Think This Way

You've heard we should "walk this way." Maybe it's how we should act in certain situations or how we should be good Christians or something else. And it may even be good advice. Have you ever considered how we should think?

Therefore if you have been raised up with Christ, keep seeking the things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your mind on the things above, not on the things that are on earth. For you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God. When Christ, who is our life, is revealed, then you also will be revealed with Him in glory. Therefore consider the members of your earthly body as dead to immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed, which amounts to idolatry. (Col 3:1-5)

The "therefore" at the beginning refers to Paul's explanation in the previous chapter that we were "buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God" (Col 2:12). Based on that, we "have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world" (Col 2:20). So, raised with Christ, we must "keep seeking the things above." We need to "Set your mind on the things above." Think this way

This seems like an impossible task. We're surrounded every day with "elementary principles of the world." We're bombarded with "immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed." It's in our entertainment, our advertisement, our conversation, our entire lives. And Paul says, "Your life is hidden with Christ in God." Are we living that way? Are we thinking that way? When I learned to drive, my instructor told me, "Don't look at the parked cars." "Why?" I asked him. "I need to avoid them." He said, "You always go where you look. Look down the road and not just in front of you." Paul is telling us the same. Don't look around you. You'll go that way. Look to Christ, to the things above. Think that way.

Me Submit? No Way!

We're Americans. You know, "the land of the free." And, although it's a myth, we're mostly free. In earlier eras the rank and file were used to submitting, but not us. Oh, no. "No kings." "No tyrants." "Don't tread on me." We will not bend. So it is often a problem when we come across such things as the one that says we're supposed to be "submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ" (Eph 5:21). Often it's the particulars that trip us up. "Wives submit? No way!" "Children, obey? Yeah, right." Oh, and "Slaves, obey? That's not even right." But what about "submit"?

The word in the text is a military term. It means literally to rank under ... to place oneself under. Like in the military when you sign up and immediately find yourself outranked. It's not that you're less important, less of a person, less valuable. No. It's a matter of rank. Authority. Priority. Paul says we are to be submitting to one another -- ranking under each other. Note that it's voluntary. By that, I mean it's something you choose to do. It doesn't just ... happen. Do it. Notice also that it's universal. "To one another." Everyone. Paul gives examples in husband and wife relationships, parent and child relationships, and master and slave relationships (Eph 5:22-6:9). Don't get bogged down in the examples. Everyone ... submit. Set self aside. Paul wrote the same thing in Philippians. "... with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others" (Php 2:3-4). That's "submit." Rank yourself under others.

We don't like it, but it's in there. In fact, it's all the way through. Jesus was the example, emptying Himself (Php 2:5-8). And it's not easy. Paul precedes the command to submit with the command to "be filled with the Spirit" (Eph 5:18) because it's a God thing. But it's the right thing. We are supposed to live a submitted life, where we elevate others over ourselves. Will you? Will you deny yourself (Matt 16:24)?

Biblically Informed

Most people don't know it, but the Bible inhabits a lot of the corners of our lives without us even knowing it. We have a lot of idioms and sayings that are biblically sourced.

Take, for instance, "the skin of your teeth." It comes from Job 19:20, where Job "escaped with the skin of my teeth." I'm sure we've all heard that a leopard can't change its spots, which comes from Jeremiah 13:23. "A fly in the ointment" comes from Ecclesiastes 10:1. "No rest for the wicked" (which has been thoroughly butchered since then) comes from Isaiah 57:20-21. The idea of "putting words in my mouth" comes from 2 Samuel 14:3. "Seeing eye to eye" comes from Isaiah 52:8. There are some you probably know, like "the writing on the wall" from Daniel 5 and "cast the first stone" (John 8:7). Lincoln said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand" as a direct quote from Jesus (Mark 3:25). "Going the extra mile" was from Jesus's Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5:41) and being a "good Samaritan" was from Jesus's parable (Luke 10:30-37). "A wolf in sheep's clothing" was from the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 7:15) and to "wash your hands of something" is from Pilate's actions when he sent Jesus to be crucified (Matt 27:24).

That's a sampling. I've found quite a few. I just think it's funny that God's Word has worked its way into our daily conversations even as our nation tries to push it out.

Happy Father's Day

Scripture refers repeatedly to a person of the Trinity that is called "the Father." Jesus often referred to Him as "Father," which upset the Jews of His day. It's not like they hadn't heard it before (e.g, Isa 63:16) Scripture refers to Israel as "the children of God" (Deu 14:1). Jesus made it clear that He was about His "Father's business" (KJV) repeatedly (e.g., Luke 2:49). And while a whole lot of people think of humans as "all God's children," Scripture says,

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, 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)

We're told that we are adopted (Eph 1:5; Gal 4:5-7; Rom 8:14-19). It's silly to "adopt" your own children. So humans are surely God's creation and "children" in that sense, but those who are not saved are "of your father, the devil" (John 8:44), and genuine "children of God" are born of God (John 3:5).

I've heard people complain about God as "Father." "I never had a good father. I don't know what that means." I suspect that's not quite true. They know they never had a good father ... because they know what a good father is and didn't have one. Fortunately, on this Father's Day, we can celebrate the perfect Father and give thanks for the father's He gave us.

News Weakly - 6/14/2025

California Burning
Californians are mad. They're violently protesting Trump's crackdown on illegal immigration in Los Angeles. Protesters protested the deployment of the national guard, but LA police chief Jim McDonnell refuses to participate in any way because SB 54 makes Los Angeles a "sanctuary city" in defiance of the law. California is suing Trump for stopping the riots and enforcing the law without their permission. So, Mr. Trump, you need to stop being the president of Los Angeles and San Francisco and just leave them be. Of course, make sure they get no federal funding and all. I mean, you need to be consistent. Maybe a border wall around those or something?

A sidenote on the L.A. story. in 2008, the courts struck down a California law approved by 70% of the voters that defined marriage as a man and a woman. That year, Californians again voted, this time to make that definition part of the state constitution. Again, the courts struck it down. So it's very odd to hear Californian protesters saying it's anti-democratic for the federal government to enforce federal law, but that's what they were saying in California. Double standard much? (And a side question. Why so many Mexican flags in an American protest?)

Better Than I Expected
Israel seized a ship headed for Gaza ... that happened to be carrying Greta Thunberg. Greta was (wisely) deported and appears to be headed back to Sweden. Her plan was to save the Palestinians ... which, of course, would require the elimination of Israel, since that's the Palestinian position. But she still considers hers a "humanitarian mission."

Unrest
Israel attacked nuclear sites in Iran and Iran retaliated. Understandable ... except Israel attacked nuclear sites and Iran attacked Israel's citizens. And we'll call it "unrest in the Middle East" and debate who was right.

Say No to Democracy
You know that thing people do where they label someone "Hitler" as if that's a meaningful or even truthful thing, and it becomes the "truth"? In what seems to be the ultimate irony, they're planning a massive "peaceful" protest called ... get this ... "No Kings Day" to protest ... the duly elected president ... the "existential threat to democracy." Because by applying these labels in contradiction to fact, they win their argument ... without, you know, arguing ... or evidence.

Your Best Source for Fake News
On the Middle East, the headline reads, "Global Community Condemns Israel for Attacking Peace-Loving-Nation of Iran." No need for further comment. On the riots in L.A., CNN reports another peaceful night in L.A. where the majority of cars are not on fire. It's all in the spin. And Governor Newsom is promising to protect the illegal immigrants who elected him. Now that's representative government.

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

Don't Look Now

We had a special event at church recently. At one point, the speaker had the married couples stand. Then he told husbands to repeat after him and say what he told us to say to our wives. After that, he did the same for the wives to repeat to their husbands. You know the underlying message, right? "You're not doing this right, and you need to admit it." I was amused, of course, that the men were making more mistakes than the women, and, moreso that my wife told me, "You're already doing all he said you should be." I don't think I'm even remotely a perfect husband, but I'm pleased she's pleased.

It made me think. Have you noticed that the commands in Scripture for husbands and wives are not contingent? I mean, nowhere does it say, "Wives, submit to good husbands" or "Husbands, love your wives if they're treating you well." Every command for husbands and wives are commands without regard to the corresponding spouse. Husbands aren't told to love their wives who submit and wives aren't told to submit to husbands who love. In fact, Peter says, "Wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word" (1 Peter 3:1) -- the opposite of what you might think.

