A Bowl of Cherries

"Life is a bowl of cherries," they say. You know ... everything is beautiful, sweet, warm ... in some other parallel universe, of course, because it's clearly not in our reality. Erma Bombeck wrote a book titled, "If Life Is a Bowl of Cherries, What Am I Doing in the Pits?" ... because "a bowl of cherries" is not our experience in life. This is why a sustainable worldview must address the pits before it ever deals with the cherries. And Scripture does an amazing job of it.

Almost as soon as God declares "It was very good" over Creation (Gen 1:31), we run into a broken world where sin enters and death because of it (Gen 3:17). Solomon's Ecclesiastes is full of declarations of the difficulties of life, beginning with "Vanity of vanities, says the Preacher, vanity of vanities! All is vanity" (Eccl 1:2). David declares, "YHWH is near to the brokenhearted and saves the crushed in spirit" (Psa 34:18). Jesus came as a "man of sorrows" (Isa 53:3) who has "borne our griefs and carried our sorrows" (Isa 53:4). The traditional symbol of Christianity is the cross ... suffering. Yet, Paul writes, "... we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not put us to shame, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us" (Rom 5:3-5). James writes, "Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance. And let endurance have its perfect result, so that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing" (James 1:2-4). These aren't just "buck up and hold on" texts. They're "positive outcome" passages that assure us that, yes, there is suffering, but it's for the best.

If God is sovereign (and He is) and He always accomplishes the best (and He does), it alters our existence in the worst of times. We can "count it all joy" (I like the King James phrase) when we encounter trials because, like Joseph told his brothers, "You meant evil against me, but God meant it for good" (Gen 50:20). The enemies of God mean evil against us ... "but God." God doesn't mean it to be tolerated or endured. He means it for good. A "life is a bowl of cherries" outlook is a cheerful lie that ultimately can't stand up to reality. "God means it for good" is the truth that allows us to stand in the fire without getting burned and end up better off for it.

Such a Deal

We have a really interesting faith. Everyone knows we're supposed to be obedient. It's a lot of work. You know we're commanded to do some rather incredible things, like "pray without ceasing" (1 Thess 5:17) and "Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials" (James 1:2-4). I mean, seriously ... consider it all joy??? And then there's the whole, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind" (Matt 22:37). I mean, sure, we'd like to love Him fully ... but ... we just can't. And that's just some of it. None of us measure up.

So we read some wonderful statements in Scripture ... that we sometimes seem to miss. For instance, we are commanded to "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" (Php 2:12). Wait ... that's not easy. The command itself recognizes it ... "with fear and trembling." So ... let's knuckle under ... but ... not yet. Notice the next verse, giving us important information. "For it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure" (Php 2:13). Do you see that? We're commanded to work out our salvation because it's God at work in us. Because He gives us the will and power to do it. Paul tells us that God "is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think, according to the power at work within us" (Eph 3:20). Read that again. The power that can do "far more abundantly" than anything we can "ask or think" is "at work within us" ... now. And remember, God is the one who is completing what He started in you (Php 1:6; Rom 8:30). On and on.

It turns out that my God will supply all your needs. We need faith ... He supplies it. We need repentance ... He supplies it. We need grace and mercy and love ... He supplies it. We need strength ... and He supplies it. We need the will to do what He wants and the ability to do what He wants ... and He supplies it. We need to be shaped in to the image of His Son ... and He does it. And then rewards us for it. Such a deal!

News Weakly - 1/17/2026

I Don't Even ...
What do we do with a story like this? Mattel has introduced a new Barbie doll to their line. It's an autistic Barbie, intended to "celebrate diversity." There are already Barbies with Down syndrome, a blind Barbie, and dolls with vitiligo. But things like "blind" and "autism" aren't things we see, exactly, and these dolls don't do anything, so if it's not a visible trait, how does a doll help? I understand that everyone needs respect, but is a Barbie doll the best way to encourage it? To me, it feels more like trivializing it. (And it's ironic since Barbie historically excluded almost everyone "but the beautiful" as defined by ... Barbie.)

Iranian Freedom
Iranians have been protesting their government loudly for two weeks now. They're protesting economic decline and calling for a regime change and the return of Reza Pahlavi. So, as any civilized nation would do ... Iran is killing protesters by the hundreds. Pahlavi is the crown prince of the last shah, but he's not his father. He's not in favor of "Monarchy 2.0." He wants democracy for Iran. Clearly the current government is not in favor of Pahlavi ... or their own people.

The Double Standard
New York Attorney General Letitia James settled with a Jewish group she accused of trying to intimidate pro-Palestinian activists. Her "settlement" was to threaten them with a $50,000 penalty. "New York will not tolerate organizations that use fear, violence and intimidation to silence free expression or target people because of who they are," she said ... you know ... like the pro-Palestinian protesters do by definition. Talk about double standards.

Butt Heads
California Governor Newsom is butting heads with Louisiana who is trying to get a doctor extradited for mailing illegal abortion drugs to a patient in Louisiana. Newsom says, "No!" He's standing firm on being allowed to kill babies and will refuse to respect other states' laws. Because killing babies is considered "reproductive health care services." I can only imagine what the rest of their "health care" looks like when killing patients is classified as "health care services."

Your Best Source for Fake News
As Trump threatens to annex Greenland (actual story), NATO is asking the U.S. for emergency funding to defend Greenland from the U.S. It doesn't help that new recruitment ads say, "Visit lovely Greenland." And, with the Supreme Court hearing a case on transgender athletes (actual story), SCOTUS has asked a five-year-old to explain the difference between boys and girls. Helpful ... unless, of course, the five-year-old has already been inculcated by the latest gender insanity.

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

The Virtue No One Wants?

Paul wrote to the Galatians the difference between the "works of the flesh" versus the "fruit of the Spirit." He says, "The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience ..." and I have this sense of "Patience?" I mean, we're all good with "love, joy, peace," but ... patience? Who really wants patience?

The Greek word is "makrothumia," built on "makros" (where we get our word "macro" ... "large, long") and "thumos", meaning passion, fierceness. So when the King James refers to it as "longsuffering," it's pretty accurate. It is a trait God has ... toward us. (Rom 2:4). It is the ability to endure people, circumstances, or even injustice without retaliation. See? Why do we want that?

Well, another place the word is used in Paul's description of love (1 Cor 13:4). "Love is patient." So, if "patient" is part of the description of "love," and we are commanded to love (Matt 22:37-40) and be known for our love (John 13:35), it would seem that this would be a critical virtue. Fortunately ... it's not something we produce. It's a fruit of the Spirit. Of course, you know how He does it ... a lot of people, circumstances, and even injustice to endure without retaliation. Tough? Maybe. Necessary? Absolutely.

Where is God?

