Full disclosure. I did this back in December of 2015, a sort of extra-length dad joke, I guess. And my wife has been listening to hours and hours of Christmas music. So ... I've gotta do it again ...
_______________
I don't know. Maybe I'm missing something. I just don't get what everyone sees in these Christmas songs you hear all around.
Some of them do it to themselves. On what planet, for instance, could you see "three ships come sailing in to Bethlehem", a landlocked town in Israel? And everyone knows that you put decks on ships or on patios, but not in halls. And I have to say I think it is cruel to be pointing to the mother who just delivered her first child and referring to her as "round yon virgin". Mean ... just mean. And, seriously, how exactly do you "troll the ancient yuletide carol"? Seriously. Say, when did "jingle belling" and "mistletoeing" become verbs? And what, do you suppose, the verb tenses would look like? "Jingle belled", "jingle belling", "have jingle bellen"?
Others, however, just seem really out there if you're not paying close attention to the words.
Take, for instance, the Nat King Cole classic, The Christmas Song. I mean, sure, it's true. I'm sure that everybody does know a turkey -- that office clown or the conspiracy nut down the street or something -- but why put it in a song? "Everybody knows a turkey, and some mistletoe helps to make the season right." In what way does some mistletoe make it better knowing a turkey? Or is it safe having Santa flying around while under the influence? "We know that Santa's on his way. He's loaded; lots of toys and goodies on his sleigh." I mean, that's just not right.
And, seriously ... in Jingle Bells ... The horse was lean an lank, ran into a bank ... "And then we got upsot"?? I didn't mess with that at all. That's the actual word in the song.
Bing Crosby was known for his song about his thoughts about the girth of Christmas. Why? Who dreams of a wide Christmas? What does that even mean? Winter Wonderland isn't much better. "Later on we'll perspire while we sit by the fire." Ooo, that's really appealing, isn't it?
And tell me, why did Olive pick on Rudolph? You know, "Olive, the other reindeer, used to laugh and call him names." Someone should have done something about that bully reindeer.
Something I've never figured out is exactly who Harold Angel is. (Someone told me he was a famous journalists whose full name was Harold Angelsing.) You think about that a moment while I try to decipher "In egg shells is Dale."
True story. I was in a choir in my youth and the leader told us, "The words are important. If you don't understand something, ask." So I said, "What is 'See the blazing yule before us'?" My friend said, "It's Euell Gibbons picking a hickory nut in a forest fire." (I guess you'd have to remember Euell Gibbons's commercials for Grapenuts cereal where he'd hold up some nature item and say, "This is a pine tree. They are edible, you know.")
Strange stuff in those cheerful tunes.
Afterthought
Do you suppose what I've just been doing would be correctly termed "trolling the yuletide carol"?
Monday, December 22, 2025
Sunday, December 21, 2025
Tradition
We're in the midst of the Christmas season and heading down the stretch to Christmas day. The time is steeped in tradition. "Tradition" ... there's a word with good and bad connotations. The Roman Catholic Church, for instance, has long held that there are three authorities in matters of faith and practice. They go with "Scripture," "Tradition," and "the Magisterium." (Magisterium refers to the authority of the Pope and the bishops responsible for determining Scripture and Tradition.) Precisely because they include "Tradition," Protestants ... protest "tradition." I understand, but ... I think it's a mistake.
First ... the biblical reason. (Always a good place to start.) While Jesus and Paul both warned against human traditions (Mark 7:8-13; Col 2:8), Paul wrote, "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter" (2 Thess 2:15). In fact, he dared to say, "Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us" (2 Thess 3:6). Clearly, then, tradition is not in and of itself evil; it depends on the origin ... the source. There is, then, good and even authoritative traditions ... the ones based on God's Word. And in that sense, we still recognize Scripture as the sole authority, but we also recognize biblical traditions as authoritative, being grounded in Scripture.
Lots of people will try to sound thoughtful and wise by warning us about our "traditions," and not without cause. Human traditions can be dangerous. But traditions based on Scripture honor God and strengthen faith. We may enjoy "Christmas trees" at Christmas as a positive tradition, but it's purely human and without biblical content. Maybe they do have a value (if it's not forgotten, like it is today), but forgetting the roots tends to remove their value. On the other hand, to adhere to the traditional atonement story of Christ's blood sacrifice that pays for our sins isn't the same. It's based on Scripture. It goes from the Old to the New Testament (e.g., Isa 53:6; Col 2:13-15; Rom 5:8; Mark 10:45; Hebrews 9:26; 2 Cor 5:15; John 1:29 (cp Lev 1:4); Rom 3:21-26). It was foreseen in Abraham's offering of Isaac, demonstrated in God's ordained sacrificial laws and fulfilled in the sacrifice of His Son. It is a tradition ... a tradition handed down from Scripture. Not a matter of opinion or mere "tradition," but a biblical perspective that believers must either ignore or recognize. For all traditions, then, we need to ... consider the source. Honor those traditions that come from Scripture and handle carefully the rest.
First ... the biblical reason. (Always a good place to start.) While Jesus and Paul both warned against human traditions (Mark 7:8-13; Col 2:8), Paul wrote, "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter" (2 Thess 2:15). In fact, he dared to say, "Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us" (2 Thess 3:6). Clearly, then, tradition is not in and of itself evil; it depends on the origin ... the source. There is, then, good and even authoritative traditions ... the ones based on God's Word. And in that sense, we still recognize Scripture as the sole authority, but we also recognize biblical traditions as authoritative, being grounded in Scripture.
Lots of people will try to sound thoughtful and wise by warning us about our "traditions," and not without cause. Human traditions can be dangerous. But traditions based on Scripture honor God and strengthen faith. We may enjoy "Christmas trees" at Christmas as a positive tradition, but it's purely human and without biblical content. Maybe they do have a value (if it's not forgotten, like it is today), but forgetting the roots tends to remove their value. On the other hand, to adhere to the traditional atonement story of Christ's blood sacrifice that pays for our sins isn't the same. It's based on Scripture. It goes from the Old to the New Testament (e.g., Isa 53:6; Col 2:13-15; Rom 5:8; Mark 10:45; Hebrews 9:26; 2 Cor 5:15; John 1:29 (cp Lev 1:4); Rom 3:21-26). It was foreseen in Abraham's offering of Isaac, demonstrated in God's ordained sacrificial laws and fulfilled in the sacrifice of His Son. It is a tradition ... a tradition handed down from Scripture. Not a matter of opinion or mere "tradition," but a biblical perspective that believers must either ignore or recognize. For all traditions, then, we need to ... consider the source. Honor those traditions that come from Scripture and handle carefully the rest.
Saturday, December 20, 2025
News Weakly - 12/20/2025
Nonsensical Science
The current mode of thinking in our world is materialism. The word has two definitions. One is the obvious "I always want more." The other is the existential meaning that all things are a product of matter, not ... spiritual or especially not God. I'm talking about the latter. So the news item about polar bears is bizarre. The story says that "new research suggests polar bears are rapidly rewiring their own genetics in a bid to survive." It's about how their genetics are changing to survive climate change. It's fascinating that the story is framed to suggest polar bears are consciously altering their own genes ("rewiring their own genetics"). But it happens all the time. Watch a nature documentary about seemingly miraculous things in life and they can't avoid saying how this or that is "designed" for such and such ... all the while denying design. As if "that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them" (Rom 1:19).
The Passing of a Director
Rob Reiner, actor, director, activist, philanthropist, and more, and his wife were found dead Sunday from stab wounds in their home in Los Angeles. Police have arrested and charged Nick Reiner, their son. (It seems as if no one can escape being excoriated at death.)
Unhappy Hanukah
The "religion of peace" strikes again. At Bondi Beach in Australia a Hanukah party was attacked by a gunman associated with ISIS killing nearly two dozen people. Related, at least in terms of terrorism and Islamic leanings, the FBI foiled a New Year's Eve terror plot planned across southern California by a pro-Palestinian, anti-government group to bomb at least five locations. Remember, people -- ideologies, hearts, intents -- are the problem, not the particular weapons they use.
Your Best Source for Fake News
The Bee reports on a groundbreaking study that finds that it's remotely possible that some Islamophobia may be caused by ... Muslims killing people a lot. I'm just sayin'. To those parents who are struggling to figure out what to get their kids for Christmas, President Trump has suggested that ... maybe ... bad kids don't deserve presents. Expect a run on coal. And the Bee apparently copied a story I did myself.
Jesus is kind of bummed at being born on December 25th, since His birthday will be overshadowed by Christmas every year.