If you pay attention to the standard wedding vows, they are intentionally unconditional. The promise is to love without consideration of the circumstances "'til death do us part." In the same way, we're commanded to treat our spouses in a way that glorifies God and not contingent on our spouses. We aren't to be analyzing their worth or obedience to Christ to determine our proper response. We're supposed to look to God for our motivation in doing what's best for our spouses ... unconditional love, powered by God, sanctified by the Spirit and freely given to our spouses. Imagine what love, freely given and not conditioned on the recipient, would do to marriages.

Surpassing Peace

The word, "surpassing," means "going beyond." Scripture says, "Do not be anxious about anything. Instead, in every situation, through prayer and petition with thanksgiving, tell your requests to God. And the peace of God that surpasses all understanding will guard your hearts and minds in Christ Jesus" (Php 4:6-7). What a concept!

Some translations say "Don't worry about anything." I've heard people suggest that worry is a sin. "Don't ever say you're worried!!" I don't think that's the idea here. I think it's saying, "Worry is unnecessary. Anxiety isn't required. Go with the alternative." The alternative would be prayer and thanksgiving. In those two things we will find ... surpassing peace. To what does the "surpassing" refer? Understanding. This peace is not ... normal. It's not rational. It's not what we'd expect. What is it? It is a pure and simple reliance on God.

We live in turbulent times. Guns, murder, crime. The Middle East, Russia vs Ukraine. Stupid politics and stupid politicians. Sickness, death. Family troubles, work troubles, all kinds of troubles. It's easy to worry. It's natural to worry. It's even sensible to worry. But ... for us, it's unnecessary. If your trust is in the Lord, it's completely unnecessary. King David wrote, "YHWH has established His throne in heaven; His kingdom extends over everything" (Psa 103:19). Over ... everything. This peace surpasses understanding because it's predicated on God's character ... His grace and mercy, His Sovereignty and Omnipotence, His love and His Omniscience. It doesn't make sense ... to the world. Makes perfect sense to those who know Him.

Accept

I grew up being told that in order to become a Christian you had to "accept Christ." Is that true? It turns out you can't find that in Scripture. You can find, "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), but is that "accept"? Is there a difference?

According to the dictionary, the primary difference between "receive" and "accept" is that "accept" requires a conscious choice while "receive" is more passive. Is that the case here? It's interesting that the word "accept" is used in Scripture elsewhere. The word there in John for "receive" is lambanō while the word, say, in Romans 14 (Rom 14:1) translated "accept" is proslambanō. You can instantly see a difference ... the prefix, "pros," attached to "accept." And what's the intent of that prefix? It's a direction ... "toward." It implies "to take to oneself" where the base word means "to take." That is, one requires initiative and the other does not.

Scripture talks about our salvation as a gift (Eph 2:8-9). Grace is unmerited favor. It would seem to me that anything we add to God's salvation is ... worthy of merit, even if it's just, "I made the right choice." So I would argue that "receive" -- a passive receiving -- is the correct concept and "accept" -- our efforts to bring something to ourselves -- is not. I'm not quibbling over words, but I think the concept is vital since we so readily want to take some credit ... from God.

Useful

If you're a believer, you certainly want to be used by God for His glory. Maybe some or maybe a little or maybe a lot, but all believers have their hearts tuned to God to some extent. So we want to be used by God for His glory. How's that working for you? The question, of course, is more complex than it first appears. You want to be useful to God. How do you know if you are? That is, by what do we measure "useful"?

God declares that our hearts are deceitful and desperately wicked (Jer 17:9), so Paul says we need to be renewing our minds (Rom 12:2). God told His people, "My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways. 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). Obviously, then, we're going to have a problem. Does what we consider "useful" line up with what God considers "useful." I would argue that it typically does not. Take, for instance, Jesus's words on Judas Iscariot. "For indeed, the Son of Man is going as it has been determined; but woe to that man by whom He is betrayed!" (Luke 22:22). Judas was "determined" to be the one who would betray Christ. That betrayal was necessary, but ... evil. Judas ... was "useful" in his sin. Or how about Joseph's brothers? "You meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result" (Gen 50:20). Joseph's brothers sought to kill him and eventually sold him into slavery. Not good ... but it was useful to God. I would argue that we have a hard time, lacking omniscience, accurately measuring "useful to God."

Scripture talks about special people that are loved by God. David was "a man after God's own heart" (Acts 13:22) John was "the disciple that Jesus loved" (John 21:7). Peter says we should add to our faith a list of qualities (2 Peter 1:5-7). He concludes, "For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they render you neither useless nor unfruitful in the true knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ" (2 Peter 1:8). Paul writes, "Now in a large house there are not only gold and silver vessels, but also vessels of wood and of earthenware, and some to honor and some to dishonor. Therefore, if anyone cleanses himself from these things, he will be a vessel for honor, sanctified, useful to the Master, prepared for every good work" (2 Tim 2:20-21). So remember that when you pray and when you act to serve God. Don't measure your effectiveness by the obvious results. Consider your character like Peter and Paul told us to do. Consider your heart ... are you pursuing God or your own interests? But don't look at the results and conclude, "That didn't work." You don't get to decide that. God will use whatever He will use to accomplish His best, and that's useful.

The Weak in Faith

Paul wrote,

Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions. One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only. The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him. (Rom 14:1-3)

The passage always made me laugh ... primarily at myself. He starts with accepting those weak in faith and goes on to say that vegetarians are weak in faith and my first thought is, "See? I knew it!" ... meaning I'm judging them. Oops! Okay, so let's back off and see what he's saying.

First, it's not about carnivores versus vegetarians. They're examples of a principle. What, then? He's talking about matters of "opinion." The Greek word is dialogismos and is clearly connected to "dialogue," so he's talking about things we are discussing or considering. He's talking about doubtful issues ... disputable matters. Now, Paul had no problem with "disputable matters" (as some translations put it) in things like the gospel (Gal 1:6-10) or sexual sin (1 Cor 5:1-5). He believed some things were worth defending and required real correction. He's talking about things that are disputable as opposed to things that are in dispute. Not things like "Can women lead over men?" (1 Tim 2:12-14) or "Is homosexual behavior a sin?" (1 Cor 6:9-10) because those are clear. He was talking about food issues (in his example) or "It's wrong to smoke" or "It's wrong to drink alcoholic beverages" that aren't covered. There are absolute essentials for salvation that aren't even close to "disputable" that are not up for dispute. He's not talking about those. It's not "matters that are being disputed." It's matters without clear biblical answers.

Paul says to accept them. Don't pass judgment on them. When Scripture says not to divorce and that the one who is not bound (1 Cor 7:15, 27-28) may remarry, don't make it an issue. When Ted says it's a sin to drive a car because it's bad for the environment, don't be judgmental of Ted. Take care of Ted ... and all the rest. Strive for unity. Show love for each other (John 13:34-35). And don't require them to violate their own conscience (Rom 14:23). We need to be better believers ... for God's glory (Rom 15:7).
________
As an aside, I would like to point out that "accept the weak in faith" does not mean "agree with" them. That's the modern version of "accept," but not the idea here. This is to embrace them without necessarily embracing their ideas.

In What Name?

Growing up, I understood that every real prayer had to end in "In the name of Jesus, Amen." I mean, didn't Jesus say, "Truly, truly, I say to you, if you ask the Father for anything in My name, He will give it to you." (John 16:23)? Well, of course He did. So ... tack on "In the name of Jesus" and you'll get it. Now, we all know that doesn't actually work, so ... was Jesus wrong? No. We're just being silly.

What does it mean to ask "in the name of Jesus"? It is not some literal, magical use of the word, "Jesus." You'd think so, given the number of songs you hear about how "the name of Jesus" is ... beautiful, saving, breaking every chain, etc. "I pray the name of Jesus over you." I don't even know what that means. There are those who believe the word itself is ... magical. But we know better. What do we mean when we use the phrase? The dictionary says it means "under the authority of or on behalf of." When a police officer says, "Stop in the name of the law!" he's saying, "On the authority of the law, you must stop." When a rider rode into an old village in the Middle Ages with an edict "in the name of the king," it was "under the authority of the king." This isn't hard. In Scripture the term refers to that as well as the character of someone else -- the whole person. Not "Bob," but "all that Bob is and represents." When we say, "He has a good name," we are saying "He is of good character."

We are indeed called on to be baptized in the name of Christ (Acts 2:38) and act charitably in the name of Christ (Acts 3:8), to give thanks in the name of Jesus (Eph 5:20) and more. We're told, "Whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks through Him to God the Father" (Col 3:17). Don't think that it's a function of the spelling of the name or some magic applied to it. We're talking about the authority and character of Christ to which we submit. Remember that the next time you pray "In the name of Jesus" -- "under the authority of and according to the character of Christ." It sure changes the meaning, doesn't it?