C.S. Lewis once said, "We relate to God as Hamlet would relate to Shakespeare." What does that mean? The creature can't find the Creator. The character can't discover the Author. He went on to say, "If God is our Creator, then we would relate to God as Hamlet would relate to Shakespeare. Now, how would Hamlet ever know anything about Shakespeare? Hamlet's not going to find him anywhere on stage. The only way he's ever going to meet him is if Shakespeare writes himself into the play."

I like the imagery. I get it. Using the Hamlet metaphor, Hamlet never sought for Shakespeare. It just ... didn't happen. Couldn't. Similarly, Scripture states categorically, "No one seeks for God" (Rom 3:11; Psa 14:2). Instead, we read, "The mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot" (Rom 8:7). So we suppress the truth about God (Rom 1:18-21) and we are hostile to God and we don't seek Him. How, then, can there be any hope? Paul told the Gentile believers, "Remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world" (Eph 2:12). Without hope and without God ... that describes the human race in its natural condition. That's why the "but God" texts are so magnificent. "But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ" (Eph 2:4-5). "But God shows His love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" (Rom 5:8). "But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong" (1 Cor 1:27).

Jesus "became flesh and dwelt among us" (John 1:14). He "emptied Himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men, and being found in human form, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross" (Php 2:7-8). The Author became part of the story. Hope for the hopeless. Grace for the graceless. Mercy where justice demands death. Amazing, "the immeasurable riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus" (Eph 2:7).

An Inconvenient Truth

The Twilight Zone original series had some good episodes, but one of my favorites was The Obsolete Man (script). In it, Burgess Meredith plays a librarian in a totalitarian nation. They've eliminated books (and God) and are now going to execute a "librarian" because the role is no longer necessary. He's obsolete. The character is interesting. He argues that the state "has one iron rule: Logic is an enemy, and truth is a menace." I'm pretty sure the authors of the episode didn't know they were being biblical (Rom 1:18).

It doesn't take a totalitarian state to arrive at this. Consider ... advertising. We have "truth in advertising" laws, but they're practically meaningless these days. They make subjective claims like "no ANNOYING ads" where "annoying" is undefined and can't be proven, thereby nullifying the "no ads" claim. You'll see something like "Up to 50% off" which simply claims that nothing will be more than 50% off, and is not a promise of storewide savings. "Results may vary" and "clinically tested" are intentionally unclear. There is a gap between actual truthfulness and practical honesty (what a normal person would assume). Here's the thing. Our world has discounted the concept of "truth" as an objective thing. We're fine with "my truth" and "your truth" ... sometimes ... but refuse to believe that there is actual truth. Our culture, not just our government, has begun to view truth as a menace. AI, for instance, is programmed to ignore the concept as relative. AI is trained by observing, and the "trainers" don't believe in objective truth, so neither does the AI model. (I asked one AI if this was true and it said it was. Funny, right?) Humans hold opposing statements in each hand and accept them both, so AI does the same. Then some lawyers, for instance, ask for cases that support their position, the AI manufactures them because ... no one said they had to be true.

Jesus told Pilate, "Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice," to which Pilate responded, "What is truth?" (John 18:37-38). It's not a new problem. But Jesus said, "I am ... the Truth" (John 14:6). He said God's word is truth (John 17:17). We know objective truth exists. Jesus said, "For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to testify to the truth" (John 18:37), so anyone who rejects the truth ... can't handle the Truth.

Independence

We in America value "independence." Just what is independence? According to the dictionary, it means, "not subject to control by others." Well ... sort of. I mean, we are subject to the control of others in life. It also means, "not requiring or relying on something else : not contingent." But ... we are contingent. We require farmers and merchants and law enforcement and friends and family and ... a very long list of others. It seems like "independence" is a myth ... and ought to be.

What is it that drives our love of "independence"? Part of it is the idea of self-control. We like to believe we are captains of our own fate. Another is self-authorship. We want to think we're the protagonists of our own story. In the 1950s and 60s, psychologist Harry Harlow did experiments with monkeys. His experiments showed that humans don't just want touch; they need it. As in orphanages where children experienced minimal contact, humans are stunted, weakened, suffer cognitive delays, and a dramatically higher mortality rate. Conversely, science shows us that skin-to-skin contact of newborns stabilizes their heart rate and breathing, increases oxytocin, and produces stronger bonds and better emotional regulation. That is, we aren't just better if we're not independent. We are born dependent, remain interdependent, and cannot survive actual independence.

Independence actually is a myth. Hillary famously said, "It takes a village to raise a child." She had large political intentions and I decry some of them, but the fact is ... we are a race that requires community -- family, friends, neighbors, farther and farther out. The early church made a practice of it. "Day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart" (Acts 2:46). Believers are commanded to not forsake our own assembling together (Heb 10:25). Jesus said, "By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another" (John 13:35). Our drive for "independence" is a drive for a myth that can't actually occur and shouldn't actually occur. Instead, dependence on the God who owns us and saved us and on each other is the ultimate good (Matt 22:37-40). It's our sin nature that pushes us toward independence, and it's clearly the wrong direction.

Not That David

(I have a regular commenter here. This is NOT about him. Not that David.)

I don't like most movies offering a presentation of biblical characters. They just normally ... mess it up. But my bride wanted to see the new Angel Studios film, David, so we went. It did indeed ignore a lot of biblical facts, and manufacture others ... the kind of thing that will make audiences come away with the thought that "So, that's how it was" when it wasn't. But ... I was actually pleasantly surprised at the message despite the historical failings.

There were undeniable errors, omissions and leaps. As a shepherd, David took on the lion ... but only defeated him and later freed him ... even though the account says he killed it. Saul threw a spear at David because Saul knew David had been anointed king. Well ... no ... it's not in there. They skipped the part where David beheaded Goliath after hitting him with the rock. Fine. Whatever. But the running theme, indeed, the main message of the movie was that God — not human strength, charisma, or kingship — is the true source of help, guidance, and victory. That God, indeed, is always right in what He does. In one musical part (there was a lot of music, which, I guess, could have been since David wrote so many psalms), David is in distress and on the run, crying out "Why, God?" In a parallel moment, his mother is running with her family for their lives singing, "My God ..." and assuring everyone that the God that David was questioning was reliable in every circumstance, a skillfully woven counterpoint "duet" with a message. God was everywhere in the story, from his anointing to a butterfly picking a stone for David to throw. No ... that's not in the Bible, but the message was "God is in everything." The message was our courage rooted not in self-confidence or arrogance, but in God.

Images can be dangerous in portraying biblical stories. We can substitute the images for the truth of the text. But this movie declared boldly what many Christians miss ... God chooses, guides, and empowers humble people who trust Him, while human strength and human kings inevitably fail. It intentionally fixes our eyes on God rather than Man. Similar to Paul's "What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and in this I rejoice. Yes, and I will rejoice" (Php 1:18), I suppose I'm glad that in some small way, Christ is proclaimed, whether in pretense or in truth. Am I recommending the movie? No ... just the message.