(My daughter was actually born on Christmas. I gave her a card like this on her birthday one year.)
Must be true; I read it on the internet.
The current mode of thinking in our world is materialism. The word has two definitions. One is the obvious "I always want more." The other is the existential meaning that all things are a product of matter, not ... spiritual or especially not God. I'm talking about the latter. So the news item about polar bears is bizarre. The story says that "new research suggests polar bears are rapidly rewiring their own genetics in a bid to survive." It's about how their genetics are changing to survive climate change. It's fascinating that the story is framed to suggest polar bears are consciously altering their own genes ("rewiring their own genetics"). But it happens all the time. Watch a nature documentary about seemingly miraculous things in life and they can't avoid saying how this or that is "designed" for such and such ... all the while denying design. As if "that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them" (Rom 1:19).
The Passing of a Director
Rob Reiner, actor, director, activist, philanthropist, and more, and his wife were found dead Sunday from stab wounds in their home in Los Angeles. Police have arrested and charged Nick Reiner, their son. (It seems as if no one can escape being excoriated at death.)
Unhappy Hanukah
The "religion of peace" strikes again. At Bondi Beach in Australia a Hanukah party was attacked by a gunman associated with ISIS killing nearly two dozen people. Related, at least in terms of terrorism and Islamic leanings, the FBI foiled a New Year's Eve terror plot planned across southern California by a pro-Palestinian, anti-government group to bomb at least five locations. Remember, people -- ideologies, hearts, intents -- are the problem, not the particular weapons they use.
Your Best Source for Fake News
The Bee reports on a groundbreaking study that finds that it's remotely possible that some Islamophobia may be caused by ... Muslims killing people a lot. I'm just sayin'. To those parents who are struggling to figure out what to get their kids for Christmas, President Trump has suggested that ... maybe ... bad kids don't deserve presents. Expect a run on coal. And the Bee apparently copied a story I did myself.
(My daughter was actually born on Christmas. I gave her a card like this on her birthday one year.)
Must be true; I read it on the internet.
Friday, December 19, 2025
Conservatism of a Different Type
We were in church ... an adult class ... and they were sharing prayer requests. Someone asked for prayer for a newlywed couple on their honeymoon ... safe travels. "No," someone said, "they already had that honeymoon ... before they were married." With a laugh. And I thought, "How did we arrive at this 'sex outside of marriage is suitable and admirable' position?" Just an example. I find it all over the place ... self-identified Bible-believing Christians ... even discussing biblical texts and principles ... explaining why modern society has demonstrated that the text can't mean what it says because modern society has improved on it. People who grew up with biblical morals are embracing worldly morals without batting an eye. And I don't understand.
I get that some of them are misinformed. They don't know, for instance, that "God created Man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them" (Gen 1:27), rendering the entire "transgender" concept impossible. They maybe haven't noted that the repeated text, "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh" (Gen 2:24; Matt 19:5; Eph 5:31), specifies "man" and "wife," precluding "husband and husband" or "wife and wife" ... defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Maybe they aren't diligent enough to see all the texts about God placing husbands over wives (e.g., Gen 2:18; 1 Cor 11:3; Eph 5:22-33) and choose to ignore them, not because they're vague, but because modern society says otherwise. The mere notion that wives should submit to their husbands (Eph 5:22) and husbands must sacrifice self for their wives (Eph 5:25) is abhorrent to so many Christians simply because culture (and self-centeredness) opposes it. Of course, maybe some fall into a different category entirely (Matt 7:21-23). But if Jesus said God's word was truth (John 17:17), wouldn't it be encumbent on every true believer to discard personal views that oppose Scripture and adopt biblical views at all times? Even if they oppose modern society?
If you look at the positions of the "liberals" in the '60s, you'll find that they're often the current positions of the conservatives today. "Conservativism" is an attempt to promote and preserve ("conserve") traditional institutions, customs, and values. The problem is that as things change, the "traditional" changes, so "conservative" changes. In a sense, then, "conservatives" necessarily follow behind "liberals," trying to maintain prior values that were discarded ... while discarding earlier ones. That's understandable in politics or culture, but when the values that are discarded are biblical, it's a serious problem. And when people who classify themselves as "Christians" choose to knowingly discard biblical values, that's a real problem.
I get that some of them are misinformed. They don't know, for instance, that "God created Man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them" (Gen 1:27), rendering the entire "transgender" concept impossible. They maybe haven't noted that the repeated text, "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh" (Gen 2:24; Matt 19:5; Eph 5:31), specifies "man" and "wife," precluding "husband and husband" or "wife and wife" ... defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Maybe they aren't diligent enough to see all the texts about God placing husbands over wives (e.g., Gen 2:18; 1 Cor 11:3; Eph 5:22-33) and choose to ignore them, not because they're vague, but because modern society says otherwise. The mere notion that wives should submit to their husbands (Eph 5:22) and husbands must sacrifice self for their wives (Eph 5:25) is abhorrent to so many Christians simply because culture (and self-centeredness) opposes it. Of course, maybe some fall into a different category entirely (Matt 7:21-23). But if Jesus said God's word was truth (John 17:17), wouldn't it be encumbent on every true believer to discard personal views that oppose Scripture and adopt biblical views at all times? Even if they oppose modern society?
If you look at the positions of the "liberals" in the '60s, you'll find that they're often the current positions of the conservatives today. "Conservativism" is an attempt to promote and preserve ("conserve") traditional institutions, customs, and values. The problem is that as things change, the "traditional" changes, so "conservative" changes. In a sense, then, "conservatives" necessarily follow behind "liberals," trying to maintain prior values that were discarded ... while discarding earlier ones. That's understandable in politics or culture, but when the values that are discarded are biblical, it's a serious problem. And when people who classify themselves as "Christians" choose to knowingly discard biblical values, that's a real problem.
Thursday, December 18, 2025
From the Ground Up
I remember in my younger days someone told me, "You are God's best choice as the father to your children." I protested. They couldn't know that. In fact, I knew that I wasn't the best choice for any children. I was (am) a man of failings and faults. There were much more capable fathers out there than I was. Stop. Think about that for a moment. I just offered a line of reasoning. Lines begin and end somewhere. Where did my line begin? Me. My own knowledge of my own self. I built my argument from the top down. Knowing who I was, I thought down through to the ramifications of much bigger things. I didn't realize that this is not a good approach.
In Ephesians, Paul describes how the Gentiles were "separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world" (Eph 2:12). Then he goes on to speak of the wonderful work of Christ who broke the barriers and formed Jew and Gentile believers into "one new man" (Eph 2:13-16). Then he describes a wondrous thing. We are "of God's household" where the "foundation" is "of the apostles and prophets" and Christ is the cornerstone (Eph 2:19-22). Individuals in this model are the bricks, the building blocks of "a dwelling of God in the Spirit." Paul builds his argument ... from the ground up. Christ is the cornerstone, the primary guide, the founding principle. Everything is guided by Him. The foundation is the apostles and prophets, a standard reference to God speaking through His designated mouthpieces ... what we now have as "Scripture." Paul didn't describe the building first. He described the foundation, so the "holy temple" to the Lord is built on that and the "questionable" bricks take on a different significance because they aren't ... "foundational."
It's best to think that way ... from the ground up, rather than from the top down ... generally. Take my objection to God's choice of me as father to my children. If I started with the foundation, I would see that God is Sovereign (Gen 50:20; Job 42:2; Psa 115:3; Prov 16:4; Prov 19:21; Prov 21:1; Dan 4:35; Isa 46:9-10; Rom 8:28-29; Rom 11:36; Eph 1:11; etc.), and all that occurs is by His choice and guidance. Stepping up from that point, "all that occurs" would necessarily include "I am the father of my children." Given His sovereignty and His goodness, "I am the father of my children" would necessarily be His best choice. Logically, then, my strengths and my shortcomings would be God's best choice for my children, and God, not me, would be the one providing for my family. From the ground up, it makes perfect sense. On the other hand, most arguments that begin with "me" can be a little dodgy ... or worse. Don't get hung up on my example. Pay attention to the principle. We need to reason from the truth ... foundational ... as given to us in Scripture. Start with the foundation of Christ and the Word. Work up from there ... not from the top -- "me" -- down.