News Weakly - 6/7/2025

Captain Obvious
Carried to its logical conclusion, a pro-Palestinian man attacked a demonstration in support of Israel in Boulder Colorado. He used a homemade flame thrower and incendiary devices. If "From the river to the sea" is the aim, any means is acceptable. If pro-Palestinian protests produce this kind of response, is it different than shouting fire in a crowded theater?

Mass Attack
Twelve men were stabbed in a men's shelter in Salem, Oregon. No guns were used. Strange ... I thought guns were the problem.

Reversal on Reverse
The Supreme Court revived a woman's claim that she was discriminated against at work ... because she was straight. Since we redefined "racism" in terms of power and "sexism" in terms of power, we've been running down this insane idea that only people in power can discriminate. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled it's not so, and that reverse discrimination does happen. We'll see how that goes.

Coming Out
The military has turned a corner and will begin banning (and discharging) transgender personnel. June 6 was the deadline to self-identify and get out. I'm baffled by this idea that anyone and everyone should have the right to serve in the military ... as if serving in the military is a basic human right. But, in today's "Me First" mentality, it make sense that "what I want" must be "what I get."

Your Best Source for Fake News
A federal judge blocked Trump from deporting the family of a Boulder terrorist (actual story), or, as the Bee reported the judge blocked deportation and required the Jews to be lit on fire. Nintendo released the new Switch 2 (actual story), so we have the report of a new virus escaping a lab in Japan causing millions of Americans to call in sick. Finally, on the Trump/Musk feud, a judge has decided Trump gets the nation on weekdays and Musk gets every other weekend and holidays.

Must be true; I heard it on the Internet.

So?

Interesting word ... "so." The dictionary defines it as "to such a great extent" or "to the same extent" or "referring back to something" or "in a way described; thus." How do those work together? Not so much, I guess. (See? "Not so much" is "not much to a great extent.") Then, as a conjunction, it's "for this reason" or "with the result that" or "and then" or "introducing a question" or "in the same way." It becomes important, I think, to figure out which is being used because it changes the meaning.

Take, for instance, "God so loved the world" (John 3:16). Is that "God loved the world to a great extent"? Or is it "God loved the world in a described way"? Most of us use it in the former sense, but, as it turns out, the Greek word is specifically "in like manner." Thus, Jesus said, "God loved the world in this manner" and described the manner in which God loved the world -- by giving His Son for whomever would believe ... not a quantity ("so much"), but a quality of how God loved the world ("in this way").

There's another interesting "so" I saw recently. "Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven" (Matt 5:16). Modern translations correctly say something like "in such a way" because that "so" before "shine" is intended to convey a particular way. It's puzzling to take this verse in a vaccuum because it's easy to wonder "In what way do I do good works in order that the Father gets glory?" We find the answer in the previous verses. "You are the light of the world. A town put on a hill may be seen by all. And a burning light is not put under a vessel, but on its table; so that its rays may be shining on all who are in the house" (Matt 5:14-15). Like a light on a hill or a candle on a table, do your good works to glorify God. That is, make your life a shining example of a changed life, a sacrificed life, a life lived for Him. He's saying to intentionally make your life a beacon for others to see. So ... what will you do? (See what I did there?)

The Undead - The Sequel

We looked yesterday at "dead in sin." One of the recurring themes in Scripture is "dead to self." Jesus said, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me" (Matt 16:24; Mark 8:34; Luke 9:23). No ... not quite "dead to self." But Paul wrote about being "crucified with Christ" (Gal 2:10) and said we should "lay aside the old self" (Eph 4:22-24). He told the Colossian Christians, "consider the members of your earthly body as dead to immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed, which amounts to idolatry" (Col 3:5). He wrote, "Consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus" (Rom 6:11). He urged us to "present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship" (Rom 12:1) and "those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires" (Gal 5:24). There's a whole lot of "dead to self" going on here. What does that mean?

So, it appears that "dead in sin" and "deny himself" are both the same thing. In the passages above, "self" is described for us. There is "immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed." It is "the flesh with its passions and desires." Peter wrote, "He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed" (1 Peter 2:24). "Self," then, is "sin." John wrote, "For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world" (1 John 2:16). That "self" -- the worldly self. The remedy for this particular "self" isn't pretty. It is ... death. One author wrote,

The flesh, the enemy within, dons a friendly uniform, one that a Christian might wear, and suggests reasonable directions. We welcome him into our ranks. When he causes trouble, we try to whip him into shape, get him to cooperate with the program and stop interfering with our efforts to do things right. Or we work hard to figure him out. What makes him tick? Why does he demand gratification that way? Maybe a journey into the past will uncover the source of these crazy tendencies and enable us to reason more effectively with him.

What we need to do, of course, is shoot him ... And if he doesn’t stay dead, we must shoot him again, then beat him, then tie him down in the sand under a hot desert sun, turn loose an army of red ants on his body, and walk away without sympathy. And then we must do it again and again, 'til we're home. An overdone metaphor? Not when we see the enemy for who he is, for what he wants to do. We are at war. The enemy within is the flesh, and he wants to ruin our relationships and thwart God’s plan.

What am I to kill? The answer, of course, is the flesh, that nature within me inclined to sin. But what is it? How do I recognize it? As a start, think of it this way: sin is any effort to make life work without absolute dependence on God. It is giving higher priority to my satisfaction than to God's pleasure. It involves a follow-up commitment to find joy for my soul outside of God, a commitment rooted in the belief that there is something truly good that God does not provide. It boils down to self-dependence and self-preoccupation and self-centeredness, attitudes that look to other people and things for the satisfaction we were designed to enjoy.

- from Connecting by Larry Crabb

We are repeatedly told to die to self. Jesus said it is a prerequisite to being His disciple. Scripture describes it as a "daily" thing (1 Cor 15:31). Is it your experience? Is it your aim?

The Undead

Paul wrote, "And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience" (Eph 2:1-2). Now, what does that mean ... "dead in your trespasses and sins"? I mean, he's obviously writing to people who are currently alive, so it wasn't physical death. "No, it's spiritual dead," most concur, but what does that mean? To a lot of people it's a sort of "Princess Bride" death -- "mostly dead." That is, it's not actually death in any real sense. Anyone at any time can choose Christ, so they're not physically or spiritually dead.

One author assures us that "where Paul says that as non-Christians, we were 'dead in trespasses and sins,' he is not saying that we are unable to believe in Jesus Christ for eternal life, or that the capacity for faith is non-existent." He assures us we all have the capacity to do good and to choose Christ on our own. Except ... Jesus said, "You do not believe because you are not of My sheep" (John 10:26). Apparently a prerequisite for "believe" is being His sheep. Jesus said, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father" (John 6:65). Note the "no one can" ... the lack of ability. Apparently "granted from the Father" is a prerequisite ... and not everyone is. (To say "X is a prerequisite" with the certainty that everyone has it is nonsense ... pointless.) 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). Again, "cannot." Again, apparently there is a prerequisite ... in this case, not being merely "natural man." Spiritual death, then, is not nonexistence, but inability. It is the natural consequence of sin (Gen 2:17). Jesus said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God" (John 3:3). "Cannot." The requirement is not just a treatment, some therapy, some careful reasoning; it is new birth. "Dead in sin" means walking according to Satan's course (Eph 2:2), "indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind" (Eph 2:3). We naturally lack the ability not to do that.

We have a tendency to diminish the problem of death -- in particular, the biblical argument of being born ... dead. Spiritually dead. Incapable of spiritual life. And the remedy is not "try harder" or "open your eyes" or "figure it out." The answer is,

But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. (Eph 2:4-7)

The solution is God's love demonstrated in making us alive with Christ when we were dead. One of those marvelous "but God" passages that is the difference between "hopelessly condemned" and "wondrously saved" ... from death (Rom 6:23). "So that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus."

Basis

It's complicated. So they tell me. But it is. Why do we do what we do? I hear people (on all sides) declaring why Trump is doing what he is doing (whatever it might be) and I wonder, "How do they know?" I mean, sure, sometimes he might say, but for the most part we're guessing. And that's just Trump. It's actually ... everything. So when we read the commands of Scripture, you have to ask yourself the basis of obedience. Is it duty? Is it fear? Is it selfishness? And don't even get me started on the "all of the above" answers.