Pray Like Daniel

Jesus explicitly taught His disciples "that at all times they ought to pray and not to lose heart" (Luke 18:1). Jesus prayed often (e.g., Mark 1:35; Luke 6:12; Matt 26:39). Paul commanded, "Pray without ceasing" (1 Thess 5:17). Scripture repeatedly urges and commands prayer.

I read this stuff and I think, "What about me? How is my prayer life?" I think about our society today where it's ... not kosher to pray in public. I grew up in a culture where my family would routinely pray in a restaurant, for instance. The public didn't mind. Fast forward to today and it's frowned on, mocked, and ridiculed. And then I think of Daniel. In Persia, Daniel's enemies sought to accuse him, so they tricked King Darius into passing a law against praying to anyone but the king (Dan 6:1-9). Here's the thing ... Daniel knew it (Dan 6:10). So ... what did he do? He went to his roof chamber with windows opened and prayed ... openly, "as he had been doing previously." The State illegally banned praying in schools ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof") and we caved. We decided to pray in private, out of sight, doors closed. "Well, maybe that's pointless. Let's just ... pray less. Okay ... maybe very little." It sounds similar to Daniel's situation ... except for one thing. Daniel continued to pray "as he had been doing previously." Were we?

Prayer is recommended, urged, commanded. The God of the universe asks His people to ... talk to Him, to "let your requests be made known to God" (Php 4:6-7). He sends His Holy Spirit to assist us in praying (Rom 8:26-27). He promises blessings ... and, too often, instead of bowing in prayer, we bow out of praying. Will we be "Daniels" and pray boldly, or just be disobedient?

News Weakly - 1/10/2026

The Trump Card
Our president has opted to attack a foreign country, capture their president and his wife, then declare, "We’re going to run the country ..." They're still debating the "attack a foreign country" sense of this and all, but this may be his biggest blunder yet, as it appears to constitute an invasion of a foreign nation without congressional approval. (How would we react if another nation attacked Washington D.C. and arrested our president?) The War Powers Resolution only allows action like this in the case of imminent threat to Americans and it doesn't appear that Venezuela constituted an "imminent threat." Now ... will we see a president get dismantled by the Constitution ... or vice versa?

Justice or Retaliation?
The Pentagon is seeking to demote Senator Mark Kelly after he has retired because of his "seditious statements" urging the military to refuse to follow orders on Mark Kelly's definition of "unlawful orders." It will decrease his retirement pay. The story says "The Pentagon" is trying to do this, but it's obviously Pete Hesgeth, the Secretary of Defense ... who appears to be going to war with the Left ... kind of like the "Secretary of War."

Homeland Security?
The DHS reported that a Minneapolis Hilton Hotel canceled reservations for ICE agents assigned to work in Minneapolis during the fraud investigations. Clearly, the local owner is operating his own "homeland security" scheme of trying to protect Minneapolis against law enforcement. (Don't make this about Hilton Hotels as a corporation. It should be noted that Hilton dropped the hotel from its listings.) It does suggest an atmosphere of opposition to federal law enforcement, which suggests that the majority of Minneapolitans are rightly represented by their local government ... opposing their nation. (The whole fraud investigation is enough of a problem to force Governor Walz to drop out of his reelection bid.)

A Map to be "All Over"
Trump has pressed boundaries with things like tariffs and now an invasion of another nation for ... "law enforcement," just to name a couple. But he urged Republicans to be "flexible" in demanding restrictions on federal funds for abortion coverage. Arresting a foreign president is (apparently) a high principle, but discouraging baby-killing isn't. He freezes $10 billion in child care funds on principle. He forces Venezuela to surrender 30 to 50 million barrels of oil on principle. He has suggested the invasion of Greenland and even talked of "owning" the Western hemisphere. He is all over the map ... and his "principles" are very unclear to me.

Prejudicial
Another performer has snubbed their audience by canceling their performance at the Kennedy Center. Sonia De Los Santos cited an "unwelcoming climate" at the Kennedy Center toward immigrants ... even though there is zero evidence of any bias in any sense at the Kennedy Center. Clearly the problem is the presence of Trump's name on the building ... a highly prejudiced reason to slight the audience and refuse to perform. It should be clear who the "unwelcoming" folk are these days. Thumbing their noses at audiences because they don't like a name on the building is a classic ad hominem error in this case.

Your Best Source for Fake News
In January of 2025 before Trump took office, Biden put a $25 million bounty on the capture of Maduro (see here). So an awkward moment occurred when Biden had to pay Trump the $25 million bounty for capturing him. I had to laugh at the January 6th article in the Bee about how the Democrats were solemnly remembering the only riot they didn't like. That's way too close to true. And on the "What's Next?" front, there's a piece on Trump leading a SEAL team to capture the rogue dictator, Gavin Newsom. Funny stuff.

Must be true; I read it on the internet.

Understanding

Peter tells wives to submit to their husbands like Paul does (making husbands happy, but not wives) (1 Peter 3:1-6), but his instructions to husbands differs from Paul's.

You husbands in the same way, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with someone weaker, since she is a woman; and show her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers will not be hindered. (1 Peter 3:7)

First, "In the same way"? He said the same thing to wives at the beginning of the chapter when he told them to submit to their husbands. In the same way ... as what? Peter refers to Christ who suffered "leaving an example for you" (1 Peter 2:21), as a purpose for us. He entrusted Himself to God and endured suffering for us (1 Peter 2:23). "In the same way ..." wives, submit to husbands who aren't even godly (1 Peter 3:1) and husbands ... do these things. That is, being a submissive wife and a good husband are not easy things. They require self-sacrifice and a reliance on God.

Entrusting ourselves to God and sacrificing self, then, we're supposed to live with our wives in an understanding way. What does that even mean? The word is actually "according to knowledge." We're supposed to be informed, thoughtful, and intentional in our understanding of our wives ... not guessing, assuming, or dominating. We're supposed to live with her that way ... a lifestyle of emotional, spiritual, physical, and social study of our wives. Not haphazard, but taking everything into account. View her as vulnerable ("as with someone weaker"). Honor her as an equal ... public respect, private tenderness, spiritual equality. "Live with them" suggests ongoing faithfulness, remaining present, staying committed. It's a self-giving leadership style, not authoritarian or passive, but sacrificial, attentive, and protective.

Husbands are called to learn their wives emotions and needs, their rhythms and fears and joys. We're called to speak well of her, protect her dignity, and cherish her presence. We're required to treat her as an equal and be there for her emotionally, relationally, sexually, and spiritually. We're supposed to be marked by sacrificial love, not harshness or domination. And ... very important ... it makes a big difference to your spiritual life. Failure to do this hinders prayers. Are you that kind of husband?

