your Best Source for Fake News
The Bee went wild on this election week. There was the story of Democrats calling for an end to the popular vote. The Bee included a picture of Trump giving his victory speech wearing a Hitler mustache. I particularly liked the story of how America has unburdened itself from what has been. Oh, and the classic headline, "Trump Beats Another Woman."

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
________
And a bonus entry, just for fun:

Truth in Advertising.
There's a commercial for an AI service for business to help automate all sorts of things. In the commercial, an AI cat shows a system that scans products and automatically rejects defective ones. The cat knocks one of them off the belt, and the human nearby says, "That one was fine." I like it. An advertisement for AI that promises it will mess things up for you. Truth in advertising.

Counterintuitive Christianity

I was reminded recently of an old (1970) song from the group, Bread, and David Gates, called, It Don't Matter to Me. The song says to his significant other, "It don't matter to me if you take up with someone who's better than me." What kind of crazy talk is that? He goes on to say, "'Cause your happiness is all I want, for you to find peace, your peace of mind." David Gates was obviously a loon.

I've written in the past about how counterintuitive Christianity is. One aspect that has been occupying my thoughts for a while now is this singular concept:

If anyone would come after Me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow Me. (Matt 16:24)

This, quite starkly, stands in direct opposition to our standard way of thinking as humans in general and Americans in particular. "Take up a cross? Don't be silly. We don't embrace hardship and suffering. We flee it at all cost. Deny myself?? That's just crazy talk. Every human being has the right, nay, the obligation to pursue his or her own happiness, dreams, and aspirations. Deny myself? Don't be stupid."

We followers of Christ, however, should not -- must not -- respond that way. We Christ-ians are expected to embrace Christ's words and adhere to them with joy. But, what would that look like? We don't have a lot of examples to look to in order to see how that goes. The Christian life is predicated on death (Matt 16:24-26; Rom 6:4-5; etc.). We're supposed to be killing the flesh (Rom 8:13; Col 3:5). We're expected to die to self. What would that look like? It would make us respond differently when others try to steal, physically or otherwise, that which is ours (Matt 5:38-42). It would free us from desperately pursuing our own happiness in favor of finding greater happiness in giving to others (Acts 20:35). It would place the proper emphasis on relying on God for meeting our needs (Rom 8:32; Php 4:19) and free us to pursue meeting the needs of others. We would crave servitude for the sake of Christ (Mark 9:35) and find greater joy in it. The idolatry of greed (Col 3:5) would vanish and a lifelong satisfaction in God would replace it. We would be looking at a life that was extremely rare in today's world. I described this idea once to a Christian counselor. Her response was, "That's crazy."

I said we had few examples of this. We all know one.

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though He was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. (Php 2:5-8)

If we are to be followers of Christ, is that not the ideal we ought to pursue? Think of that while we complain about our lives, our societal mistreatment, our lacks and losses. I think we might be missing the point. I think we might be missing a better option, a higher joy. And maybe, just maybe, David Gates wasn't so far out as we might think.

Virtual Unreality

A while back the story came out about a 52-year-old father of seven children left his wife to be a 6-year-old girl. That was not a misprint. He wasn't with a 6-year-old girl; he identified as one. He didn't "want to be an adult," so he moved in with an adoptive family ... with their own 7-year-old daughter. He lived as a 6-year-old girl, going to work every day and ... wait ... hang on ... a 6-year-old that goes to work every day?

Back then it was outrageous. Today it's passé. Because today we don't much care about facts. "I identify" is the rule. Except ... when it's not. He can identify as a she and you'd better accept that. He can identify as a 6-year-old and you'd better accept that. He can't identify as a black woman for some reason. He can't identify as 7 foot tall according to the rules that no one has published yet. But, doggone it, you'd better not even try to point to a birth certificate or a driver's license (that no 6-year-old has a right to have) and cry, "Foul!" His family asked him to be their husband and father and he said, "It would be like asking a 6'2" man to stop being 6'2" tall." Right, because height is obvious ... and sex and age are not? He originally identified as 8-years-old, but his adoptive sister, 7 at the time, wanted a younger sister, so he went for 6 years old ... because "I identify" is a solid rock when he wants it to be and constantly variable if he doesn't. Completely irrational.