In Ephesians, Paul describes how the Gentiles were "separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world" (Eph 2:12). Then he goes on to speak of the wonderful work of Christ who broke the barriers and formed Jew and Gentile believers into "one new man" (Eph 2:13-16). Then he describes a wondrous thing. We are "of God's household" where the "foundation" is "of the apostles and prophets" and Christ is the cornerstone (Eph 2:19-22). Individuals in this model are the bricks, the building blocks of "a dwelling of God in the Spirit." Paul builds his argument ... from the ground up. Christ is the cornerstone, the primary guide, the founding principle. Everything is guided by Him. The foundation is the apostles and prophets, a standard reference to God speaking through His designated mouthpieces ... what we now have as "Scripture." Paul didn't describe the building first. He described the foundation, so the "holy temple" to the Lord is built on that and the "questionable" bricks take on a different significance because they aren't ... "foundational."
It's best to think that way ... from the ground up, rather than from the top down ... generally. Take my objection to God's choice of me as father to my children. If I started with the foundation, I would see that God is Sovereign (Gen 50:20; Job 42:2; Psa 115:3; Prov 16:4; Prov 19:21; Prov 21:1; Dan 4:35; Isa 46:9-10; Rom 8:28-29; Rom 11:36; Eph 1:11; etc.), and all that occurs is by His choice and guidance. Stepping up from that point, "all that occurs" would necessarily include "I am the father of my children." Given His sovereignty and His goodness, "I am the father of my children" would necessarily be His best choice. Logically, then, my strengths and my shortcomings would be God's best choice for my children, and God, not me, would be the one providing for my family. From the ground up, it makes perfect sense. On the other hand, most arguments that begin with "me" can be a little dodgy ... or worse. Don't get hung up on my example. Pay attention to the principle. We need to reason from the truth ... foundational ... as given to us in Scripture. Start with the foundation of Christ and the Word. Work up from there ... not from the top -- "me" -- down.
Wednesday, December 17, 2025
Misleading
I've been notified by Blogger, the Google-owned service I use to publish this blog, that an entry of mine was deleted. They deleted my most recent "News Weakly" entry (12/13/2025) because a reader complained. They said it contained "misleading content." They gave no indication exactly what content was misleading, so I'm not at all clear. In fact, it very well could be that if I speculate here about which one it could be, they could complain again for mentioning it. Maybe it was about ICEBlock or COVID or ...? (Wouldn't it be funny if it was some of the Bee content?) Needless to say, I'm disappointed.
In my early blogging days, I found a site that would tell me if my blog was banned in China. It was. Still is, last time I checked. My primarily Christian-based blog is banned in a primarily atheist-centered country, and I felt like it was a badge of honor. Now ... I'm blocked from reporting news and offering an opinion ... in America? What did I say that so upset a reader? Where have we come to when we can't even discuss it? What does that say about America today?
I need to be clear. I don't think this is a constitutional violation. The government can't limit free speech, but organizations can. But I think it's ironic that in a "free" country we face being blocked from expressing thoughts and opinions that are not allowed by the powers that be. Not seditious opinions, treasonous statements, malevolent ideas ... just "misleading." "Misleading content" is a bizarre variable. For instance, an RFK Jr. type would consider a Fauci type as presenting "misleading content." But we aren't allowed to discuss it. Not even allowed to bring it up. (And I'm not even an "RFK Jr. type" or a "right-wing conspiracy theorist" kind.) So when something I wrote upsets someone who is among the race that Scripture says "by their unrighteousness suppress the truth" and whose hearts are "deceitful above all things, and desperately sick" (Jer 17:9) enough to take legal action, do I take it as an offense or another badge of honor? I'm not sure.
In my early blogging days, I found a site that would tell me if my blog was banned in China. It was. Still is, last time I checked. My primarily Christian-based blog is banned in a primarily atheist-centered country, and I felt like it was a badge of honor. Now ... I'm blocked from reporting news and offering an opinion ... in America? What did I say that so upset a reader? Where have we come to when we can't even discuss it? What does that say about America today?
I need to be clear. I don't think this is a constitutional violation. The government can't limit free speech, but organizations can. But I think it's ironic that in a "free" country we face being blocked from expressing thoughts and opinions that are not allowed by the powers that be. Not seditious opinions, treasonous statements, malevolent ideas ... just "misleading." "Misleading content" is a bizarre variable. For instance, an RFK Jr. type would consider a Fauci type as presenting "misleading content." But we aren't allowed to discuss it. Not even allowed to bring it up. (And I'm not even an "RFK Jr. type" or a "right-wing conspiracy theorist" kind.) So when something I wrote upsets someone who is among the race that Scripture says "by their unrighteousness suppress the truth" and whose hearts are "deceitful above all things, and desperately sick" (Jer 17:9) enough to take legal action, do I take it as an offense or another badge of honor? I'm not sure.
Tuesday, December 16, 2025
When It Can't Be Fixed
It's a tough question. All Christians (all people) sin. Our only means of recourse is the forgiveness that Christ gives. And John writes, "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 John 1:9). Notice ... this "confess" -- agree with God about our sin -- produces forgiveness for the sins we confess and "all unrighteousness". Scripture says, "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him" (2 Cor 5:21). In Him we are God's righteousness. Jesus said, "He who believes in Him is not judged" (John 3:18). Paul wrote, "When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions" (Col 2:13). All our transgressions are forgiven in Him. So ... what about those sins that can't be fixed?
I'm not talking about unforgivable sins. I'm talking about unfixable sins. Maybe it's missed opportunities or harm that can't be undone. Jesus said remarriage after divorce is adultery, so what if you're remarried after divorce. How is that remedied? Maybe a married couple comes to believe it was God's command to have children and they're no longer able. How can that sin be fixed? Not forgiven, fixed. Paul lists a group of sins (just a short list, you understand) that rule people out of the kingdom. It includes people who have had sex outside of marriage and people who have committed adultery and people who have coveted (1 Cor 6:9-10). If you stop reading there, you'll realize we're not going to make it. I mean, we've done it all. We're out of luck. But Paul says, "Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God" (1 Cor 6:11). Yes, we were those people ... but ... we're washed, sanctified, and justified. We are ... the righteousness of God in Christ.
It puts us in a strange position. On one hand, we are genuinely guilty of transgressions. On the other hand, we're forgiven. We can agree with God that X was a sin and agree with God that we're forgiven. We can be guilty without feeling guilt, not because we're not guilty but because we are justified by the blood of Christ. A clean slate. And Christ's words to the adulteress echo in our heads: "Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more" (John 8:11). We agree with Joseph. "You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good" (Gen 50:20).
I'm not talking about unforgivable sins. I'm talking about unfixable sins. Maybe it's missed opportunities or harm that can't be undone. Jesus said remarriage after divorce is adultery, so what if you're remarried after divorce. How is that remedied? Maybe a married couple comes to believe it was God's command to have children and they're no longer able. How can that sin be fixed? Not forgiven, fixed. Paul lists a group of sins (just a short list, you understand) that rule people out of the kingdom. It includes people who have had sex outside of marriage and people who have committed adultery and people who have coveted (1 Cor 6:9-10). If you stop reading there, you'll realize we're not going to make it. I mean, we've done it all. We're out of luck. But Paul says, "Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God" (1 Cor 6:11). Yes, we were those people ... but ... we're washed, sanctified, and justified. We are ... the righteousness of God in Christ.
It puts us in a strange position. On one hand, we are genuinely guilty of transgressions. On the other hand, we're forgiven. We can agree with God that X was a sin and agree with God that we're forgiven. We can be guilty without feeling guilt, not because we're not guilty but because we are justified by the blood of Christ. A clean slate. And Christ's words to the adulteress echo in our heads: "Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more" (John 8:11). We agree with Joseph. "You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good" (Gen 50:20).
Monday, December 15, 2025
Presence
Yesterday, I wrote about "dwelling in the house of the Lord forever." What does it mean to dwell in the house of the Lord forever? In one sense ... nothing ... or everything. I mean, God doesn't have a "house." Believers are "the Body of Christ" (1 Cor 12:27) and His "temple" (1 Cor 3:16), but clearly His "house" isn't made by hands (Acts 7:48). So it is metaphorically to live in His presence. And what does it mean to live in the presence of God?
Obviously God is not a physical being, so we're not talking about location. Obviously, God is omnipresent, so we are always in His presence. Psalm 145 says, "The Lord is near to all who call upon Him" (Psa 145:18). While the Lord is omnipresent and near to everyone, clearly there is an element of Him being near -- of us being in His presence -- that depends upon us. It is our willingness to be looking at Him. The Aaronic Blessing (Num 6:24-26) talks about God's face shining on us. In a similar sense, to be "in His presence" means we need to be "looking at Him." We need to "seek His face" (2 Chron 7:14).