A Different "Coming Out"

Paul wrote to the church at Corinth about not being "unequally yoked with unbelievers" (2 Cor 6:14-15) (as opposed to "unequally yolked," which involves eggs¹, I think). We often think of that as not marrying an unbeliever, and that would certainly fall in that category, but it's so much more. To be "yoked" is to be tied together to do a task. It requires a binding of some sort (a yoke) and a task of some sort (like a marriage or a business venture). Instead, Paul says,

Therefore go out from their midst, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch no unclean thing; then I will welcome you, and I will be a father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to me, says the Lord Almighty. (2 Cor 6:17-18)

So ... here's the real question. What does this look like in biblical Christianity?

Paul is quoting Isaiah 52:11, where Israel is told to leave Babylon without carrying its idols. In 2 Corinthians, he applies that imagery to the church living inside a pagan empire. The separation he describes is not geographical but relational, ethical, and worship-based. This separation is separation from idolatry, where “idolatry” means anything that substitutes for God. It’s not separation from people; it’s anything that demands our allegiance. Our “idols” today are nationalism, consumerism, identity-as-self-creation, political absolutism … on and on. This separation is separation from moral compromise. It’s not moral superiority, but refusing to practice things that … deform the soul. Paul lists some in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, but there are a lot more. It’s not that we’re “holier than thou.” It’s that we’re separated from the things God forbids for our best, things like sexual sins, injustice, ethnic division, murder (in and out of the womb), etc. This separation is separation from false sources of identity … not bound by relationships that define us like tribe or political party or nation. Our identity is defined now in Christ, and we must not succumb to the world’s alternative identities which flourish all around us. Finally, this separation is a separation for a different purpose. It is separation for mission, not merely for escape. Jesus prayed, “I do not ask You to take them out of the world, but to keep them from the evil one” (John 17:15). We aren’t withdrawing; we’re standing in the thick of it for Christ. We’re “set apart” by God to do a job here in this world without being part of this world.

Here’s where it gets practical. Christians have always wrestled with how to live “in but not of” the world. Today’s landscape is different, but the patterns are surprisingly consistent. We are to be morally distinct, having sexual integrity, honesty, generosity, forgiveness … living a different ethic. We are to be a countercultural community, a people belonging to and shaped by Christ, including a deep church life, mutual care, shared fellowship. We are to reject a consumerist identity and live more simply. We must reject a political identity and recognize the divide between politics and faith, not fusing gospel to party identity. We must avoid partnerships – marital, economic, personal – that compromise our allegiance to Christ. Our lives should be shaped and defined by self-sacrificing worship (Rom 12:1). Our speech should be distinctive, refusing slander and outrage, for instance, and, instead, speaking the truth in love. Biblical separation is not about distance from the world, but difference within it. It isn’t about monastic withdrawal or culture wars or moral superiority or “the right candidate.” It’s about our identity as followers of Christ that shapes how we present ourselves and engage with our world to the glory of God.
________

¹ A sidenote. If the yellow part of an egg is a “yolk” (as opposed to a “yoke”), what is the white part called? A little trivia game here as a bonus.

A Good Work

Think about this simple verse.

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)

Take it apart for a moment. There are several important components, easy to overlook on a quick reading.

First, there is something going on. Paul calls it "a good work in you." Every believer has a good work going in each life. Lots of times we think there's nothing going on. We're not doing anything, going anywhere. No point, really. But Paul claims there is a good work in you.

Consider, then, the origin of this good work. It is "He who began" it. It's not a good work you initiated. You didn't produce it. You didn't start it. He ... God ... began it. In Galatians Paul asks them, "Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?" (Gal 3:2-3). This "good work" was "begun by the Spirit" ... and it is "perfected" by the Spirit ... not you.

Okay, so we have the thing – a good work in each believer – and an origin – not in us, but in God. What else? We have an outcome. Paul calls it a certain outcome (“I am sure of this”). The outcome is “completion,” but, more than that, the completion of this good work started by God in each of us is accomplished by God, not us. That’s exactly what Paul says. He who began it will complete it.

It's a very dense verse for being so short. We need to be reminded. We aren’t muddling about doing nothing. We aren’t forgotten. In fact, no believer is unchanged. That’s because believers didn't start it and aren't accomplishing it … the work. He is. And He will complete it. So, when you feel discouraged or ignored or like you’re going nowhere, remember. It is God at work in you both to will and to work for His good pleasure (Php 2:13), and He never fails.

A Thought Experiment

I'm just looking at an idea here for us to consider. In Genesis, God commanded Adam and Eve (Gen 1:28), then Noah's family (Gen 9:1), to "be fruitful and multiply." There are some today that suggest that the command is no longer in effect ... that it was a command for back then and, having accomplished it, we're no longer under any obligation to do so. What are we to think?

First, is it possible that a command of God might be … rescinded? I think that’s certain. God started Israel as a theocracy, then gave them a king. When He did so, laws that were predicated on God as government were ... changed if not eliminated (like stoning people). Jesus declared all foods clean (Mark 7:19) in opposition to earlier “unclean foods” laws. Paul argued that it was no longer a sin to eat food offered to idols (1 Cor 8:4-6). Jesus fulfilled the sacrificial law (Heb 10:1-10). Just a few examples. The notion, then, that some laws are no longer in effect is biblical.

So, how do we know if a command is no longer in effect? Well, as in the examples above, we have specific, biblical “addendums” (or “addenda” if you prefer) where Scripture itself rescinds God’s laws. Peter received such an "addendum" when God offered him “unclean foods” and he refused and God specifically told him, “What God has made clean, do not call common” (Acts 10:15). That is, God has the right to rescind His own laws and does so and lets us know.

Then … what about that “be fruitful and multiply” law? Let’s be clear. First, Scripture states that God opens and closes the womb (Isa 66:9). That is, we don’t get to choose if we get pregnant … God does. And sometimes He says, “No.” So actual reproduction is not a mandate if God “closes the womb.” Further, Jesus says, “There are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven” (Matt 19:12). Jesus never married, never reproduced, and argued that it wasn’t a sin. Paul seemed to suggest that more believers than we realize are called to singleness (1 Cor 7:7-8). So … no … it is not a biblical mandate that all humans … “be fruitful and multiply.”