What disturbs me most, however, is not this man who has gone off the rails. What disturbs me most is this adoptive family who subjected their very young daughter to this absolutely obvious nonsense and said, "Yes, this is real." (It really broke my heart when I realized that this little girl was the same age as my granddaughter at the time. Imagining parents subjecting a little girl to such confusion was unconscionable to me.) It's the society that says, "You must accept as fact what all of reality denies." It's the world that embraces irrationality as rational and requires the remaining, thinking people to knuckle under or suffer their wrath. That such a thing as this guy happens isn't too surprising; we have deceitful hearts (Jer 17:9). That we pat him on the back and say, "Good for you" and tell his "sister" to ignore all reality and society to submit or else ... that's the tragedy. That's the product of the father of lies.

Secret Source

In Acts 13, Luke records the commissioning of Paul and Barnabas for their first missionary journey.

Now there were at Antioch, in the church that was there, prophets and teachers: Barnabas, and Simeon who was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. While they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, "Set apart for Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them." Then, when they had fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them, they sent them away. So, being sent out by the Holy Spirit, they went down to Seleucia and from there they sailed to Cyprus. (Act 13:1-4)

Notice the transition between that second to last sentence and the last. They fasted and prayed, laid on hands, and "they sent them away." The very next verse says, "So, being sent out by the Holy Spirit ..." Interesting, isn't it? Quite clearly the men of Antioch sent out Paul and Barnabas. They did the fasting and praying. They laid the hands on them. They sent them away. So why does it say they were sent out by the Holy Spirit

Too often we tend to be deists. Deism holds that God made the world, spun it all up, and let it go. He's not actually doing anything now; just watching what happens. We all tend to think like that at times. I do the right thing. I lead people to Christ. I be a good husband to my wife or a good wife to my husband. I am doing what I'm supposed to. God's just ... watching. But Paul said, "No one does good, not even one" (Rom 3:12). Jesus said, "Apart from me you can do nothing" (John 15:5). Scripture says, "From Him and through Him and to Him are all things" (Rpm 11:36). Even in our working out our salvation the Bible says, "It is God who works in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure" (Php 2:13). So from whence comes the good we do? From Him. What is the source of our obedience? Him. He is the source of everything.

We do do good works, obey His commands, love our spouses, all sorts of good things. Oh, not perfectly, but if we are believers, He will say, "Well done good and faithful servant" (Matt 25:23). But let's never forget; whatever good we do, He is the source, the power. the motivation. They sent out Paul and Barnabas, but it was, ultimately, the Holy Spirit that did it. We should keep a sober view here, not thinking more highly of ourselves than we ought (Rom 12:3).

Election Day, 2024

Simple and short.

First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. (1 Tim 2:1-2)

As you vote (or have voted), pray to the God who holds all things in His hand that we may lead a tranquil, quiet life in all godliness and dignity.

And a reminder.

And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth." (Mat 28:18)

Pie in the Sky

Christianity has often been referred to derisively as a "pie in the sky" religion. We believe that, while everyone recognizes that there is pain and suffering here, someday we will find peace, no more tears, perfection. "Pie in the sky." In truth, almost all humans, Christians or not, hold to some sort of "pie in the sky" ideal. We speak of seeing "the light at the end of the tunnel" when some dark times are upon us but "soon there will be light." We encourage people we care about with "Don't worry; it will get better." We all see the pain around us and hold to a vague future time, near or far, that things will get better, permanently or temporarily.

Joel Osteen wrote a book, Your Best Life Now, where he claimed that you could live now in that "best life." In his version, you just believe and all good things will come to you. Health, wealth, prosperity ... it's all yours if you only believe. Joel Osteen was (and is) confused ... but he wasn't far wrong. While we Christians and the rest of the world look for a "someday" when things will be better, Scripture teaches something obviously and completely counterintuitive. Humans look for the end of suffering and James encourages us to "Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance" (James 1:2-3). The human "best life" is pain free, but Paul says that we have peace with God now and can, therefore, "exult in our tribulations" (Rom 5:1-5). Jesus said He came to give us the abundant life (John 10:10) not "someday," but here, now. Over and over Scripture tells us that, while suffering is certain in this life and, absolutely, we look forward to a day when suffering is no more, the truth is we can look to today with great joy knowing that God is at work, causing the pleasant and the unpleasant to work together for good (Rom 8:28-29).

The accusation is true. We do look for that "pie in the sky" day when we will be with our Savior in eternal bliss. The accusation fails when it suggests that's all we have. And we fail when we look forward only to that "eternal pleasantness" without rejoicing in the "all things good" now that our God provides. It is counterintuitive -- it isn't natural or what we would normally expect -- but it is no less true. God is providing right now our "best life now" in the form of pain and blessings building a better product in us than we could have had if all was pleasant all the time. Rejoice, Christians! Our "pie in the sky" is coming, but it's also right here now, in the midst of tough times. We don't need to look for the light at the end of the tunnel; we just need to trust our ever-present Savior.