In Matthew 7, Jesus tells a particular group of people "I never knew you" (Matt 7:21-23). Of course He knew them in the sense of knowledge, but He had no relationship with them. In the same way, we're always in His presence, so living in His presence is more about our awareness than His presence. Living in His presence requires a relationship with Him that we recognize and practice. We need to be "fixing our eyes on Jesus" (Heb 12:2) ... practicing His presence.
Obviously God is not a physical being, so we're not talking about location. Obviously, God is omnipresent, so we are always in His presence. Psalm 145 says, "The Lord is near to all who call upon Him" (Psa 145:18). While the Lord is omnipresent and near to everyone, clearly there is an element of Him being near -- of us being in His presence -- that depends upon us. It is our willingness to be looking at Him. The Aaronic Blessing (Num 6:24-26) talks about God's face shining on us. In a similar sense, to be "in His presence" means we need to be "looking at Him." We need to "seek His face" (2 Chron 7:14).
In Matthew 7, Jesus tells a particular group of people "I never knew you" (Matt 7:21-23). Of course He knew them in the sense of knowledge, but He had no relationship with them. In the same way, we're always in His presence, so living in His presence is more about our awareness than His presence. Living in His presence requires a relationship with Him that we recognize and practice. We need to be "fixing our eyes on Jesus" (Heb 12:2) ... practicing His presence.
Sunday, December 14, 2025
One Thing
In City Slickers (1991), Jack Palance plays a tough cowboy, Curly, to some city slickers. At one point, he tells them what the secret of life is. "One thing." It was enigmatic and vague, but he simply said if you find that "one thing," it gives you the reason to live. David writes,
So simple, yet so outside of our reach. We want so much more ... or, more accurately, so much other. If we made David's "one thing" our own, what a difference it would make. But ... will we?
One thing I have asked from YHWH, that I shall seek: That I may dwell in the house of YHWH all the days of my life, To behold the beauty of YHWH And to meditate in His temple. (Psa 27:4)What was David's "one thing"? To dwell in the house of the Lord. Imagine that kind of focus, that kind of dedication, that kind of commitment to ... remaining in the continuous presence of God. If that was our "one thing," it would be life-changing. Priorities would change, directions altered, purposes adjusted. Nothing would be untouched. Nothing would remain the same.
So simple, yet so outside of our reach. We want so much more ... or, more accurately, so much other. If we made David's "one thing" our own, what a difference it would make. But ... will we?
Friday, December 12, 2025
To the Pure
Sydney Sweeney is a twenty-something actress who recently made the news with her "scandalous" commercial. The apparel company, American Eagle, had her do a commercial playing on the similarity of the word "genes" to "jeans" with the tagline, "Sydney Sweeney has great jeans." Funny. Of course, not anymore. Now it's "Nazi propaganda." She was promoting eugenics. Nonsense, of course, but today our society sees "evil" around every corner where "evil" is defined by "whatever I think it is."
Paul wrote, "To the pure, all things are pure; but to those who are defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure, but both their mind and their conscience are defiled" (Titus 1:15). What does that mean? It does not mean that all impure things become pure to the pure, or that all believers are pure in everything they do. What does it mean? Paul is writing to Titus about establishing the church in Crete. They needed elders (Titus 1:5-9) who would "hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught" (Titus 1:9). This is in direct contradiction to the "insubordinate, empty talkers and deceivers" (Titus 1:10) who needed to be rebuked (Titus 1:13). They were devoting themselves to "the commands of people who turn away from the truth" (Titus 1:14). So, "To the pure, all things are pure" is intended to convey direction. If we are pure, we will pursue the pure. If we are faithful, we will "hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught." We won't be defiled, won't pursue the evil, won't follow human rules instead of God's rules, won't be misled by false teaching.
In our world today, they decry "judgmental" people while being judgmental and "intolerant" people while being intolerant. They cry out for "diversity, equity, and inclusion" while eliminating all of them ... odd, man-made rules that simply end up contradicting themselves. And we Christians aren't immune. Never have been. Back in my day it was "dancing" and "alcohol" and "smoking" kinds of things that have no biblical support, but we were sure we were morally superior because we avoided things we made up as evil. Our society does it all the time, and is getting more irrational in its moral insanity. What we need is not less "genes" commercials. It's a firm grasp on God's word ... what Jesus calls "truth" (John 17:17). Ultimately it's a firm grasp on Christ Himself.
Paul wrote, "To the pure, all things are pure; but to those who are defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure, but both their mind and their conscience are defiled" (Titus 1:15). What does that mean? It does not mean that all impure things become pure to the pure, or that all believers are pure in everything they do. What does it mean? Paul is writing to Titus about establishing the church in Crete. They needed elders (Titus 1:5-9) who would "hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught" (Titus 1:9). This is in direct contradiction to the "insubordinate, empty talkers and deceivers" (Titus 1:10) who needed to be rebuked (Titus 1:13). They were devoting themselves to "the commands of people who turn away from the truth" (Titus 1:14). So, "To the pure, all things are pure" is intended to convey direction. If we are pure, we will pursue the pure. If we are faithful, we will "hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught." We won't be defiled, won't pursue the evil, won't follow human rules instead of God's rules, won't be misled by false teaching.
In our world today, they decry "judgmental" people while being judgmental and "intolerant" people while being intolerant. They cry out for "diversity, equity, and inclusion" while eliminating all of them ... odd, man-made rules that simply end up contradicting themselves. And we Christians aren't immune. Never have been. Back in my day it was "dancing" and "alcohol" and "smoking" kinds of things that have no biblical support, but we were sure we were morally superior because we avoided things we made up as evil. Our society does it all the time, and is getting more irrational in its moral insanity. What we need is not less "genes" commercials. It's a firm grasp on God's word ... what Jesus calls "truth" (John 17:17). Ultimately it's a firm grasp on Christ Himself.
Thursday, December 11, 2025
Don't Panic
The FDA wants to probe adult deaths linked to the COVID vaccine. The "acceptable" story is "no credible evidence of widespread vaccine deaths." VAERS has over 30,000 deaths reported from COVID vaccines, but they're "unverified" and ignored, while "unverified" reports are embraced if it's from an accepted line of thinking. The facts, however, surrounding the whole issue are ... disturbing.
The CDC said masks don't keep you safe. "My mask protects you, and your mask protects me." Yet, people are still wearing masks ... for protection. Reports of deaths from unusual blood clotting and other outcomes from the vaccine were aired and ignored. At one point, the media reported that the pandemic had become "an epidemic of the vaccinated," but vaccinations are still pushed to this day. The CDC admitted that the vaccine didn't prevent infection, the spread of the virus, or death from the virus, but it still pushes this ... not-actual-vaccine. Reports were made early on that something like 60% of the population already had immunity to the coronavirus, but "everyone needs to be vaccinated!" The concept of the "original antigenic sin" came out in all this that warned that vaccinating on the first variant would leave people at serious risk when new variants emerged because the body would have a false sense of security, but vaccinations were required. When they released this vaccine -- quickly, without extensive testing, offering immunity to the companies, and of the unique "mRNA" variety of vaccine -- they admitted "We don't know the long term effects" and still mandated it to so many. Even though deaths were miniscule among the younger population (in the 0.001 to 0.01% range), experimental vaccines for the youngest population were pushed as essential. There were studies that were saying that the methods of fighting the pandemic were causing more deaths than the pandemic itself, but we pushed on. And anyone who argued otherwise on any of these points and more were castigated as "misleading" and "conspiracy theorists."
Deaths are not a good thing. Let's not lose sight of that. Fighting diseases where we can is wise and right. It just seems like ... someone or something manipulated the system here to cause a panic ... a panic that remains to this day in some places and people. (How many masked people do you still see today?) Cooler heads have not really prevailed. Rational thinking has not saved the day. We still seem to operate in panic mode, and if the current panic has lost its force, a new one gets introduced. The news media itself seems to be built on this premise. They report "the news" which, by definition, is not "the ordinary" because "ordinary" is not news, but we pick it up and run around terrified because "that happened!!" For those of you who have a Sovereign God, I recommend this simple approach. "Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all comprehension, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus" (Php 4:6-7). You can quote me on that if you want.