Having said that, what is the biblical mandate? Is “be fruitful and multiply” off the table? I don’t think so. I think the biblical mandate is “whatever you do, do all to the glory of God” (1 Cor 10:31). I think the biblical mandate is to love God and seek to obey Him. (Do you need references for that?) It’s a willingness to obey, to say, “Here am I, Lord.” So, say, the husband who desires to have children because God has commanded us to “be fruitful and multiply” only to discover his wife refuses is not in sin. (His wife may be – that’s a different question – but he isn’t.) A man who opts to be single in order to do the best he can for the Lord is not in sin because he’s not being fruitful and multiplying. What God seeks is men and women after His own heart … and that’s always to His glory (Matt 5:16) but doesn’t always look the same for each person.
__________
Now ... a challenge. Jesus commanded His disciples to "Go therefore and make disciples ..." (Matt 28:18-20). Using the same thinking, is it a biblical mandate that all believers go and make disciples? I know some have argued every believer is commanded to spend time in the mission field. Or is it just to "make disciples" wherever you go? Or is it a command, like “be fruitful and multiply,” that is no longer in effect ... just an optional path? Or ... what? Was it just intended for the disciples or for all? I know this “be fruitful and multiply” command was a minor discussion as a matter of interest for a larger principle. How about this command? I would think it's more pressing. And, no, I'm not expecting you to do this challenge in the comments. I just mean on your own.

Which Comes First?

I've been in churches all my life. For a long time, I understood the purpose of the church was to bring people to Christ. I grew up with a Gospel presentation in every sermon and an altar call at the end of each service. As I read the Scriptures, I began to question that premise. I read how the purpose of the church was "to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes" (Eph 4:12-14). So ... it was more internal than external ... and very few churches seemed intent on this particular purpose.

The question remains. Are we supposed to be aimed at unbelievers or believers? Are we supposed to be outward facing or inward? Is our primary job to preach the Gospel or to live Christ? I think ... I hope ... when I ask it that way, you can readily see the answer is ... "Yes." And suddenly it becomes very complex. You see, "both" is the right answer, but we tend to lean toward one or the other. Interestingly, this becomes quite evident ... in the text on how the purpose of the church is equipping the saints ... internal. In that text, Paul writes, "And He gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ" (Eph 4:11-12). See it? Evangelists. There it is ... both evangelism and the equipping of the saints.

Put them together. We are clearly commanded to "Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation" (Mark 16:15). But ... more. We're commanded to "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you" (Matt 28:19-20). So it's not just "proclaim the gospel." It's "make disciples" and baptize and teach them. Oh ... there it is again ... equipping the saints. It is, then, two functions wholly interdependent and inextricably linked. Both are commanded and both are critical and both produce the other. Like the proverbial "chicken and the egg" question, what does it matter? You need both.

Contradicting Contradictions

Jesus famously commanded "Do not take an oath at all" (Matt 5:33-37) and Deuteronomy says, "It is YHWH your God you shall fear. Him you shall serve and by His name you shall swear" (Deut 6:13). Did Jesus actually contradict Deuteronomy? Scripture tells us to seek the Lord (e.g. Deut 4:29; Isa 55:6) ... and "There is none who seek God" (Rom: 3:10; Psa 14:2-4). Now ... that's strange, isn't it? Are we looking at a contradiction … or do we need to look more carefully? Well, if we are going to recognize Scripture as “God-breathed” (2 Tim 3:16-17) (you know, as Scripture recognizes Scripture), then we’ll have to assume there is no contradiction and search for a better answer.

As it turns out, this isn’t an isolated incident in Scripture. For instance,

"Make for yourselves a new heart" (Ezek 18:31)
"I will give you a new heart" (Ezek 36:26)

"Circumcise your hearts" (Deut 10:16)
"The Lord will circumcise your hearts" (Deut 30:6)

Who’s doing the action … us or God? Similar things turn up with things like the need for us to repent when Scripture tells us that God grants repentance (Acts 11:18; 2 Tim 2:25) or the command to love God when Scripture tells us, “We love because He first loved us” (1 John 4:19). So … can we make sense of these without requiring a contradiction? Yes, I think so … and, in fact, I think it’s important.

For all of these examples, there are two elements in play: human responsibility and human inability. Consider a silly example. Someone says, “If you want to prevent World War II, you’d have to travel back in time and kill Hitler before he comes to power.” (Okay, so I’m playing an “alternate history” game here.) Notice that it’s an imperative. “You’d have to …” And it’s true. For the statement to be true, does it require that it be possible? No. So when God says, “This is required” (e.g., “Seek the Lord” or “Make yourselves a new heart” or “Circumcise your heart”), it is a statement of truth regardless of our ability to accomplish it. When we see that repentance is commanded or that love is commanded and we realize we don’t have it in us, we might despair, but we don’t need to. That’s because we have these wonderful responses from God about how He supplies what we need – seeking Him, new hearts, repentance, love, etc. Instead of offering the impossibility of our compliance, we get to see God’s ability on our behalf.

Instead of being a contradiction, these kinds of texts become a … benediction … a blessing. Along the lines of Paul’s “My God will supply every need of yours according to His riches in glory in Christ Jesus” (Php 4:19), we see the amazing blessings that God bestows on those who are chosen (Eph 1:3-4), requiring what we can’t supply and then supplying what He requires … and blessing us for it. So when, for instance, Jesus said that in order to see the kingdom of God we must be born again (John 3:3, 7), He wasn’t talking about an impossible task where we make ourselves reborn. He was informing us of a necessary requirement that we can’t meet but He does. We can't make ourselves born again; God does that. And seeming contradictions become glorious praises instead.
__________
Postscript. Now ... that very first example at the beginning ... did Jesus contradict Deuteronomy? No, of course not. See if you can examine the Scriptures to see how He did not. Too many people still think Jesus forbade vows, nullifying marriage vows or oaths in the courtroom, for instance. He didn't. See if you can figure it out yourself.

News Weakly - 1/3/2026

Minnesota on Display
Homeland Security is conducting a "massive investigation" into childcare and other "rampant fraud" in Minneapolis. The DOJ announced 98 total arrests (including 85 of Somali descent) for fraud in Minnesota, primarily in daycare center fraud. Now, I'm sure law enforcement is mistaken. I'm sure it's a mistake ... or worse. Because Minneapolis is largely known as a law abiding, careful government ... oh ... wait ...

If at First You Don't Succeed
In response to the Christmas Eve fiasco where musicians ruined fans' Christmas Eve by canceling their show because the musicians were mad about ... Trump ... it appears that the Kennedy Center is planning to make a tradition of ruining people's events by canceling again. "You know what? We don't care about you fans or your fun. All we care about is we don't like Trump." So they've canceled the New Year's Eve performance as well. That ought to make us understand their position better. Let's see ... you're saying ... "Nope! We don't care about our fans!" Got it.

Tubes and Toothpaste
Have you heard of the notion that you "you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube." As a race, we seem to accept something as novel, but before long, it's necessary, then mandatory. Take the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), for instance. Established in 2010 as an oversight of financial institutions, it went from "a good idea" to a judicial mandate, as evidenced by the story that a federal judge ruled that the Trump administration must fund the CFPB. It's not constitutional. It's not a legal mandate somewhere. But ... now it's a requirement. That particular toothpaste is not going back in that tube.