Nearer My God To Thee

A while ago T. David Gordon wrote a book entitled, Why Johnny Can't Sing Hymns: How Pop Culture Rewrote the Hymnal. Hymns are out. "Praise songs" are in. Now, don't misunderstand. I don't dislike "praise songs". It's just that eliminating hymns with such rich content, songs that often obey the direct command of Scripture (Col 3:16), is a bad choice in my book.
__________________

Nearer, My God, To Thee
Sarah F. Adams

Nearer, my God, to Thee, nearer to Thee,
E'en tho' it be a cross that raiseth me;
Still all my song shall be,
"Nearer my God to Thee,
Nearer, my God, to Thee, nearer to Thee!"

Tho' like the wanderer, the sun gone down,
Darkness be over me, my rest a stone,
Yet in my dreams I'll be
Nearer my God to Thee,
Nearer, my God, to Thee, nearer to Thee!

There let the way appear, steps unto heav'n;
All that Thou sendest me, in mercy giv'n -
Angels to beckon me
Nearer my God to Thee,
Nearer, my God, to Thee, nearer to Thee!

Then with my waking thoughts, bright with Thy praise,
Out of my stony griefs, Bethel I raise;
So by my woes to be
Nearer my God to Thee,
Nearer, my God, to Thee, nearer to Thee!

Or if on joyful wing, cleaving the sky,
Sun, moon and stars forgot, upward I fly,
Still all my song shall be,
"Nearer my God to Thee,
Nearer, my God, to Thee, nearer to Thee!"

Sarah Adams was a lover of music. She and her sister put together a hymnal for their church. While they were working on the project, their pastor asked them if there was a song to accompany his upcoming sermon on the story of Jacob's ladder from Genesis 28:10-22. Sarah launched herself into the idea of writing a song for it, and "Nearer, My God, To Thee" was the result.

The hymn has had a larger impact than Sarah would have thought. Many stories are told about the hymn and its use. Some noted theologians on a trip through the Middle East reported being deeply moved by a band of Syrians standing together and singing it. In 1936, a woman was on her way to the mission field when her train was caught in the Johnstown, Pennsylvania, flood. Hopelessly lost, she stood atop the sinking car and sang, "Nearer, my God, to Thee . . ." In 1912, aboard the ill fated Titanic, survivors said the band played this hymn as the ship sank.

Most of the song can be understood by reading through the Genesis account of Jacob's ladder, but there is an interesting thread through the song that I'd like to illustrate. Jacob was on the run when he had this vision. Times were not good. It is this vision of God in tough times that makes this hymn unusual.

The first line says it quite succinctly. I want to be nearer to God at all costs, even if that cost is a cross. At what cost would you draw nearer to God? Your immediate comfort? Your job? Your family? Your life? The real question is, how important is your relationship with God? The subplot in this hymn is simple. All that occurs in my life is God's attempt to drive me nearer to Him. The sooner I recognize that and cooperate with Him, the better off I'll be.

Look at some of the circumstances mentioned in this hymn. The first verse speaks of a cross. The second refers to being a wanderer, to being in darkness with only a stone for a pillow. The third verse says that all that God gives is given in mercy. The fourth verse cries, in praise, that it is my woes that bring me nearer to God. Verse five says that death itself is merely that which brings me closest to God.

We have forgotten that suffering is God’s chosen method to purify His own. James says that trials bring us to perfection (James 1:2-3). Noah learned that by building an ark and surviving a flood that killed every human being alive. Abraham learned that by leaving all that he knew to go to a land that God promised, and by offering his own son as a sacrifice to God. Joseph learned that through being enslaved, wrongfully accused, and falsely imprisoned. Moses learned that in his desert experience before God put him to use freeing Israel from Egypt. Joshua learned it through 40 years in the desert and the rest of his life in battle in Canaan. Paul indicates that perseverance in persecution is evidence of our worthiness to be a part of the kingdom of God (2 Thess. 1:4-5). Peter says suffering proves faith (1 Peter 1:6-7).

Suffering is promised to the believer. Suffering is for our benefit. And we know that God causes all things to work together for our good. May our prayer be the same. "Nearer, my God, to Thee, even though it be a cross that raiseth me."