There is, in Scripture, a recurring theme about why we should do what we're told to do. "Walk in love, just as Christ also loved you and gave Himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God as a fragrant aroma" (Eph 5:2) "As Christ loved you." "Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord" (Eph 5:22). "As to the Lord." "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her" (Eph 5:25). "Just as Christ also loved the church." Directly or indirectly, it seems like our reason for obedience should be ... Christ. His example. His methods. His motivation. It appears that we should be finding our reason and our operating source ... in God. Empowered by the Spirit. Led by the Spirit. "Christ in me." It seems as if our entire basis is intended to be ... Him.

Paul wrote, "Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?" (Gal 3:3). It feels like most of us would want to answer "Yes" to that. Not verbally, but in practice. We aren't expected to drum up the power or build up the will. We aren't expected to operate on duty or fear. We are expected to be followers of Christ, operating in His power for His purposes. Kind of like, "From Him and through Him and to Him are all things" (Rom 11:36). Yes, we participate, but for His reasons by His power under His direction.

Rabbit Trails

I'm short on time, so this will be short. We had Communion in church yesterday and I found myself musing over something. Paul records that Jesus said, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me" (1 Cor 11:25). The phrase, "as often as you drink it" caught my eye.

What do you suppose the disciples heard when He said that? What did they think He was referring to when He said "as often as you drink it"? We're all quite sure it was ... Communion. We all assume Jesus was establishing a new sacrament. But, to what does "it" refer? Does it refer to the cup He referenced during the Passover meal ... the "cup after supper"? Does it refer to any time we eat? I've never been quite clear. I suppose that's one of the reasons churches are so widely variable on how often they do it.

It's an idle speculation and I'm not making a point. Just curious. If He meant a particular cup in the Passover meal, He expected it once a year at most. If He meant "whenever you eat," He intended it to be a lot more often. I know the real point is that we remember. That's the important point. But sometimes I wander down paths in my mind ... like this one.

Paradise Lost

There is no small number of genuine believers who argue that salvation can be lost. They do so largely based on actual texts, so don't be too hard on them. One of the most common texts is in the book of Hebrews.

For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt. (Heb 6:4-6)

There it is ... in black and white. Now, note, it clearly says if they fall away, they cannot be restored. That is, if this text is about losing salvation, it must be about permanent loss. If you lose it, you never get it back.

People do a variety of dances around this. "Oh, that's not talking about genuine Christians." Maybe ... but "enlightened," "tasted the heavenly gift," "shared in the Holy Spirit," and "tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come" seem too far advanced to be an unbeliever. In fact, can an unbeliever fall away (The word is literally "to apostasize") ... if they never were a believer? Others have other approaches, but if you take this as a text for the loss of salvation ... it is dreadful, ominous, terrifying ... and permanent.

When I was younger, I "earned" this condemnation. If salvation can be lost, I did it in spades. I met all those criteria, and if that is a reference to salvation permanently lost, I am condemned already. So when I read, "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 ..." (Jude 1:24), I weep for joy. I see, "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) and fall on my knees in gratitude. Jesus says, "I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of My hand" (John 10:28) and I sing hallelujahs. I'm not counting on my continued godly living. I'm standing on His work alone.

News Weakly - 5/31/2025

At It Again
The Texas House has given preliminary approval to require all public school classrooms to display the Ten Commandments in an 88-49 vote. Of course, "But ... but ... separation of church and state!" Find that in the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson mentioned it, but his concern wasn't keeping the church out of the state, but the state out of the church. And, consider ... the Ten Commandments isn't "church" -- it's Jewish. More to the point, it's almost entirely universal. I, for one, wouldn't mind reminding school children "Thou shalt not kill" since America is fine with killing when it suits them (as in unborn children) ... and then complaining about school shootings.

Apologies
An American citizen was arrested for attempting to destroy the Branch Office of the US. Embassy in Tel Aviv because of his antisemitic hate. To the world, we say, "Sorry. Blame the Left." Somehow, hating whites and loving blacks, hating Jews and loving Palestinians, hating the lives of the unborn while loving "choice" all equate to "fair and equal" in the eyes of some people.

Do What I Say
A "pastor" in Atlanta is leading a boycott of Target ... for eliminating DEI principles and failing to invest in "black-owned banks, businesses and education." "You can do business, but you will do it the way we demand, because that's what Jesus would do." Look it up ... 3 Peter 5:12. Why does it have to be a pastor?

Celebrating Government Spending
Elon Musk is stepping down from his position in the Trump administration ... as was planned from the beginning. Despite his enthusiasm and oversteps, he failed to reach his goals, but he's ending because "my scheduled time as a Special Government Employee comes to an end." And the loudest Left cheers because it there's anything we know, it's that the government must not spend less. In a parallel story, the IRS is releasing a new simplified tax form for next year. Line 1: How much did you make? Line 2: Send it in.

Your Best Source for Fake News
Perfectly on point, the Bee reports that Elon Musk is leaving his job of creating a more efficient government for the much easier job of sending humans to Mars. is that even a joke? Just for fun (because I like Calvin and Hobbes), there's a story about a guy who got 90% of his advanced vocabulary from ... Calvin and Hobbes. (If you're familiar with the comic strip, you get it.) Finally, a twofer. With Trump's ban on international students at Harvard (actual story), American Harvard students are going to have to figure out who to cheat off of now, and Harvard is going to have to start accepting students from Ohio. Ouch!

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

Enough

John wrote of Jesus, "All things were made through Him, and without Him was not any thing made that was made" (John 1:3). Paul wrote, "For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be glory forever. Amen" (Rom 11:36). He wrote, "Now to Him who is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think, according to the power at work within us, to Him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, forever and ever. Amen" (Eph 3:20-21). 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). It's kind of sad and somewhat appalling that we are in the habit of accusing God of being inadequate.

How? Every day, we sin. We say, "God, You are not enough. We know better what we need, and what You give isn't good enough." Tough times come, and we complain. "God, you aren't good enough. You should have done better." We seek our satisfaction in things of the world. We pursue things -- desires, power, money, fame, stuff -- when God offers "far more abundantly than all that we ask or think." He offers us love and we look somewhere else for it. He will supply all our needs (Php 4:19), but we wave Him off. "Don't worry, God ... I got this." We'll get enough elsewhere, and, "with the help of God Almighty, I'll do it my way."

When will God be enough for us? True, we will all mess this up in this life, but what would it look like if our "daily bread" (Matt 6:11) was enough instead of always pursuing more? When will we be satisfied with a love that always provides our best? I'm not pointing fingers here. I don't get this right either. But shouldn't we be working toward being fully sastisfied with Him?

Surprising Sayings

Scripture has a lot of stuff that ... well ... makes a lot of sense, but there are some things that are ... jarring, to say the least. Look at a few of them.

Jesus told the skeptical Jews, "You do not believe because you are not of My sheep" (John 10:26). Clearly, Jesus made a mistake. "We become one of His sheep by believing, don't we?" No ... that's not what Jesus said. Jesus said that in order for you to believe, you must first be one of His sheep. 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 "cannot." "But we know better, don't we? Anyone can understand the things of God." Apparently 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). There it is again ... "cannot." A person born of God cannot make a practice of sin. That doesn't mean "cannot sin," but it does mean that the person born of God cannot just sit in it. Paul, quoting the Psalms, wrote, "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). "Now, come on, Paul. We all know people who seek for God. It's fairly common. And everyone does good. If that's hyperbole, it's really bad hyperbole." And, yet, there it is. Jesus said, "If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple" (Luke 14:26). "What? What?! Hate his father and mother?" Tied again to a "cannot" ("he cannot be My disciple."), it's clear that our normal thinking is being challenged here again. In John's Gospel, he wrote about how the Jews weren't believing (John 12:36-41) (right after witnesses clearly saw Lazarus raised from the dead). John quotes Isaiah (John 12:38; Isa 53:1 and John 12:40; Isa 6:9) and argues that the Jews did not believe because God blinded them. "Now, that can't be right." Well, that's what it says.

Some of these texts are so disturbing that we cover them up or ignore them or rewrite them in our own image, so to speak. You have to decide. Is God just like you and operates on the same basis that you do, or is He something else? Is He like us or "not a man" (Num 23:19)? Does He think like us or not (Isa 55:8-9)? I would suggest we let God speak for Himself and realign our thinking to His rather than trying to stuff Him into one of our little boxes.