Banning Social Media?
Australia last year banned social media accounts for children under the age of 16. Now France is considering something similar for under 15. So is Denmark, Malaysia, and Norway. Netherlands discourages it for under 15 and Greece requires parental consent. Apparently these (and others) are seeing dangers that have always been there but have gone unaddressed.

Your Best Source for Fake News
Minnesota's Governor Walz is taking action on this whole fraud thing. He has awarded an $8 billion grant to a Somali company to investigate the Somali perpetrators. Because that's what a savvy government does. On the airstrikes in Nigeria on Christmas day, the Bee had a ... different spin. They suggest Trump gave some terrorists the special gift of meeting Allah for Christmas. Finally, apparently Planet Fitness figured out a new approach by offering a new two-week membership for New Years ... you know, for those folks making resolutions. Shrewd marketing.

Must be true; I read it on the internet.

Christianity

In Acts 11, Christians were busy in Antioch. It is there, we read, that "the disciples were first called Christians" (Acts 11:26). Now, of course, they weren't. I mean, "Christian" is an English word. So ... "christianos" in Greek. Okay, close enough. In Acts 9, Paul was sent to find those "belonging to the Way" (Acts 9:2) and in Acts 19 people were "speaking evil of the Way" (Acts 19:9), so "the Way" was another common term in the day. But we've ended up with "Christians." Note, in that Acts 11 text, the other word used: "the disciples." So "Christian" refers to "the disciples" or, more completely, those who are disciples of Christ. Back then. Today? Not even close.

Today, "Christian" often has only vague connections to "Christ." It may be a disciple of Christ or a person who professes belief in the teachings of Christ (even if they deny Christ) or anything related to the institution referred to as "Christianity" such as the institution or the Scriptures or ethical values related somehow or a country that professes Christianity (I've spoken to people who profess, "I'm an American; we're all Christians."), for instance. It may even refer to treating people in a kind and generous way. Like the holiday we call "Christmas," one might reasonably ask, "What ever happened to Christ in all of this?"

Over the years, we've tried to point this out. From "the disciples of Christ" to "the brethren" to "the Jesus People" ... from "followers of the Way" to "fundamentalists" to "evangelicals" ... believers throughout Church history have realized that the institution of Christianity is not always synonymous with biblical Christianity. More modern "Red-Letter Christians" or "Missional Christians" are similar ... and will all suffer the same fate ... as the promised false teachers (e.g., Matt 7:15; 1 John 4:1; Matt 24:24; 2 Peter 2:1) following their "father of lies" (John 8:44) infiltrate and subvert misguided "believers" (Isa 29:13). We need to set aside worldly names and adhere to the Christ we're designed to follow as found in the pages of God's Word. Others can worry about keeping Christ in Christmas. I want to keep Christ in "Christian."

Footprints - An Anniversary

Around Thanksgiving I did a series entitled "Footprints" where I offered various events in my life that were clearly God's direct intervention. Today is our 33rd anniversary, bringing up one of my favorite "footprints." My first wife divorced me (she had another guy and said I was boring) and I and my two sons were on our own. We tried a new church and I came across a woman with two kids of her own. Neither of us were interested in "doing that again" ... the mistake of investing your whole life in someone only to lose it all ... but we had coffee from time to time in group settings ... that sort of thing. I knew what Scripture said. God hates divorce (Mal 2:16). And Jesus said, "Whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery" (Mat 19:9). So I was "off the market," so to speak. Then I came across one of those verses that you know you've read multiple times but feel you've never seen it before.

Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be released. Are you released from a wife? Do not seek a wife. But if you marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. (1 Cor 7:27-28)

Interesting terms. "Bound" means "knit or tied together" clearly a reference to marriage and its obligations. "Do not seek to be released." But ... I didn't. In fact, I tried to hire a lawyer who would sue her to stay with me (ostensibly for "contractual reasons"). (Obviously no such lawyer exists.) And "released" ... clearly the opposite of "bound," but it requires first being bound. (You can't be "released" if you were never "bound" in any sense.) So ... I didn't seek to be released, but I ended up released (thanks to California's "no-fault" divorce laws). Yet, I did not seek a wife. And God said, "But if you marry, you have not sinned."

Thirty-three wonderful years now. I laugh at Adam's "It's that woman you gave me!" (Gen 3:12), but I delight in God's unique gift to me. You see, I'm not ... normal. I'm ... boring. I don't need novelty or excitement. I'm not overly sociable or greedy or any of the typical extremes. Yet ... this woman -- this one God gave me -- finds herself contented with me ... for 33 years and counting. We enjoy each other's company, share each other's joys, bear each other's burdens. We've experienced "better" and "worse," "richer" and "poorer," "sickness" and "health," and through it all she has loved and cherished me. No small feat. She's an independent woman who simultaneously takes care of everything she deems her responsibility (and that's a large list) and relies completely on me to do anything I can do for her.

In 2014, I wrote about my "Proverbs 31" wife. I quoted from the end of the chapter: "Her children rise up and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praises her: 'Many women have done excellently, but you surpass them all'" (Prov 31:28-29). She has always been that woman and she stands as my absolute favorite example of a "footprint of God" in my life. I was reading recently (again) of God's requirements for husbands in a marriage. I talked to her about it ... you know, a "performance review." My requirements, I explained, are to "give up self" for her, love her as myself, and live with her in an understanding way. "How am I doing?" Amazingly, she said, "Great." That's the kind of miraculous wife I have ... not that I'm doing great, but that she thinks so. She is a "gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's sight is very precious" (1 Peter 3:4). And I'm very blessed. When I see her, I see God's handiwork, an ongoing "footprint."

The Power Play

New Year is well-known for making resolutions. You know ... financial stability, healthier eating, more exercise, better mental well-being, better relationships, a closer walk with God ... oh ... wait ... maybe not that one. Most of them are worldly and personal and not that important. And we Christians make them ourselves ... often.

In his letter to the church at Ephesus, Paul prays for them.

I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened, so that you will know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, and what is the surpassing greatness of His power toward us who believe. (Eph 1:18-19)

He wants them to know the hope of His calling, the riches of the glory of His inheritance, and the surpassing greatness of His power. That last one Paul goes on to explain. What power does he want them to see ... to know firsthand? He wants them to see the power that raised Christ from the dead and seated Him at God's right hand and made Him above all rule and put all things in subjection to Him (Eph 1:19-23). This power, he goes on to say, raised us from "dead in sins" to "alive with Christ" (Eph 2:1-7). (Note that Ephesians 2 begins with "and," indicating Paul is adding to the previous thought.) That... is the power Paul prayed the Ephesian believers could see.