The CDC said masks don't keep you safe. "My mask protects you, and your mask protects me." Yet, people are still wearing masks ... for protection. Reports of deaths from unusual blood clotting and other outcomes from the vaccine were aired and ignored. At one point, the media reported that the pandemic had become "an epidemic of the vaccinated," but vaccinations are still pushed to this day. The CDC admitted that the vaccine didn't prevent infection, the spread of the virus, or death from the virus, but it still pushes this ... not-actual-vaccine. Reports were made early on that something like 60% of the population already had immunity to the coronavirus, but "everyone needs to be vaccinated!" The concept of the "original antigenic sin" came out in all this that warned that vaccinating on the first variant would leave people at serious risk when new variants emerged because the body would have a false sense of security, but vaccinations were required. When they released this vaccine -- quickly, without extensive testing, offering immunity to the companies, and of the unique "mRNA" variety of vaccine -- they admitted "We don't know the long term effects" and still mandated it to so many. Even though deaths were miniscule among the younger population (in the 0.001 to 0.01% range), experimental vaccines for the youngest population were pushed as essential. There were studies that were saying that the methods of fighting the pandemic were causing more deaths than the pandemic itself, but we pushed on. And anyone who argued otherwise on any of these points and more were castigated as "misleading" and "conspiracy theorists."
Deaths are not a good thing. Let's not lose sight of that. Fighting diseases where we can is wise and right. It just seems like ... someone or something manipulated the system here to cause a panic ... a panic that remains to this day in some places and people. (How many masked people do you still see today?) Cooler heads have not really prevailed. Rational thinking has not saved the day. We still seem to operate in panic mode, and if the current panic has lost its force, a new one gets introduced. The news media itself seems to be built on this premise. They report "the news" which, by definition, is not "the ordinary" because "ordinary" is not news, but we pick it up and run around terrified because "that happened!!" For those of you who have a Sovereign God, I recommend this simple approach. "Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all comprehension, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus" (Php 4:6-7). You can quote me on that if you want.
Wednesday, December 10, 2025
Imago Dei
Scripture is clear that God made man in His image (Gen 1:27). Not a question. Some have wondered if, for instance, sin changed that. Apparently not. After the Fall, God says, "Surely I will require your lifeblood; from every beast I will require it. And from every man, from every man's brother I will require the life of man. Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man" (Gen 9:5-6). Clearly, then, we're in the image of God (Imago Dei). But ...in what way?
One way is in Genesis 2. "Then YHWH God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being" (Gen 2:7). When God made other creatures who breathed, He spoke them into existence. When He made Man, He breathed His own breath into him. A soul, if you will, or spirit. Now, these two concepts are linked and difficult to separate -- soul and spirit. We do know that God is spirit (John 4:24). And we know that we have three basic components ... body, soul, and spirit. Some try to remove the distinction between soul and spirit, but Scripture doesn't allow it. They're closely connected, but the author of Hebrews says, "For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart" (Heb 4:12). So the soul and spirit are very closely linked and require a sharp sword to separate them ... so they can be separated. Paul writes about God preserving our "spirit and soul and body" (1 Thess 5:23), so they are distinct.
Humans are made in the image of God in a whole variety of ways, but one, fundamental way is our triune being. God is triune, and so are we. We're obviously the finite version, but there is similarity. We have a physical body, and so does God in the person of Jesus. We have a soul -- mind, will, and emotions -- and these are characteristics often attributed to the Spirit. And we have a spirit -- an essential, spiritual existence -- which correlates to God the Father. We are in the image of God, which is the primary feature that gives us worth above any other created thing.
One way is in Genesis 2. "Then YHWH God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being" (Gen 2:7). When God made other creatures who breathed, He spoke them into existence. When He made Man, He breathed His own breath into him. A soul, if you will, or spirit. Now, these two concepts are linked and difficult to separate -- soul and spirit. We do know that God is spirit (John 4:24). And we know that we have three basic components ... body, soul, and spirit. Some try to remove the distinction between soul and spirit, but Scripture doesn't allow it. They're closely connected, but the author of Hebrews says, "For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart" (Heb 4:12). So the soul and spirit are very closely linked and require a sharp sword to separate them ... so they can be separated. Paul writes about God preserving our "spirit and soul and body" (1 Thess 5:23), so they are distinct.
Humans are made in the image of God in a whole variety of ways, but one, fundamental way is our triune being. God is triune, and so are we. We're obviously the finite version, but there is similarity. We have a physical body, and so does God in the person of Jesus. We have a soul -- mind, will, and emotions -- and these are characteristics often attributed to the Spirit. And we have a spirit -- an essential, spiritual existence -- which correlates to God the Father. We are in the image of God, which is the primary feature that gives us worth above any other created thing.
Tuesday, December 09, 2025
Lies and Fabrications
The question of the morality of lying has always been a point of contention among believers. We have the very plain command, "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor" (Exo 20:16). We know that God "does not lie" (Num 23:19; Titus 1:2; Heb 6:18) (The Hebrews reference says "It is impossible for God to lie.") So ... lying is right out ... right? Well ... maybe. I think the truth is not quite so clear.
We know that it is impossible for God to lie, but in 1 Samuel 16, God commanded the prophet, Samuel, to go anoint a new king. Samuel objected. "When Saul hears of it, he'll kill me." So God said, "Take a heifer and tell them you're there to make a sacrifice" (1 Sam 16:1-2). Hang on, isn't that ... an attempt to deceive ... a "lie"? The question is knotty on its own. Samuel did take a heifer and make a sacrifice ... but that wasn't his reason for going. The sacrifice was secondary. Did God intend to deceive Saul? Yes, it seems so. So ... was it not a lie? I mean, it is impossible for God to lie. That's the question, isn't it? Perhaps the answer lies in the commandment. We're not supposed to "bear false witness." In English, to lie is simply the intention to deceive. You can lie by commission or omission. That is, you can make a false statement or simply withhold the truth. Simply withholding the truth is not defined as a lie unless it is intended to deceive. But the command to not bear false witness puts another condition on it. It appears to include the concept of malice ... the intent to cause harm.
You have events in life and events in Scripture that raise the question. God told Samuel to tell Saul something that was intended to deceive. Was that a sin? Rahab covered up the spies (Jos 2:1-6) and she was called a woman of faith for it (Heb 11:31; James 2:25). God blessed the Hebrew midwives who lied about killing Hebrew babies (Exo 1:15-21). Was it a sin to lie about hiding Jews in Nazi Germany? Clearly the Bible is opposed to lying, but it seems it is expressly against lying in order to harm someone. Maybe ... just maybe ... not all lies are sin. If not, I'm not entirely sure what to do with the "God and Samuel" story. I think it is abundantly clear that, biblically, honesty is the best policy. I just don't want to forbid completely what Scripture may not forbid completely.
We know that it is impossible for God to lie, but in 1 Samuel 16, God commanded the prophet, Samuel, to go anoint a new king. Samuel objected. "When Saul hears of it, he'll kill me." So God said, "Take a heifer and tell them you're there to make a sacrifice" (1 Sam 16:1-2). Hang on, isn't that ... an attempt to deceive ... a "lie"? The question is knotty on its own. Samuel did take a heifer and make a sacrifice ... but that wasn't his reason for going. The sacrifice was secondary. Did God intend to deceive Saul? Yes, it seems so. So ... was it not a lie? I mean, it is impossible for God to lie. That's the question, isn't it? Perhaps the answer lies in the commandment. We're not supposed to "bear false witness." In English, to lie is simply the intention to deceive. You can lie by commission or omission. That is, you can make a false statement or simply withhold the truth. Simply withholding the truth is not defined as a lie unless it is intended to deceive. But the command to not bear false witness puts another condition on it. It appears to include the concept of malice ... the intent to cause harm.
You have events in life and events in Scripture that raise the question. God told Samuel to tell Saul something that was intended to deceive. Was that a sin? Rahab covered up the spies (Jos 2:1-6) and she was called a woman of faith for it (Heb 11:31; James 2:25). God blessed the Hebrew midwives who lied about killing Hebrew babies (Exo 1:15-21). Was it a sin to lie about hiding Jews in Nazi Germany? Clearly the Bible is opposed to lying, but it seems it is expressly against lying in order to harm someone. Maybe ... just maybe ... not all lies are sin. If not, I'm not entirely sure what to do with the "God and Samuel" story. I think it is abundantly clear that, biblically, honesty is the best policy. I just don't want to forbid completely what Scripture may not forbid completely.
Monday, December 08, 2025
With a Twist
The world has a way of taking words that contain important content, redefining the word, then reapplying it as if it had the same content. "Love" is an obvious example. Biblically it is the unconditional concern for the well-being of another, but the world has redefined it as emotional, "warm affection," even "sex." So when we read, "God so loved the world," it's not "God had so much warm affection for the world" as much as "God had such concern for the best interests of the world ..." But we miss it entirely. "Faith" is another good example. All in the Family's Archie Bunker famously defined it this way: "Faith is something you believe that nobody in his right mind would believe." Credulity ... explicitly in opposition to evidence or reason. The biblical word is most correctly defined as "to be convinced," where "convince" means "to overcome in argument," "to firmly persuade or satisfy by argument or evidence." So biblical "faith" is absolutely not believing in something without any reason. It specifically includes argument and evidence. Just two quick examples of the concept of how the world changes a meaning of a word with key content, then reapplies it. "Oh, you have faith? You mean, you believe it without any good reason?" No ... that's not what we mean.