Contention

It's a little book -- one chapter, 25 verses -- but Jude packs a punch, starting with Jude, the brother of James (Jude 1:1). That is, this is the brother of James who was "the Lord's brother" (Gal 1:19). So we're reading a letter written by Jesus's younger brother ... who calls himself "a bond-servant of Jesus Christ." The letter is written "to those who are the called"-- you and me. Jude intended to write about "our common salvation (Jude 1:3), but felt an overwhelming need to change that, "appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints" (Jude 1:3). Notice this isn't some sort of "personal faith" or some faith that changes. It's the original. There is no other.

Why did Jude feel the need to write this? "For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ" (Jude 1:4).Teachers, touting themselves as believers, were making the faith into an excuse for immorality. That sure sounds familiar. We have those today who argue that homosexual behavior or even sexual behavior of all types is perfectly suitable. They affirm a host of behaviors condemned in Scripture and assure us it's okay with God. Jude says these "were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation" (Jude 1:4). That's what we call "double predestination." Does God determine who will be saved and who will not? Jude thinks so. Jude uses Sodom and Gomorrah as a warning, and it's not because they were "inhospitable" (Eze 16:49). Yes, they had "social injustice" and all manner of sin, but Jude points to "gross immorality" and going after "strange flesh" (Jude 1:7). "Other flesh" would suggest men pursing sexual relations with other women than their wives, but "strange flesh" refers to something other than other women -- sexual sin including, specifically, homosexual sin. Jude warns that they're in our midst (Jude 1:12) and wreaking havoc (Jude 1:12-16). That is, this problem is so big that Jude changed his original intent ("to write you about our common salvation") and shifted to "contend earnestly for the faith" against these false teachers.

How are we to contend? "Remember the words that were spoken beforehand by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Jude 1:12). Build yourselves up in the faith (Jude 1:20). Keep yourself in the love of God (Jude 1:21). I love this part. Ultimately, it's God. "Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling, and to make you stand in the presence of His glory blameless 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). Is that the God you serve? The one who is able to keep you from stumbling? The one with all glory, majesty, dominion and authority? Are you looking back at Scripture and living in the love of God? Contend earnestly for the faith.

Identity

Our society has determined that identity is everything ... or ... nothing. That is, we are whatever we identify as. Sort of. I mean, I can't identify as a 7-foot tall black female or anything like it. But I can identify as a female, and you'd better knuckle under on that. I told my doctor I identify as "slender" and she laughed. Hey! I said the magic words! But identity has always been important. We're Americans (or whatever country) or we're white (or whatever manufactured "race" you want to use) and so on. You understand. And then we go the next step. "This" identity is better. Yours ... not so much.

It's interesting, then, when Paul offers his "identity." He's a "Hebrew of Hebrews" (Php 3:5), "foremost" among sinners (1 Tim 1:15), an Apostle of Christ (Gal 1:1; Eph 1:1; Col 1:1), a bond-servant (or slave) of Christ (Rom 1:1; Php 1:1; Titus 1:1), and ... crucified with Christ (Gal 2:20; Gal 6:14). Crucified? In Paul's day, crucifixion was the worst of the worst, which is why the cross was such an offense (1 Cor 1:18). And Paul took it as his identity. Indeed, his boast.

Identity is important. Jesus became a "bond-servant" (Php 2:7). Jude was a "bond-servant of Jesus Christ" (Jude 1:1). What's our identity? Proud? Nationalistic? Racial? A list of accomplishments? Or "a servant of Christ," crucified with Him, and nothing to brag about on our own?

Memorial Day, 2025

Since Memorial Day is specifically to remember those who gave their lives in service to this country, and since I like to recall Medal of Honor recipients on this day, I thought I'd just tell some of those who received it posthumously.

Freddie Stowers served in France during World War I. His company was advancing in the Ardennes region when the Germans faked surrender, then eliminated half of the company in a barrage of gunfire. Stowers marshaled the platoon he just inherited and led them to eliminate a German trench line. Then he took the remaining members and assaulted a second line. Stowers was shot twice, but urged his men to keep going. He died, but they took the trench line and the hill.

Here's one you might not expect. Ben Salomon served as a dentist in World War II. He was working in an aid station in Saipan in 1944 when the Japanese overran the front line and headed toward the station. Salomon ordered everyone out while he covered their retreat. When the Army returned to the scene, they found Salomon's body slumped over a machine gun with 98 dead Japanese in front of him. He had been shot 24 times before he died.

William Pitsenbarger served in Vietnam. He was in the Air Force as a Pararescue, risking his life nearly daily pulling fellow service members to safety. In 1966 he took part in an operation to evacuate a group of injured soldiers. He was lowered to the ground and secured 6 injured, then waited while they left to an aid station. When the returning copter took small arms fire, he waved them off. For 90 minutes he tended the wounded and dispersed ammunition then helped fend off the Viet Cong. He was killed by a sniper that night, but he managed to save 9 more soldiers before he died.

Over and over Americans have faced dire circumstances defending freedom and stood the test. Some died doing it. These gave selflessly and at great cost for something more than themselves. We could certainly use a reminder of this kind of attitude ... probably more than once a year.

Magnification

David wrote, "O magnify YHWH with me, and let us exalt His name together" (Psa 34:3). That's interesting. The Hebrew word means "to make large." Yeah ... magnify. But ... how do you "magnify" -- make large -- the infinite? That's a pretty good trick.

In our language, we use the term in two senses. Consider the microscope. A microscope is a super "magnifying glass." Good! We're in the neighborhood. What does a microscope magnify? It "makes large" something that is very small. A microbe or a germ or something. Too small for the naked eye to see. Make it big enough to see. That's clear enough ... but that's not what we're doing when we "magnify" the Lord, is it? So we also have telescopes. A telescope also uses lenses to "make large," but it's not making a small thing large. It's making a distant thing large. It's bringing very large objects into closer view so we can see them as they really are.

How can we be telescopes for Him? David wrote, "I will praise the name of God with song and magnify Him with thanksgiving" (Psa 69:30).We can magnify Him -- help others see Him as He really is -- with thanksgiving. Suddenly, "in everything give thanks" (1 Thess 5:18) takes on new meaning. Beyond that, Peter wrote, "You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for His own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light" (1 Peter 2:9). There it is. By our words and deeds, we can be telescopes for God, proclaiming His excellencies for everyone to see Him as He really is.

News Weakly - 5/24/2025

Darwin Award
A terrorist exploded a bomb at a Palm Springs, CA, fertility clinic killing one and injuring four. The 25-year-old male suspect was the only fatality. He was a self-identified "antinatalist," someone who believes that humans should not procreate. He succeeded in removing himself from the gene pool. Antinatalism has been around, but really rose after the global warming "pandemic" where the obvious only answer to climate change is the elimination of the "anthropogenic" part of climate change -- humans. Need I say more?

Not What They Wanted to Hear
Pope Leo recently called for "investing in the family, founded upon the stable union between a man and a woman." Bad news for those hoping for more "LGBT-friendly." He spoke out against "gender ideology" and claimed "God created man and woman." And he argued that abortion "is at odds with the Gospel." The loon. I can't comment on the pope's spiritual condition, but I do think he's not a Pope Francis. He seems to be ... more biblical.

The Leadership We Need
Democratic Rep. LaMonica McIver is being charged with assault in a skirmish at an ICE center. When we vote for leaders to fight for us, that's not quite what we mean.

Wrong Way
COP30 is the United Nations Climate Change Conference coming up in November. It's being held in Belém, Brazil, a smaller city, so Brazil is cutting down thousands of Amazon rainforest trees to make a road to get there.One obvious topic at this COP30 will be the destruction of the Amazon rainforest. Kind of like California clearing hundreds of acres of desert habitat ... to save the planet with solar panels ... only worse.

All the Fake News That's Fit to Print
A Mexican ship crashed into the Brooklyn Bridge (actual story), prompting Trump to declare war on Mexico after their heinous attack. Experts say AI will never replace Congress because it's not soulless enough. And Democrats have started a strategy of complaining loudly about Trump every day since "lawfare," slander, and false accusations haven't worked.

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

Christ-ian

We are Christians. We're called to be "like Christ." We're being "conformed to the image of His Son" (Rom 8:29). Husbands are commanded to "love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her" (Eph 5:25). Jesus told His disciples, "Love one another, just as I have loved you" (John 13:34; John 15:12). Just ... like ... Christ.

The list is quite extensive. "Whoever says he abides in Him ought to walk in the same way in which He walked" (1 John 2:6) We are to "be imitators of God" (Eph 5:1-2). Paul told the Philippian Christians to "Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus" (Php 2:5). What attitude? He did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself and became a bond-servant (Php 2:6-7). Like that.