A lot of us are thinking about "What should I improve this next year?" How about that? How about taking a good look at the power of God that raised Jesus, that is "toward us who believe" (Eph 1:19), that is actually at work in us (Eph 3:20). Imagine the power that raised Christ from the grave and raised you from the death of sin being currently at work in you. Imagine the heights we could attain on that power. "More abundantly beyond all that we ask or think" (Eph 3:20). Much better than a skinnier waistline or a better stock portfolio.

Homesick

Loretta Lynn sang, "Everybody wants to go to Heaven, but nobody wants to die." Ain't it the truth? Well ... almost. Most people ... and every Christian ... believe heaven is the place you want to go. It's supposed to be a happy place, a place of genuine joy, no more tears, real peace ... all that good stuff. They just ... aren't ready to go yet. And ... they're kind of angry when someone they love does go. (Especially since most people seem to believe that anyone they love goes to heaven.) Why?

They say you can tell what someone believes by what they do. So when someone claims to believe in the supreme goodness of heaven and doesn't want to go, what does that say about what they believe? Somewhere around the turn of the century, primary physicians started adding a mental health questionnaire to their routine physical examinations -- questions about feeling depressed, anxiety, thoughts of self-harm, that kind of thing. I remember a time I filled one out truthfully when it asked, "Do you ever feel like you'd be better off dead?" I answered, "Yes." My physician was a little concerned, but I explained to her, "If I believe that when I die I will go to a place of perfect existence and eternal happiness, would I be quite sane if I answered, 'No'?" I explained I wasn't interested in hurrying the process and, more to the point, didn't believe I had ultimate control over life and death anyway, but I certainly believed when I died I would be better off. She had to admit the logic.

Just because someone wants to die doesn't mean they're necessarily suicidal. Paul struggled with that. "For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain" (Php 1:21). He said his desire was to be with Christ ... but serving Christ in this life while he could was better (Php 1:22-25). That ... is a reasonable position. Like Paul, I'm ... homesick. I'm an ambassador on assignment (2 Cor 5:20) and I will serve as long as He wants me to, but ... home ... where He is ... sounds good. As long as He wants me here I'll gladly stay ... but as soon as He calls me, I'll gladly go home. I don't have a prior commitment to life here on Earth ... just a commitment to serving my Lord.

Testing God

In Exodus we read about the children of Israel (and most of the adults) testing God (Exo 17:1-7). They had crossed the Red Sea through a mighty miracle and days later were grumbling about food (Exo 16:1-2). Then they grumbled about water. (They always seemed to grumble. They didn't just ask.) So God had Moses strike the rock and water came out. Moses called the place "Massah and Meribah" (Exo 17:7), where "Massah" means to test and "Meribah" means to quarrel. Notice the test, then. "Is the LORD among us, or not?"

We easily point at those naughty Israelites and berate them, but isn't that us ... all the time? We don't simply ask (James 4:2). We complain. We complain that God isn't doing what we think He should. We complain that this person shouldn't have cancer and that person shouldn't have lost his job. We complain that family members are sick or we're in need and don't have what we need. Just like the children of Israel, we ... test God. And ... let's just say ... He's not happy about it. Of that event, Deuteronomy says, "You shall not put YHWH your God to the test, as you tested Him at Massah" (Deut 6:16). And we think, "Well, I'm not complaining about water in the Sinai Desert, so I'm not testing God ... I'm just ... complaining." (Okay, we probably don't say that. We don't think about it.) And we are guilty of not simply asking God, but of testing Him ... in ways He prohibits.

God has promised to meet our needs (Php 4:19). He has assured us that all things work together for good (Rom 8:28-29). He never fails (1 Cor 1:9). So ... ask yourself ... "Is the LORD among us, or not?" If you conclude that He is, all these questions and complaints will change their tone from "quarreling" to asking, from "testing" to waiting on the Lord. And trusting God is always the best idea.

The Commandment

In Deuteronomy 6, Moses says, "Now this is the commandment, the statutes and the judgments which YHWH your God has commanded me to teach you, that you might do them in the land where you are going over to possess it" (Deut 6:1). Interesting that there is a singular commandment that encompasses "the statutes and the judgments which YHWH your God has commanded." Chapter 5 of Deuteronomy was a recap of the 10 commandments, and Moses throws in other commandments in chapter 6, and the whole thing is termed "The Commandment." Odd.

The subsequent text gives the famous quote that Jews to this day quote.

"Hear, O Israel: YHWH our God, YHWH is one. You shall love YHWH your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates. (Deut 6:4-9)

So "the commandment" begins with the recognition of God, the "one." "The commandment" is the one that Jesus called "the great and first commandment" (Matt 22:37-38). Love God with all your heart. Jesus said, "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments" (John 14:15). And the singular effort described in that text -- "You shall teach them diligently to your children ... " (Deut 6:7-9) -- lays out the supreme importance of this command ... that encompasses all commands.

I think no one questions this fact: obedience is highly prized in the pages of Scripture. On one hand, John wrote, "There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love" (1 John 4:18). John says "perfect love" casts out the fear ... of punishment. Lay that up against Jesus's, "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments" (John 14:15), and I think it's clear that John's "perfect love" is referring to ... when we love Him perfectly ... and are perfectly obedient. So perfect obedience from perfect love is a wonderful thing. And the perfect love begins with "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart." (No small task when you consider "all your heart.") But there is another side to obedience. We think of it as "duty," but God says, "You shall do what is right and good in the sight of the LORD, that it may go well with you" (Deut 6:18). Obedience ... is good for us. It goes well for us when we obey. God, the Maker, tells His creation, "You work best this way." It's not "rules" as much as "best operating procedures." So it makes no sense to struggle against it. If God loves us perfectly (Lam 3:22), then His commandments would be an act of love on His part as well. We shouldn't forget that.

News Weakly - 12/27/2025

Fighting the Wrong Battles
The laws aren't vague regarding immigration, and, despite the battles over language ("It's not illegal immigration!!" Yes ... it is.), pockets of the nation are protesting law enforcement. If you ask me, they're fighting the wrong battle. If they want to eliminate "illegal immigration" and the law enforcement that is associated with it, eliminate immigration laws. Of course, they'd have to deal with the results of open borders. I don't suppose they're willing to do that, either.

Juxtaposition
So ... one story is about how the economy grew, and the other is about how consumer confidence continues to fade "despite heady economic growth." In a world that has no real concern about the truth, we certainly won't let facts change our emotional outlook, right?

A Flood of Problems
It's almost ironic. California has struggled with water for so long ... and now their problem is ... too much water. Heavy rainfall in burn areas is causing flooding while residents are urged to evacuate. The very dangerous and life-threatening drought conditions are being replaced by very dangerous and life-threatening flooding. But remember Jesus's words. Just because it might look like judgment (Luke 13:1-5) doesn't mean it is. "Repent or perish" is always a pertinent piece of advice.