A word I've recently pondered (a word obviously connected to "faith" and "love" above - see 1 Corinthians 13:13) is "hope." Our "hope" today is "fingers crossed, 'please, oh, please" wishing for something that may or may not occur. Biblical "hope" is quite different. Both refer to something future, but ... there the similarity ends. Modern hope is "wishful thinking" predicated on uncertainty. Biblical hope is "confident expectation" predicated on ... God. Our "hope in the Lord" (e.g., Psa 31:24; Psa 42:5; Acts 24:15; Php 2:19) isn't wishful thinking. The Lord ... never fails (1 Cor 1:9-11; Lam 3:22-23; Num 23:19; Psa 145:13; Heb 13:5). Our "hope" does not include an element of chance. It is predicated solely on the faithfulness of our God. We might hope in the modern "wishful thinking" way when we expect things not promised, but God never fails to satisfy every promise He makes and bring to pass every best plan He has (Psa 115:3; Dan 4:35). In fact, like love and faith, hope is a supernatural gift. As Paul winds down his epistle to the church at Rome, he offers a prayer. "Now may the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that you will abound in hope by the power of the Holy Spirit" (Rom 15:13).
The world ... the god of this world ... would like to rob you. He wants to take your superior gifts and substitute inferior products. God offers faith, love, and hope. "Here," the god of this world says, "you have credulity and warm affections and wishful thinking." Don't you believe it. God gives overcoming conviction, a selfless concern for the welfare of others, and a confident certainty of promises to be fulfilled because He is certain, selflessly concerned for us, and unfailing in fulfilling His promises. Don't accept a lesser product because the world is selling you lies in common word wrappings.
A word I've recently pondered (a word obviously connected to "faith" and "love" above - see 1 Corinthians 13:13) is "hope." Our "hope" today is "fingers crossed, 'please, oh, please" wishing for something that may or may not occur. Biblical "hope" is quite different. Both refer to something future, but ... there the similarity ends. Modern hope is "wishful thinking" predicated on uncertainty. Biblical hope is "confident expectation" predicated on ... God. Our "hope in the Lord" (e.g., Psa 31:24; Psa 42:5; Acts 24:15; Php 2:19) isn't wishful thinking. The Lord ... never fails (1 Cor 1:9-11; Lam 3:22-23; Num 23:19; Psa 145:13; Heb 13:5). Our "hope" does not include an element of chance. It is predicated solely on the faithfulness of our God. We might hope in the modern "wishful thinking" way when we expect things not promised, but God never fails to satisfy every promise He makes and bring to pass every best plan He has (Psa 115:3; Dan 4:35). In fact, like love and faith, hope is a supernatural gift. As Paul winds down his epistle to the church at Rome, he offers a prayer. "Now may the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that you will abound in hope by the power of the Holy Spirit" (Rom 15:13).
The world ... the god of this world ... would like to rob you. He wants to take your superior gifts and substitute inferior products. God offers faith, love, and hope. "Here," the god of this world says, "you have credulity and warm affections and wishful thinking." Don't you believe it. God gives overcoming conviction, a selfless concern for the welfare of others, and a confident certainty of promises to be fulfilled because He is certain, selflessly concerned for us, and unfailing in fulfilling His promises. Don't accept a lesser product because the world is selling you lies in common word wrappings.
Sunday, December 07, 2025
Remembrance
There's an old cry ... "Remember the Maine!" The USS Maine was a ship sunk in the Havana harbor in 1898 at the outbreak of the Spanish-American War. It went down with three-quarters of its crew and the claim was that it was sunk by a mine. A newspaper coined the phrase to hype the battle against Spain. Funny thing ... I doubt many of us remember the phrase, let alone the Maine. We have our own version of it: "Never forget." What does that refer to? The attack on September 11, 2001, that killed more than 3,000 people. Of course, for a large number of Americans today ... we've forgotten, and "never" is a lot shorter than we thought it would be. Well, anyone younger than 25 has no personal connection to remember.
How quickly we forget. Today is December 7. President Roosevelt referred to December 7, 1941 as "a date which will live in infamy." (Note the correct quote ... not "a day...".) Today is an annual reminder of an infamous attack on Americans. Almost 2,500 civilians and military personnel died in that single attack. The attack hurled the U.S. into a war in the Pacific that would cost the lives of more than 100,000 American military personnel in the Pacific alone, dwarfing September 11.
Infamy. It's such a simple word. It means the state of being bad. It refers to a wicked act. Quite generic, in a sense. What I think is so sad, though, is how we've come to accept "infamy" as normal and, frankly, forgettable. Almost trivial. For instance, in our world today, just about everything Trump says is considered "evil" or "having bad quality." Infamous. Of course, the other side considers anything Biden or Obama or Clinton said in the same light. And we muddle about, forgetting the truly evil -- overlooking, for instance, the the 65 million babies killed by abortion because they were largely ... "inconvenient." Suddenly Elon Musk isn't nearly as "infamous," is he? We remember minor offenses these days and ignore the big ones ... Pearl Harbor, September 11, every single baby executed for being inconvenient ... very sad.
How quickly we forget. Today is December 7. President Roosevelt referred to December 7, 1941 as "a date which will live in infamy." (Note the correct quote ... not "a day...".) Today is an annual reminder of an infamous attack on Americans. Almost 2,500 civilians and military personnel died in that single attack. The attack hurled the U.S. into a war in the Pacific that would cost the lives of more than 100,000 American military personnel in the Pacific alone, dwarfing September 11.
Infamy. It's such a simple word. It means the state of being bad. It refers to a wicked act. Quite generic, in a sense. What I think is so sad, though, is how we've come to accept "infamy" as normal and, frankly, forgettable. Almost trivial. For instance, in our world today, just about everything Trump says is considered "evil" or "having bad quality." Infamous. Of course, the other side considers anything Biden or Obama or Clinton said in the same light. And we muddle about, forgetting the truly evil -- overlooking, for instance, the the 65 million babies killed by abortion because they were largely ... "inconvenient." Suddenly Elon Musk isn't nearly as "infamous," is he? We remember minor offenses these days and ignore the big ones ... Pearl Harbor, September 11, every single baby executed for being inconvenient ... very sad.
Saturday, December 06, 2025
News Weakly - 12/6/2025
One Way
Israel and Hamas came to a ceasefire agreement in October. Since then, Israel has made multiple attacks. People are upset ... but no one seems to ask why? They carried out another one this week, and the media is quite sure Israel is the offender. No one seems to admit that Hamas keeps shooting at Israel, threatening to pull out of the agreement, failing to release the promised hostages, and targeting civilians. No, no, it's evil Israel's wrongdoing. A strange "one way" to look at the situation.
Enemy at the Gates
After Biden's botched Afghanistan withdrawal debacle that left Afghans ... women especially ... in peril, a program of allowing Afghans to come here almost indiscriminately has caused its own problems. Last week it was a shooting in Washington D.C. by an Afghan. This week, DHS arrested another Afghan national for a bomb threat in Texas. Can this be directly attributed to the Biden administration? Maybe ... maybe not ... but ... it's not good. Are the open border types, "sanctuary city" types, going to defend these immigrants?
Can You Hear Me Now?
Here's an interesting one. Costco, a traditionally left-leaning company (They don't lobby or endorse ... but 98% of their political donations are to Democrats and their aims.) is suing the Trump administration for his tariffs. Presidents have used tariffs in the past even if it's Congress's job to do it, but Costco is finally making a political statement and revealing their true position. That is, if, in our nation, it is illegal for Trump to do this, the authorities should be handling it, not ... Costco.
Duh!
I've thought this for a long time, but now a study agrees. The Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development Study (ABCD) between 2018 and 2020 concluded that children who are given smartphones before the age of 12 are at a higher risk for obesity, poor sleep, and other problems. Starting with television before the age of 5 all the way to smartphones before the age of 12, we're finding over and over our "improved technology" has some astoundingly bad unintended consequences for our children ... and we just keep doing it.