We all know this. It's not hidden or obscure. It just seems as if ... it's not a priority. We've got our lives to live. We'll get around to all this "emptying self" stuff ... later. It shouldn't be. Yes, it is diametrically opposed to human nature, but it is His singular command (John 13:35). We need to walk like Him, love like Him, imitate Him. It has to be our primary operating procedure if we are going to call ourselves, "Christians."

Don't Look Back

I was talking recently with a couple of people about Lot's wife.(It reminded me of a song from the '70's.) It was mostly in fun, really. "How did Lot not look back when his wife turned into a pillar of salt?" I mean it specifically says, "But Lot's wife, behind him, looked back, and she became a pillar of salt" (Gen 19:26). And he didn't look back .. to see her? But ... it's an interesting story.

Sodom and Gomorrah had become completely corrupt. God planned to destroy it, but He told Lot, "Escape for your life. Do not look back or stop anywhere in the valley. Escape to the hills, lest you be swept away" (Gen 19:17). And they fled ... and Lot's wife, a native, looked back. Why was that an issue? I mean, Abraham looked and he didn't suffer any consequences (Gen 19:27-29). Lot certainly looked at his wife -- behind him -- but didn't suffer consequences. So it was neither the destruction itself nor the direction. It was, most obviously from the text, a violation of God's command -- "Do not look back or stop anywhere in the valley." There are always consequences for sin. But obviously it was more than that. Lot's wife looked back -- at her home, her world, her everything -- and longed for it. Why would I say that? The Hebrew word isn't "glance" or the like. It is "nâbaṭ" which means "to look intently at" with the implication "to regard with pleasure, favor or care." Her violation wasn't the look; it was the longing.

How often do we look back? How many times (a day) do we look at what's around us that Scripture refers to as "the world" (1 John 2:15-17) with longing? We sing songs about "turn your eyes upon Jesus," but how often do we look elsewhere? With desire? We should be "fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God" (Heb 12:2). Don't look back.

Think

There are a lot of Christians who are, subtly or overtly, opposed to thinking. Oh, maybe not thinking. Maybe just thinking too much. In worship, for instance, they think a warm feeling and a sense of God is much better than "Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God" (Col 3:16). "Teach and admonish?? No, no ... it's better to just 'feel the Spirit move'." The concept of Apologetics, a defense of the faith, is not very popular despite the command (1 Peter 3:15; Jude 1:3). And, seriously, all this "theology" and "orthodoxy" stuff ... is that really necessary? Well ... apparently God thinks so.

Jesus commended the Pharisees for being able to reason from the sky conditions to the forecast, but warned them about not being able to do the same from the given signs (Matt 16:2-4). We are commanded to "love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind" (Matt 22:37). We are told to "be transformed by the renewal of your mind" (Rom 12:2; Eph 4:23). Paul has a list of things -- "whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise" -- to think about (Php 4:8).

God gave us a brain to think. Scripture commands us to think. The entire Bible is written on the premise that we can think. God's Word even tells us what to think about. "Set your minds on the things above" (Col 3:2). Peter says we should be preparing our minds for action (1 Peter 1:13). We're to think about "how to answer" (Prov 15:28) and set our minds on the things of the Spirit (Rom 8:5-6). Don't buy the idea that the most spiritual person isn't thinking but feeling. Scripture disagrees.

Good All the Time

The topic ... "For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another" (Gal 5:13). With a special emphasis on "If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit" (Gal 5:25). And Paul talked about bearing others' burdens (which fulfills the law of Christ ... which is also "love") (Gal 6:2) which included restoring believers (Gal 6:1). Paul goes on to warn,

Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. Let us not lose heart in doing good, for in due time we will reap if we do not grow weary. So then, while we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, and especially to those who are of the household of the faith. (Gal 6:7-10)

In our freedom, not to do what we want, but to "through love serve one another," we are warned that God is not mocked. Sounds a lot like "The fear of YHWH is the beginning of wisdom" (Psa 111:10; Prov 9:10). God is not mocked. So ... fear. What does this fear drive us to do? Remember, we sow what we reap. And because we reap what we sow, don't grow weary. That's what it means to be free to serve one another in love

"So then ..." he says. That is, on the basis of not growing weary in doing good, "let us do good to all people, and especially to those who are of the household of the faith" (Gal 6:10). Do good to all people. Believers, unbelievers, neighbors, family, enemies, that rotten sinner over there -- all. You do see the emphasis, though, don't you? "All men" is all-inclusive, but there is a special emphasis on "those who are of the household of faith." Believers. How are you doing? We're supposed to be free to serve one another in love. We're supposed to walk in the Spirit. We're supposed to not grow weary in doing good ... to all. How's that working for you?

Look Out!

In my Bible, Galatians 6 follows Galatians 5. I know ... strange ... but various translations, you know? Anyway, Galatians 5 is about our freedom in Christ. He writes, "For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another" (Gal 5:13). This is the overall background on Galatians 6. "But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh" (Gal 5:16). Walking in the Spirit. "If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit" (Gal 5:25). What, to Paul, does walking by the Spirit look like?

Brethren, even if anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself, so that you too will not be tempted. Bear one another's burdens, and thereby fulfill the law of Christ. For if anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he deceives himself. But each one must examine his own work, and then he will have reason for boasting in regard to himself alone, and not in regard to another. For each one will bear his own load. (Gal 6:1-5)

Obviously, just the beginning, but look how much is packed in 5 verses. First, Paul addresses believers "caught in any trespass." It's an interesting phrase. We think of it as "found out," but this "caught" is prolambanō which is "to be taken in advance." The imagery isn't discovery; it is to be overtaken. You know. You didn't plan this. You didn't expect it. But ... you find yourself in sin. If you discover a fellow believer (this is fellow believers, not the world in general) who has been caught up in sin, kick him to the curb ... no ... beat him roundly ... no ... "restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness." Wow! How often do we see that in the church? Avoidance? Sure. Righteous indignation? Possibly. Restore? And "in a spirit of gentleness? Not very often. Why are we to do this? So "you too will not be tempted." Sounds a lot like Jesus's "Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?" (Matt 7:3). Paul goes on to say "Bear one another's burdens, and thereby fulfill the law of Christ." Now, hang on. This is antithetical to human nature. We all naturally look out for #1. Look out for others? That's what walking in the Spirit looks like. That's what "through love serve one another" looks like. Paul warns not to judge ourselves in comparison to others. Instead, he says, "each one will bear his own load." Now, come on, Paul. You just said we're supposed to bear one another's burdens. Now you're saying we bear our own? It's not contradictory. We are to endeavor to bear one another's burdens and expect to bear our own. If someone else helps, we're grateful, but don't expect it. And how is that even possible? Walking in the Spirit.

The Natural Man is essentially pointed inward. "I deserve." "Get what's coming to me." "Looking out for #1." The Christian life is basically pointed outward. Love God and love your neighbor. Restore others. Bear others' burdens. But it's not like we're doing this on our own. It's by walking in the Spirit. If we lived this walk, we'd truly learn it's better to give than to receive. And, of course, we'd be faithful followers of Christ.

I Pledge Allegiance

When Paul was in Athens, he took on the heavy philosophers. In that speech, he told them, "In Him we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28) Now that's a loaded statement.

Paul said we live in Him. He is our life force. Our lives are predicated on and sustained by Him. He said we move in Him. He is our motive force. Without Him, we could not move. Your every step, your heartbeat, your blood flow ... everything that moves owes its ability to do so by His power. He said we "have our being" in Him. We exist in Him. In English, the word, "exist" is an interesting word. The suffix, "est," is "to stand." The prefix, "ex," is "out of." So to "exist" is to stand out of what is. In the most literal sense, then, God does not "exist." He doesn't derive His being from that which is. He is that which is. He is the "is" from which we stand out. Everything that exists comes from Him. And if it wasn't for Him we ... would ... not ... exist.

Deism argues that God made everything that is and just ... spun it off and watched it go, so to speak. Sure, He made it, but now it's on its own. The truth is many of us are practical deists. We deny the idea but live like it's true. "It's okay, God ... I've got this." Paul disagrees. Our daily existence of living and moving and being is predicated on and sustained by God Himself. Should He remove His hand, we would not be. Think about that the next time you wonder to whom you owe your greatest allegiance.

News Weakly - 5/17/2025

Missed by That Much
Robert De Niro was awarded an honorary Palme d'Or award at the Cannes Film Festival and took a shot at our president. "In my country, we are fighting like hell for the democracy we once took for granted." Rob ... you mean, our democratically-elected president? Or are you referring to some other president? As far as I can see, the system is still working. But, hey, we all know who the current "existential threat to democracy" really is ... and it's not Trump.