Anti-Immigration
I've always disliked the rhetoric of those who portray people who oppose illegal immigration as in opposition to immigration. It might be, but not always. I, for instance, don't mind immigration at all, but oppose breaking the law to do it. On the other hand ... it feels as if a ridiculous $100,000 fee to get an H-1B visa is intentionally anti-immigration. A judge has ruled it's legal, but it seems to me that it cannot be interpreted as "No, we want qualified people to immigrate here." It seems like a slap in the face to anyone who might want to come here and contribute to the country. So .. is that "anti-immigrant," or ... anti-American?

Who Is This Hurting?
I hate this kind of thing. You know ... like protests aimed at one thing that hurt other things. Like Chuck Redd, a jazz drummer and vibraphone player, who canceled the annual Christmas Eve jazz concert at the Kennedy Center ... because Trump added his name to the Kennedy Center. I mean ... sure ... maybe that's irritating, but ... it doesn't hurt Trump to cancel. It hurts every single person who planned to be there. It created a contentious atmosphere on the eve of the "most wonderful day of the year." Should they have changed the name? I don't think so. The Kennedy Center is supposed to be a "living memorial" to ... Kennedy. But ... seriously, ruining the Christmas Eve plans of all those people for that reason is not likely the most effective means of getting something done about it. It could be symptomatic of Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Your Best Source for Fake News
I liked the story of the shepherds seeking Jesus. They were asking, "Is this Him?" while looking at this baby with a glowing halo. Texas issued their annual reminder not to shoot Santa. A perennial problem, I'm sure. Then, last week, Trump reclassified marijuana to a minor offense (actual story), so it seemed ... questionable that Pelosi purchased $10 million of Taco Bell stock the day before.

Must be true; I read it on the internet.

The Myth of Genesis (or the Myth of the Myth of Genesis?)

Modern scholarship largely agrees that Genesis ... at least the first 11 chapters or so ... is myth ... at best. Possibly just wrong, but, at the very least, not literally true. This view only became mainstream in the modern age of science. Early church fathers (such as Philo of Alexandria, Origen, and Augustine) questioned a six-day Creation, but their skepticism (not of God's creation, but of a literal 6-day creation) wasn't about the days, but about the fact that God could (and possibly did) create everything instantaneously. Not a longer time period based on science, but a shorter time period based on an Omnipotent God. The modern view started in the 17th century when modern scholars began re-examining Scripture in light of Science. (I capitalize "Science" here because the idea is that science is more reliable than God's word in interpreting truth, making "science" more like God than God's word is.) So they would read Genesis and see the time and story and say, "But ... that's not what Science is telling us," and reinterpret Scripture through that lens. (Let's be fair here. They weren't reinterpreting Scripture; they were challenging a literal reading of Scripture.)

The argument is that Genesis 1-11 is ... and at this point, the wording gets murky ... mythical, "mytho-history," "etiological myth," maybe "legend" or "saga." What makes those first 11 chapters not literal? They say that it's basically the shift to Abraham. Okay, that's simplistic. The first 11 chapters affect all humans everywhere. The subsequent chapters are about a family ... Abraham and his offspring. Creation, Adam, Noah, the Flood ... all these are singular and universal. Chapter 12 is family narrative. And, to be fair, "myth" in this use of the term is not "a made up story" like we'd understand it in other uses. It's more of a sacred narrative that presents a worldview through symbolic storytelling. This version of "myth" has the Bible telling stories in narrative, symbolic form that are intended to be understood in a nonliteral expression of truth. (For instance, "I'm hungry" would convey a literal statement while "I'm starving" would convey a nonliteral version with an exaggerated meaning for effect.) So calling Genesis 1-11 "myth" is not intended to convey that it's false; just that it's not literal. Jesus, for instance, told parables. We all understand those are not to be understood in a strictly literal sense, but as allegory. Prophetic texts like Daniel, Ezekiel, or Revelation include descriptions that are considered symbolic, not literal. This concept of nonliteral texts in Scripture isn't new or unreasonable.

Still, for millennia, the vast majority of followers of the God of the Bible and His Son have understood Genesis to be a literal representation of the beginning of life on Earth. Why? Why do they do that even in the face of Science? Well, it's not simply out of blind devotion or tradition. There are reasons. For instance, God uses the six-day creation account as a reason for the Sabbath (Exo 20:11). If you read Genesis just casually, you won't sense a change in delivery or language that indicates a change in presentation between Genesis 1-11 and the rest of the book. The unity of Genesis seems to support a literal interpretation of the first part as much as the second part. Luke traces Jesus's lineage to Adam (Luke 3:38). Paul uses Adam in his defense of "the gospel I preached to you" (1 Cor 15:1, 22) and argues that Adam and Moses were equally historical (Rom 5:14). He explains that "Adam was formed first, then Eve" as part of his explanation of why women shouldn't be in charge of men in church (1 Tim 2:13-14). Jude refers to Enoch and Adam as literal figures (Jude 1:14). Jesus and Paul both quote Genesis 2:24 as actual truth (Matt 19:5; Eph 5:31). In textual analysis, the chronological sequence ("first day," "second day," etc.) appears as historical prose rather than mere imagery. It uses ordinary language and repetitive structure ("and God said ... and it was so") like typical historical prose would. The author of the Genesis account used "the evening and the morning" as time-markers. Metaphor wouldn't have needed this kind of literal time marking. Further, a literal account supports both later Scriptural texts (as I've indicated) as well as basic theological concepts like "Original Sin" and God's Sovereignty over all. Add to this the weight of millennia of adherents who held to this view from the beginning and up to this day (understood through the lens of Jesus's claim that the Spirit would lead us into all truth) and you begin to see a large argument against a nonliteral understanding of Genesis 1-11.

I'm not solving the question for you. I'm laying out the two views and their reasons. Today, the primary reason for throwing out Genesis 1-11 as literal is a presupposition of the superiority of Science over a literal understanding. That's obviously a problem ... if a literal understanding is actually the truth. And when the "mythical" view starts erasing obvious truths from the Genesis account (like the claim that God made humans as male and female or that God ordained marriage to be between a man and a woman), it ceases to be a simple difference of an approach. You can't call such claims "mythical" by explaining "they don't mean anything like what they say" and still be embracing Scripture. But not all who oppose the literal understanding oppose the truth contained in Genesis 1-11, so we need to carefully examine the texts and the reasons for not taking them literally ... or taking them literally. Is it ... Science on one hand or tradition on the other? Are we pursuing a real understanding of God's word or are we defending a perception we prefer or have acquired? It's not a minor question and it isn't trivial. Let's be careful about minimalizing Scripture, but also about minimalizing genuinely honest interpretations that disagree with our own simply because they disagree. We need to consider God, His word, and His message over our own preferences and opinions, and consider the Holy Spirit rather than our own questionable understanding.