Your Best Source of Fake News
A woman in Boulder, Colorado, did her part in fulfilling the Great Commission by going out and purchasing a mug that says, "All I need Today is a little bit of coffee and a whole lot of Jesus." She's wearing her faith right out front and taking the gospel to the world ... sort of. It seems that Minnesota has made the list of "foreign countries" HSS Secretary Kristi Noem is planning to ban travel to (actual story). I can sympathize. In many ways it does seem like a foreign country. Finally, in a little reported story, apparently Secretary of War Pete Hegseth in his assault on illegal drugs (14 strikes since September) sent drones to target Hunter Biden in an attempt to decrease the demand for illegal drugs. Well ... I mean ... it does make some sense ... right?
Must be true; I read it on the internet.
Israel and Hamas came to a ceasefire agreement in October. Since then, Israel has made multiple attacks. People are upset ... but no one seems to ask why? They carried out another one this week, and the media is quite sure Israel is the offender. No one seems to admit that Hamas keeps shooting at Israel, threatening to pull out of the agreement, failing to release the promised hostages, and targeting civilians. No, no, it's evil Israel's wrongdoing. A strange "one way" to look at the situation.
Enemy at the Gates
After Biden's botched Afghanistan withdrawal debacle that left Afghans ... women especially ... in peril, a program of allowing Afghans to come here almost indiscriminately has caused its own problems. Last week it was a shooting in Washington D.C. by an Afghan. This week, DHS arrested another Afghan national for a bomb threat in Texas. Can this be directly attributed to the Biden administration? Maybe ... maybe not ... but ... it's not good. Are the open border types, "sanctuary city" types, going to defend these immigrants?
Can You Hear Me Now?
Here's an interesting one. Costco, a traditionally left-leaning company (They don't lobby or endorse ... but 98% of their political donations are to Democrats and their aims.) is suing the Trump administration for his tariffs. Presidents have used tariffs in the past even if it's Congress's job to do it, but Costco is finally making a political statement and revealing their true position. That is, if, in our nation, it is illegal for Trump to do this, the authorities should be handling it, not ... Costco.
Duh!
I've thought this for a long time, but now a study agrees. The Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development Study (ABCD) between 2018 and 2020 concluded that children who are given smartphones before the age of 12 are at a higher risk for obesity, poor sleep, and other problems. Starting with television before the age of 5 all the way to smartphones before the age of 12, we're finding over and over our "improved technology" has some astoundingly bad unintended consequences for our children ... and we just keep doing it.
Your Best Source of Fake News
A woman in Boulder, Colorado, did her part in fulfilling the Great Commission by going out and purchasing a mug that says, "All I need Today is a little bit of coffee and a whole lot of Jesus." She's wearing her faith right out front and taking the gospel to the world ... sort of. It seems that Minnesota has made the list of "foreign countries" HSS Secretary Kristi Noem is planning to ban travel to (actual story). I can sympathize. In many ways it does seem like a foreign country. Finally, in a little reported story, apparently Secretary of War Pete Hegseth in his assault on illegal drugs (14 strikes since September) sent drones to target Hunter Biden in an attempt to decrease the demand for illegal drugs. Well ... I mean ... it does make some sense ... right?
Must be true; I read it on the internet.
Friday, December 05, 2025
A Mind Like That
Therefore if there is any encouragement in Christ, if there is any consolation of love, if there is any fellowship of the Spirit, if any affection and compassion, make my joy complete by being of the same mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose. (Php 2:1-2)A typical poorly-placed chapter break. It begins with "therefore" and we're left trying to chase down what it's there for. Paul calls for unity. He specifies the kind of unity he's commanding ... "one purpose." Not uniformity. Direction. He encourages them to do it for "encouragement in Christ" and "consolation of love" and "fellowship of the Spirit" and to make his joy complete. But ... on what basis? What is the "therefore" there for?
Philippi seems to have been one of Paul's most beloved churches. It's an affectionate epistle and he's delighted with them. He encourages them that "He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus" (Php 1:6). He writes about the success of his imprisonment (Php 1:7,12-17). He affirms his singular aim: "in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and in this I rejoice" (Php 1:18). And he tells them how living and dying is all good (Php 1:21). His one request: "conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or remain absent, I will hear of you that you are standing firm in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel" (Php 1:27). "A manner worthy of the gospel." Paul uses a similar phrase in Ephesians as well (Eph 4:1). So ... what does "worthy of the gospel" look like? "Of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind." He goes on to say revolutionary things like, "in humility count others more significant than yourselves" (Php 2:3) and "Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others" (Php 2:4), but the perfect model of what our "same mind" is supposed to look like is ... Jesus.
Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus (Php 2:5)That's the unifying purpose, the "one mind" that we're supposed to be aiming for. Paul isn't vague, either. What "mind" is he specifically referencing? Jesus didn't consider being "equal with God" something to cling too tightly to. Instead, He "emptied Himself" (Php 2:7) and "humbled Himself" ... literally to death (Php 2:8). For the sake of others ... those He chose, those He loved ... Christ ... gave self up. That, Paul says, is the mind we are to have. So simple -- "Consider others as more important than yourself" -- and yet, so very, very hard to do. It's a lot easier if being in Christ is your primary purpose and joy.
Thursday, December 04, 2025
Lines of Thinking
I'm a people watcher. I like doing that. But it can be disappointing sometimes. It's very clear that the standard mode of thinking for just about everyone is "Me." Think about it.
You're shopping in a grocery store, pushing a cart, gathering what you need. You find the area of something you need and start searching for a particular thing. Do you think, "I'll put my cart here, where it's most convenient for me," or do you think, "I'll put my cart over here, where it's out of other people's way"? I'm driving down the road, and the light is red up ahead, and I'm hoping to get to the left turn lane before the left turn light turns green, but the guy in front of me is slowing. Is he thinking, "I'm watching the traffic around me, trying to make the driving experience for those around me more pleasant" or is he thinking, "Hey, the light is red ... I don't have to hurry"? You're having a discussion with your spouse and they aren't giving you what you think they should. Are you thinking, "They're not giving me what I need" or are you wondering, "Am I giving them what they need?"
It's such an easy, natural thing. A fellow I knew was excited about the woman he hoped to marry. "I think she'll bring all sorts of good things to my life." "But," I asked him, "will you bring all sorts of good things to her life?" We just don't often think down those lines. We're better at, "I don't like that; I wish they wouldn't do that to me" than "What do I like ... I want to go do that for others." Thinking about what I need is easy. Looking around and finding what people need in order to supply it isn't as easy. And, yet, it's our calling. "Love your neighbor as yourself."
You're shopping in a grocery store, pushing a cart, gathering what you need. You find the area of something you need and start searching for a particular thing. Do you think, "I'll put my cart here, where it's most convenient for me," or do you think, "I'll put my cart over here, where it's out of other people's way"? I'm driving down the road, and the light is red up ahead, and I'm hoping to get to the left turn lane before the left turn light turns green, but the guy in front of me is slowing. Is he thinking, "I'm watching the traffic around me, trying to make the driving experience for those around me more pleasant" or is he thinking, "Hey, the light is red ... I don't have to hurry"? You're having a discussion with your spouse and they aren't giving you what you think they should. Are you thinking, "They're not giving me what I need" or are you wondering, "Am I giving them what they need?"
It's such an easy, natural thing. A fellow I knew was excited about the woman he hoped to marry. "I think she'll bring all sorts of good things to my life." "But," I asked him, "will you bring all sorts of good things to her life?" We just don't often think down those lines. We're better at, "I don't like that; I wish they wouldn't do that to me" than "What do I like ... I want to go do that for others." Thinking about what I need is easy. Looking around and finding what people need in order to supply it isn't as easy. And, yet, it's our calling. "Love your neighbor as yourself."
Wednesday, December 03, 2025
The Mission Field
I went to a church some time ago that had a plaque over the exit that read something like, "Now entering the mission field." I got it. We're supposed to witness to our neighbors. Sure. But witnessing in the United States is different than taking the Gospel to, say, tribes who have never heard. Americans are largely ... inoculated. They've gotten a dose of the truth and become immune, if you will. But ... that was then.
Every year our church puts on this "Christmas Block Party." They fill the whole property with ... stuff ... Nativity plays, concerts, merchandise from artisans, train rides, a petting zoo ... oh, and cookies. Lots and lots of cookies. And they invite the community. Last year, they went to the guy at the petting zoo and asked to borrow a sheep for the Nativity play. "What's a Nativity play?" he asked. It was surprising that someone in America wouldn't know what a Nativity play was. But .. he hadn't a clue.
We are commanded to share the Gospel (Mark 16:15). We are commanded to make disciples (Matt 28:19). The job is big ... huge. And it's not "out there." It's next door. Often it's in our own homes. It's bigger than we can handle. So ... how do we manage this? Jesus prefaced His command to make disciples with an important statement. "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth" (Matt 28:18). Thus, we have the authority who is telling us to do it. He ends the command with another critical piece. "I am with you always, even to the end of the age" (Matt 28:20). That's how we manage this monumental task. We follow His command and understand He is always with us. It's not just us. It's not our efforts. It's His work. And it is all around us.