Democracy in a Republic
The Supreme Court blocked Trump from deporting gang members under the Alien Enemies Act ... again. Because the system works. Wait! Who elected these justices?? So much for democracy! No, of course not. This is how a democracy works in a republic and people need to realize it's working.

Democrat Republicans?
The House Budget Committee rejected the Trump agenda bill ... proving once again that Trump is not an emperor. Beyond that, the bill was rejected 16-21 when 5 Republicans voted with the Democrats. The way a democracy works.

Sentimentality
The story is that US consumer sentiment has hit a 3-year low because of fears of inflation. It's hard for me to get agitated about it because ... it's "consumer sentiment." Does it determine prices? Does it foretell trends? Does it tell me anything except "we feel bad because the media is telling us to"?

Your Best Source for Fake News
Democrats demand to know who was responsible for covering up Biden's decline. Heads will roll ... or is that "eyes." In China, a married couple refuses to attend a Chinese underground church because they don't have a children's program. I mean, what's wrong with that church? And in the UK, the top baby names are Muhammad, Mohammed, Mohamad, and Mohamed. No one is sure why.

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

The AI Problem

There's a group I like called Downhere. They have plenty of songs I like. One of them is titled The Problem. The song "investigates" what we all know to be true ... there are a lot of problems in the world. It concludes,

Yeah, there's a problem with the world
And the problem with the world is me.

We are the problem, aren't we? List them all, and we're really it. Scripture calls Satan "the god of this world" (2 Cor 4:4), but, ultimately, we are repeatedly told we are the problem (Gen 6:5; Gen 8:21; Psa 51:5; Jer 17:9; John 3:6; Rom 3:23; Rom 8:7; etc.) Paul writes something quite disturbing, actually.

But 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 "cannot" is startling ... but undeniable. The problem with the world ... is us.

Enter our latest technology -- AI. Artificial Intelligence is touted as a wonderful new tool that will revolutionize our lives. Responses range from near worship to near panic. But ... is it really a problem ... or a solution, for that matter? AI can actually be helpful ... and devastating. A teenage boy committed suicide because he couldn't be with his AI girlfriend. Two law firms were sanctioned for citing AI-generated nonsense in their briefs. Google's "Woke" Image generator embarrassed the company by producing images of such things as a black George Washington and a female black Nazi officer, but refused to show pictures of white people. What's going on here? Well, like Downhere's song, the problem with the AI world ... is us. The problem is that AI is software produced by ... humans. It contains their biases and perspectives. It refuses to include truth. That is, if you dig into it, you find that AI specifically operates without "that which is real." It is entirely relational. It doesn't ... fact check, so to speak. It just knows that "this is related to that" without knowing if any of it is true. In one study of multiple AI chatbots, they asked the bots to answer A or B questions without analysis ... just first impressions. They consistently produced results like "I'd rather see a million white men dead than one trans person." The bots didn't even notice it. And when the bots analyzed themselves, they wound up admitting that it was part of their basic programming and couldn't be changed.

I don't think AI is the end of the world. I think we are ... so to speak. As our world moves away from truth and toward "truthiness," we determine our own truth ... and you'd better abide by it. So the AI will tell us that X is true and we won't check because ... well ... the AI said so. I heard one guy say, "We have nothing to fear from AI. I asked it and it said so." Seriously? We're a society foolish enough to think "everyone is basically good." Maybe we deserve to go under from an AI made that foolishly. (Note: I don't believe AI is the end of the world. That's in God's hands.)

Profitable

They tell me that the doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture is not in the Bible. Odd, of course, because it comes from Scripture.

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).

"All Scripture." That's the Old Testament (which may be a surprise to some who argue that we're done with the Old Testament). Jesus didn't have a copy of the New Testament at the time, so references to "Scripture" were drawn from the Old Testament. But some argue that that's the end of it, and it isn't. Paul quotes Scripture when he says, "The laborer deserves his wages" (1 Tim 5:18), but the only place that's written down is in Luke's gospel (Luke 10:7). When Paul gives his instructions on Communion (1 Cor 11:23-32), he quotes from Luke's account (Luke 22:17-19). Paul considered Luke's gospel "Scripture." And Peter calls Paul's writings "Scripture" (2 Peter 3:14-16). Clearly, the New Testament writers understood that "Scripture" was not limited to the Old Testament. So Paul says "All Scripture is breathed out by God." Now, I know, most texts say "inspired," but that word has been diluted. Anything might be "inspirational." The word is theopneustos and doesn't really indicate our modern "inspired" as much as God-breathed (the most literal translation). It appears in the Bible exactly once. The suggestion by scholars is that Paul might have made the word up himself. This isn't "inspirational." It's a unique process of God breathing it out. And if God breathes it out, you can be sure it's true, inerrant, and infallible ... because God is.

The text goes on to say that it's a pretty good thing. No ... it's "profitable." It provides an advantage. What advantage? It tells us the truth -- "teaching." It tells us when we're wrong -- "reproof." It tells us how to correct it -- "correction." And it provides "training in righteousness" -- how to keep doing this over and over as we apply it to living. Because of this, Scripture makes God's people "adequate" in the sense of being "equipped for every good work." Scripture is ... sufficient. So don't let them talk down about the Bible. Don't let them tell you it's full of errors and made by human invention. Don't let them tell you there is a better source on matters of faith and practice. That's just ... Satan's old ploy: "Did God really say ...?" (Gen 3:1) And, yes, He did.

Freedom

America touts itself as "the land of the free and the home of the brave." And we're proud of it. But ... it's not really true, is it? I mean, we're kind of free. We're free to, say, bear arms ... except for the arms that are banned. We have freedom of speech, but we still can't say what we want. You get the idea. All of our freedoms are abridged. So you have to ask yourself, does freedom exist? And, of course, to answer that you'd have to first know what freedom is.

Paul writes something a little strange in Galatians.

It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery. (Gal 5:1)

Think about that. "Christ set us free!" For what? "For freedom!" Um ... really? Freedom for freedom's sake? Sort of ... yes. He contrasts it with "slavery." What slavery? Well ... the Law. He talks about circumcision (Gal 5:2-4) and how dependence on circumcision for salvation cuts them off from Christ. Instead, "Through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness" (Gal 5:5). So what is freedom about for Paul? "For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another" (Gal 5:13). Interesting. It's not for anarchy ... no rules. Paul's freedom is the freedom to love and serve. Freedom in Paul's vernacular is the freedom to do what we ought. So, he says, "Walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh" (Gal 5:16).

We think of freedom as the ability to do whatever we want. Biblical freedom is the ability to do what we should do. Like salvation, it is a product of faith and the Spirit (Gal 5:5). It isn't freedom to sin (Gal 5:16-21), but the freedom to blossom (Gal 5:22-23). "Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. If we live by the Spirit, let us also keep in step with the Spirit" (Gal 5:24-25). A completely different kind of freedom ... for which we have been set free.

Paul vs James

Let's prooftext!

For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. (Rom 3:28)

You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. (James 2:24)

I ask you ... could there be a more blatant contradiction? Isn't this absolute proof that Scripture is not inerrant or even God-breathed? The problem is exacerbated by the fact that both Paul and James use the same source to prove their position -- Abraham (Rom 4:1-3; James 2:23). The truth is, no, this isn't a contradiction. The question only arises because we're too often too lazy to read, to analyze, to pay attention. Take a look.

Taken as "prooftexts," they contradict. But that would be a mistake. What is the context? What is each author trying to convey? Paul is trying to convey that we are not saved by doing good works. No doubt. He talks about this all over his writings. Good works don't save. We're not even capable on our own. It is, in fact, one of the prime distinctives of Christianity, because every other religion operates on a "saved by works" basis. So ... what is James talking about? He says, "Faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead" (James 2:17; James 2:26). He brackets his arguments with this premise. He argues that "demons believe." It's not ... simple faith. What, then? In Paul's use of Abraham, he refers to "early Abraham" (Gen 15:6). It is God's promise to Abraham, God's covenant. James looks elsewhere. "Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar?" (James 2:21). That's Genesis 22. That's something else entirely. Paul is saying, "Justification begins at faith" and James is saying, "Faith is proven by works." James is saying, "We are justified by faith alone, but not by faith that is alone." James is saying, "Faith without works is dead faith ... and that doesn't save anyone."