News Weakly - 11/2/2024

Make 'Em Pay
In 1882, the US Navy shelled a Tlingit village in Alaska and burned it to the ground. Recently, after almost 150 years, the Navy is apologizing, along with apologies for other such incidents. Now, obviously, the incidents were immoral -- should never have happened -- but I'm not sure how a naval officer today apologizing for something the Navy would never do today is of any benefit to anyone living today. I don't see how holding someone accountable today for what was done more than 100 years ago makes sense. Well, okay, whatever. I suppose we'll need to put that on our list of reparations.

This is News
Starbucks made the news by telling office workers ... they had to come to work. Imagine that! The youngest generation complains that 8 hours a day is too much and office workers are outraged that they'd actually have to ... work in an office. Between COVID, government regulation, and societal pressures, we're choking free enterprise to death. Before long they won't be able to make any choices about their own businesses, and that can't be a good thing ... for employers, employees, or the nation as a whole.

Silence Isn't Always Golden
The Washington Post (WaPo) has refused to endorse a candidate, and the world goes crazy. They reported the loss of 250,000 subscribers not for what they said, but for what they didn't say. James Carville is quite sure the mass exit is an endorsement (by readers) of Kamala. So clearly the public demand is that WaPo not only endorse a candidate, but that they endorse the Left candidate. Which suggests that WaPo readers have no interest in an unbiased news source. I suppose we knew that, but it doesn't bode well for a "free press" ... or rational Americans.

Defining the Enemy
I'm just wondering. When did Elon Musk become "the enemy"? In his early days, he was hailed as a godsend. His electric cars were magnificent. He might even save the planet!! (Okay, no one said that last bit.) But when he ceased toeing the line politically, he became public enemy #1. Okay, #2. Trump has #1 wrapped up tight. So now they want him to stop launching satellites. The California Coastal Commission has already sued to stop Musk (and no one else) from using Vandenberg. What made Musk, the entrepreneur, the enemy of the state?

Choose Wisely
North Korea has tested an intercontinental ballistic missile days before the election. They claim it can hit the US. I sincerely hope that Harris gets elected so she can hit North Korea with such a word salad that they would never dare to do it. Or ...

Your Best Source for Fake News
The Supreme Court ruled that Virginia could remove noncitizens from their voter rolls (actual story) ... you know, like the law says ... and the Democrats are miffed because the court ruled in favor of adhering to the law. How can our system survive if the courts rule in favor of the law?? Joe Biden called on deplorable "garbage" (in the form of Trump supporters) to tone down the rhetoric (actual story), and Trump scores a coveted endorsement from Hefty.

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

Who, Me? Reconcile With Him?

Christianity is actually Judaism as God planned it. We serve the Jewish Messiah who is the Lamb of God that takes away sins (John 1:29). We are the chosen people (1 Peter 2:9), grafted into the tree (Rom 11:24). So we have to ask, do we still follow the Jewish law? Of course, the Bible is not unclear on that. Christ said He came to fulfill the law (Matt 5:17), so we no longer offer lambs for sin, but we do offer the Lamb for our sin. We no longer go to temple because we are the temple (1 Cor 3:16-17). The Old Testament food laws were abrogated in the New Testament (Mark 7:18-19; Acts 10:15). So we find some laws are no longer in effect for this new Judaism we call Christianity.

Which brings me to my question. Jesus said, "Therefore if you are presenting your offering at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your offering there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering" (Matt 5:23-24). Is that a command that applies to us today? I know that a significant number of Christians go to church or to their prayer closet or wherever knowing someone has something against them and they do nothing to be reconciled to that someone. I wouldn't doubt I'm guilty of it. So we pray and praise and go on as if nothing is wrong when this command hangs over us. How? Do we think that the other person isn't mad enough to pursue us, so we have nothing to worry about? Do we think it's not bad enough to take care of? Do we just expect them to forgive us and move on? Or is this command one of the Old Testament commands we can eject now? I can see why that might be an option. We no longer "present an offering at the altar" since the sacrificial system is gone. But we do present an offering. We do "continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God" (Heb 13:15). We do present our bodies as a "living sacrifice" as an act of worship (Rom 12:1). So I'm kind of stuck here.

Jesus gave this command, and if we're to be Christians, followers of Christ, I'd think we'd want to pursue this question more carefully. How diligent are we in reconciling to those we've wronged? Maybe they've forgiven us without our asking, but that doesn't erase the need to reconcile, does it? Do we care about reconciling with others as part of our worship with God? Do you have someone you've wronged without reconciling? I think we (each of us) need to examine the Scriptures and our hearts to see if we're not glossing over a potentially serious problem.