Every year our church puts on this "Christmas Block Party." They fill the whole property with ... stuff ... Nativity plays, concerts, merchandise from artisans, train rides, a petting zoo ... oh, and cookies. Lots and lots of cookies. And they invite the community. Last year, they went to the guy at the petting zoo and asked to borrow a sheep for the Nativity play. "What's a Nativity play?" he asked. It was surprising that someone in America wouldn't know what a Nativity play was. But .. he hadn't a clue.
We are commanded to share the Gospel (Mark 16:15). We are commanded to make disciples (Matt 28:19). The job is big ... huge. And it's not "out there." It's next door. Often it's in our own homes. It's bigger than we can handle. So ... how do we manage this? Jesus prefaced His command to make disciples with an important statement. "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth" (Matt 28:18). Thus, we have the authority who is telling us to do it. He ends the command with another critical piece. "I am with you always, even to the end of the age" (Matt 28:20). That's how we manage this monumental task. We follow His command and understand He is always with us. It's not just us. It's not our efforts. It's His work. And it is all around us.
Tuesday, December 02, 2025
From Fear to Success
Yesterday I wrote about the fear of God. No ... the terror. The right terror. So this one should be quite a contrast. In Deuteronomy 34, Moses dies. Dead. Gone. Deuteronomy ends with
God has a message for the new leader of His people. He promises him complete victory, and then says,
In this text, there is another repeated concept. God uses the word "success" twice.
And there has not arisen a prophet since in Israel like Moses, whom YHWH knew face to face, none like him for all the signs and the wonders that YHWH sent him to do in the land of Egypt, to Pharaoh and to all his servants and to all his land, and for all the mighty power and all the great deeds of terror that Moses did in the sight of all Israel. (Deu 34:10-12)Turn the page, and we read in Joshua 1
Now it came about after the death of Moses the servant of YHWH, that YHWH spoke to Joshua the son of Nun, Moses' servant, saying, "Moses My servant is dead; now therefore arise, cross this Jordan, you and all this people, to the land which I am giving to them, to the sons of Israel. (Josh 1:1-2)You're Joshua. What do you think? "Hey, hang on. I never wanted this. I'm not ready for it. I'm nowhere near what Moses was. And ... You're sending me into battle? Against all those people over there?" Joshua had to be terrified.
God has a message for the new leader of His people. He promises him complete victory, and then says,
"Be strong and courageous, for you shall give this people possession of the land which I swore to their fathers to give them. Only be strong and very courageous; be careful to do according to all the law which Moses My servant commanded you; do not turn from it to the right or to the left, so that you may have success wherever you go. (Jos 1:6-7)"Be strong and courageous." Not once, but twice. Repetition is emphasis, and God wasn't asking Joshua to feel brave; it was a command. Why? On what basis could Joshua be "strong and courageous" in these circumstances? Because God was there. Because God had promised. Because Joshua was in the middle of God's plan. That is, the God who terrifies is also the God who fortifies.
In this text, there is another repeated concept. God uses the word "success" twice.
"Only be strong and very courageous; be careful to do according to all the law which Moses My servant commanded you; do not turn from it to the right or to the left, so that you may have success wherever you go. This book of the law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it; for then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have success. (Josh 1:7-8)"You may have success." What was the secret to the success? In the first case, it was a careful obedience to God's word. In the other it was a careful consideration ("meditate on it day and night") of God's word. This, God says, produces success. God's presence and God's promises and God's word ... these are the secrets to overcoming fear and producing success. How far are we as humans, as a nation, as Christians from these simple truths that produce God-given success? Trust God and follow His word. It's not that hard ... and yet ...
Monday, December 01, 2025
Terrifying
I grew up with Bible stories. I loved them ... still do. Stories of Adam and Eve, Noah, Abraham sacrificing Isaac, oh, and Jacob and Esau. On and on. Jacob stole his brother's birthright and is sent to Laban. On the way, he sleeps and dreams. The famous "Jacob's ladder." God promises him blessings and he wakes up excited ... well ... not quite. "Then Jacob awoke from his sleep and said, 'Surely YHWH is in this place, and I did not know it.' And he was afraid and said, 'How awesome is this place! This is none other than the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven'" (Gen 28:16-17). (Note: That "awesome" is literally "fearful.") Jacob wasn't delighted; he was terrified.
It's a running theme. Think of Isaiah, God's chosen mouthpiece, one of God's prophets. A "major" prophet. He encountered God like no one else. Seraphim cry, "Holy, holy, holy!" and Isaiah is wonderfully enthralled. But ... no. Isaiah is terrified ... because of his mouth "Woe is me, for I am ruined! Because I am a man of unclean lips, And I live among a people of unclean lips; For my eyes have seen the King, YHWH of hosts" (Isa 6:5). Isaiah wasn't excited. He was ... damah in Hebrew. Cut off, ended, destroyed. Not, "Wow! Cool!" Terror. Or, Peter (Luke 5:1-10). Jesus "borrowed" Peter's boat as a platform for teaching. When He was done, He told them to drop their nets. Peter protested, but ... did it ... and caught enough fish to start to rip the nets. Being Jewish, he pulled out a contract to have Jesus visit once a week. No! He "fell down at Jesus' feet, saying, 'Go away from me Lord, for I am a sinful man!'" (Luke 5:8). Terror. One of my favorites is the one where they're crossing the Sea of Galilee and a storm hits (Mark 4:35-41). Jesus is asleep in the boat. They're in trouble. They're afraid. So they wake Him. "Teacher, do You not care that we are perishing?" (Mark 4:38). Jesus simply said, "Hush, be still," and the storm instantly stopped. And the text says, "They became very much afraid and said to one another, 'Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey Him?'" (Mar 4:41). Terror.
It has been said the most offensive verse in the Bible is this one: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Gen 1:1). Natural humans are, by nature, hostile to God (Rom 8:7). We have, as a race, suppressed the truth of God (Rom 1:18) and "exchanged the truth of God for a lie" (Rom 1:25). As a result, when we, clothed in our sin and rebellion, actually encounter God up close and personal, it has to be ... terrifying. Not pleasant. When we get comfortable in our sin and come face to face with Him, it has to be the most terrifying thing we can encounter. Not the warm "Big Man Upstairs" kind of experience. The "beginning of wisdom" kind of thing (Psa 111:10).
It's a running theme. Think of Isaiah, God's chosen mouthpiece, one of God's prophets. A "major" prophet. He encountered God like no one else. Seraphim cry, "Holy, holy, holy!" and Isaiah is wonderfully enthralled. But ... no. Isaiah is terrified ... because of his mouth "Woe is me, for I am ruined! Because I am a man of unclean lips, And I live among a people of unclean lips; For my eyes have seen the King, YHWH of hosts" (Isa 6:5). Isaiah wasn't excited. He was ... damah in Hebrew. Cut off, ended, destroyed. Not, "Wow! Cool!" Terror. Or, Peter (Luke 5:1-10). Jesus "borrowed" Peter's boat as a platform for teaching. When He was done, He told them to drop their nets. Peter protested, but ... did it ... and caught enough fish to start to rip the nets. Being Jewish, he pulled out a contract to have Jesus visit once a week. No! He "fell down at Jesus' feet, saying, 'Go away from me Lord, for I am a sinful man!'" (Luke 5:8). Terror. One of my favorites is the one where they're crossing the Sea of Galilee and a storm hits (Mark 4:35-41). Jesus is asleep in the boat. They're in trouble. They're afraid. So they wake Him. "Teacher, do You not care that we are perishing?" (Mark 4:38). Jesus simply said, "Hush, be still," and the storm instantly stopped. And the text says, "They became very much afraid and said to one another, 'Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey Him?'" (Mar 4:41). Terror.
It has been said the most offensive verse in the Bible is this one: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Gen 1:1). Natural humans are, by nature, hostile to God (Rom 8:7). We have, as a race, suppressed the truth of God (Rom 1:18) and "exchanged the truth of God for a lie" (Rom 1:25). As a result, when we, clothed in our sin and rebellion, actually encounter God up close and personal, it has to be ... terrifying. Not pleasant. When we get comfortable in our sin and come face to face with Him, it has to be the most terrifying thing we can encounter. Not the warm "Big Man Upstairs" kind of experience. The "beginning of wisdom" kind of thing (Psa 111:10).
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)