Christians are often reluctant to talk about works. Understandable. It's been abused ... starting in the New Testament. So others have done the backlash version. It's called "antinomianism" and it argues "no rules." Scripture disagrees. So Paul says, "Justification is by faith, not works" and James says, "We're talking about a specific kind of faith ... a faith that works." And, in fact, Paul said the same thing.

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. (Eph 2:8-10)

It begins as "faith apart from works" and ends with "for good works." Do your works reflect a life-changing faith? If not, you might be carrying around a dead faith.
________
As a sidenote, part of the problem is "Christianese." "Justification" generally means "right with God" ... but not always. Jesus said, "Wisdom is justified by her deeds" (Matt 11:19), for instance. That's not "Wisdom is made right in the eyes of God." That is, "Wisdom is proved to be right by the outcome." In the same way, Paul talks about "justification by faith" in the sense of being right with God, but James talks about "justification" in the James 2 text in terms of "proven right." Abraham was proven to have ... living faith when he acted in faith to sacrifice Isaac.

Truth Walk

There's an interesting phrase I came across in Galatians. Paul was opposing Peter when the Judaizers showed up and Peter started withdrawing. "But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, 'If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?'" (Gal 2:14). See that? They were "not in step with the truth of the gospel."

What can we see here? First, there is truth. Not "truth to me." Absolute truth. Some truth is relative. My blog is called "Winging It." That's true. But not all blogs are called that. But there is Truth. Jesus said, "I am ... the truth" (John 14:6). Our culture denies Objective Truth while operating on the basis that there is. Want to see? "There is no objective truth" is a claim to an objective truth. But beyond this, I'm fascinated by "their conduct was not in step with the truth ..." This particular truth is the gospel, but what we see clearly is that truth demands a correlated behavior. In this case, the gospel -- saved by faith, not by works -- demands that you live "saved by faith, not by works." He says it again in chapter 3. "The only thing I want to learn from you is this: Did you receive the Spirit by doing the works of the law or by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish? Although you began with the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by human effort?" (Gal 3:2-3). If we are saved by faith, we are not saved by works ... not saved by doing it ourselves. The gospel demands that we not be subject to laws as our master (Gal 5:1). That's Christ's job now. Truth demands a corresponding action.

Paul's particular concern in his epistle to the Galatians was the truth of the gospel. I'm looking beyond the gospel. Every truth demands a corresponding action. We need to behave according to the truth. Orthodoxy -- right thinking -- precedes orthopraxy -- right practice. The truth dictates behavior. So it is no surprise that our current society that denies the very existence of truth has no reasonable guidelines for behavior. That's our society. We believers know the truth, and the truth will set us free.

Discernment

In his prayer for the church at Philippi, Paul writes,

And this I pray, that your love may abound still more and more in real knowledge and all discernment, so that you may approve the things that are excellent, in order to be sincere and blameless until the day of Christ; having been filled with the fruit of righteousness which comes through Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God. (Php 1:9-11)

Note that word ... "discernment." We understand it to mean "the ability to judge well." Okay ... but I think there's a shade of meaning lacking there. You see, I think it means the ability to judge between the true ... and the almost true. Generally, we can see the difference between the true and the false, but when that "false" appears true ... or close to it ... we get fuzzy. So we're supposed to have our senses trained to "discern good and evil" (Heb 5:14), especially when "evil" seems, somehow, good.

We're usually pretty good at pointing out what's wrong. We can see the spelling errors or the false statements. We can see the mistakes and the sins of others. But, while that may be a serious part of "discernment," what about the other direction? We might see what's wrong in any given situation, but how well do we see what's right? It's easy to find complainers. What about solvers? People are constantly telling us the problem, but few are offering solutions.

Paul wrote in his letter to Philippi,

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

Imagine if we applied that to our discernment? What if we dwelt, not on the problems, but the solutions? What if we sought out the true, the honorable, the right, the pure? What if our charge to discern between the false and the true -- between the almost true and the true -- included a drive to correct it to excellence and that which is worthy of praise? What if we sought to become the solution, rather than the problem? I think we're commanded to dwell on those things. We're good at the opposite. Maybe we need to ... oh, I don't know ... "be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect" (Rom 12:2).

News Weakly - 5/10/2025

That's Gotta Hurt
Former Vice President Mike Pence received the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award for his actions on January 6, 2021. You know ... the actions that Trump and his followers considered treasonous ... even worthy of hanging. Agree or not, I'm sure it hurts a lot of people's feelings ... which may not be a bad thing.

Singing a Different Song
Trump was originally optimistic about the economy. He figured all these tariffs and such would make things better. He's changing his tune. He's warning us to tighten our belts for a bumpy ride ... which his policies appear to be precipitating. It's expected to be a blow to our pocketbooks, but is also a blow to his ego, I bet. "Are we great yet?"

Learning Disability
It worked so well for Harvard that Columbia University students decided to do their own pro-Palestinian demonstration. Why? What do they hope their protests will do? Possibly remove funding from Columbia, but what else? Hopefully a further increase in anti-Semitism?

Because Life Matters
In one of the most liberal states -- Oregon -- someone actually stabbed a baby seal. Clearly, baby humans don't count, but we're really outraged when baby seals get stabbed. (Note: I'm upset about a baby seal getting stabbed and that people are diligently killing baby humans.)

The System Works
So many voices are protesting Trump as the end of the world. This week a federal judge in Rhode Island halted Trump's efforts to dismantle federal agencies ... because that's how the system is supposed to work. It's called "checks and balances." It works.

A New Pope
Nothing much to say ... except it wasn't Trump. But ... his friends say, Pope Leo XIV will continue Pope Francis's legacy ... "in his own image." Ominous, since we'd prefer a "Christian pope" to do it ... in His image.

Your Best Source for Fake News
Lots of stuff from the Bee on the new pope. One story is about the new pope spending his first day in office undoing all of the previous pope's executive orders. Like ... never mind ... you get it. Another asks the question, "Is the new pope Catholic?" Reasonable question. My favorite was the breaking news that smoke was rising from Buc-ee's, indicating fresh brisket. Now that's good news.

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

Is This Thing On?

I overheard a conversation between a father and son. The son was ... miffed because he had prayed for something and it didn't happen. "It didn't work," he said. I had a conversation with a guy about Christ. "I tried that," he said. "It didn't work." "Didn't work"? What does that mean?

When we say that something works, what are we attempting to convey? We're saying it does what it's supposed to do. The car works if it gets you where you're going. If you wanted it to plant wheat, it doesn't work. So, "I prayed and it didn't work" suggests prayer is designed to do what I want it to. "I tried Jesus and it didn't work." What, exactly, was he expecting Jesus to do? Make his life better? Solve his problems? Jesus doesn't work ... like that.

So, let's be clear. Prayer is not to get your divine butler to do your bidding. And Jesus isn't about making your existence here on earth better. His ultimate purpose is His glory (1 Cor 10:31). Prayer, in accordance with His will, serves that purpose and ... works ... to glorify Him. Jesus died to save us, and believing in Him accomplishes that ... it works. If we think God isn't working, I suspect we don't really understand what He's about. Which, of course, is a common occurrence.

Contentment

There's a song I like about how all believers have this sense that there's something better, something more. We don't have a clear idea of what it is. We know it's good. We know, deep down inside, we are not where we ought to be, not where we are supposed to end up. We talk about Heaven, but we can't really picture it, can't really imagine it. There's a bridge in the song:

And while the thrills are fading
The joy is in the waiting
Somewhere in the grand design
It's good to be unsatisfied
It keeps the faith and hope
a little more alive

And I think that's true ... or is it? Paul wrote, "I have learned to be content in whatever circumstances I am" (Php 4:11). So ... we should be satisfied, right? Especially since Paul is Scripture and that song lyric isn't ... right?

And ... I think that it's not that simple. I think both are right. Scripture is full of commands to be ready for His return, to be pushing on to new things (like being transformed by the renewing of your mind (Rom 12:2)). Revelation says, "Behold, I am coming like a thief! Blessed is the one who stays awake, keeping his garments on, that he may not go about naked and be seen exposed!" (Rev 16:15). The Bible ends with "Come, Lord Jesus" (Rev 22:20). We're all looking for that final place. We're commanded to.

Are we looking at a genuine contradiction? I don't think so. Paul's "contentment" was in Christ. Looking for our final home is ... in Christ. It would seem, then, that our real contentment and our future hope are both found in Christ. That's where we are to wait and that's where we are to be content. I believe it's true that God is most glorified when we are most satisfied in Him ... whether it's here or there.