Footprints - at Twenty-Two

I was 22 years old, newly married. In a quick sequence of events, my wife found out she was pregnant and I lost my job. I was desperate. I needed a job ... no ... a career. I needed a future for my new family. I know! The military! They could train me and pay me and I'd come out in 4 years with a career.

The military has you take the ASVAB test, the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery. (Interesting that you can fail something that is supposed to test what your aptitudes are. "I'm sorry ... you have none."?) At the end, they asked ... opinion questions. "Do you like ...?" Preferences. Do I like cooking, fixing radios, repairing cars ... all sorts. Anything around electronics was a sure "No!" because I knew nothing about electronics. Well, I got approved, so I looked for a career, not just a job. Accounting ... that's good. "Oh, sure, we can get you in ... in 6 months." No, that's not going to work. My wife is pregnant ... now. So, "How do I get in immediately?" They told me if I showed up packed and someone who was going in that day couldn't make it, I could take their job if I qualified. So ... I did. And the next day, someone didn't make it. He broke his arm. So I went in ... "open electronics." "Thanks, God." But, okay, it's a career. So I took it.

I spent the next 10 years in the Air Force working electronics all the way up to teaching it for 3 years. I worked in one of the last career fields that still did everything, from tube technology to solid-state, from the aircraft to the shop to the board level. And ... I loved it. It was precisely my cup of tea. Because it was perfectly suited to my own thinking patterns. Because God knew what I didn't and provided what I never would have expected when I needed it most. There ... right there ... another footprint of God in my life.

Footprints - at Three

You've seen, I'm sure, the famous poem, Footprints in the Sand. In a dream, footprints in the sand showed two sets. The dreamer realized that the second set was the Lord's. She noticed that in the toughest times, there was only one set, and asked God why He wasn't there when she needed Him most. God replied that in those times He was carrying her. Footprints. I've been thinking about God's footprints in my life. It's Thanksgiving week. So ... maybe I'll write a few "footprints" accounts of God's footprints in my life. Jesus told His disciples, "You will be my witnesses" (Acts 1:8). So ... maybe I will, too.

My earliest memory ... you know, the kind that is certainly my memory because no one else was there to tell me ... was when I was three years old. I remember waking up in a crib. I didn't sleep in a crib, so that was odd. And my wrists were bound to the mattress. And my foot was suspended and an nurse was attaching a giant (to a three-year-old) bottle of fluids through a needle into my ankle. "Oh," she said, "you're awake." As it turns out, I had been in a coma. I had contracted spinal meningitis. The doctors had told my parents there was very little hope because they had no treatment. (Yes, I'm that old.) So they prayed and their church prayed and ... lots of people prayed. And ... I lived ... without much explanation as to why. A short time later, I got sick again ... but it turned out to be an infection from that needle in my ankle, and that was quickly managed and I was out by Christmas.

I still have the scar on my ankle. I see it every time I put on socks. It serves as a reminder. I could have died at the age of three. I didn't. Clearly God had other plans. Clearly my existence wasn't a cosmic mistake. Clearly God still has a purpose for me. That's what that scar on my ankle tells me every time I see it. God's not through with me yet. It serves as a footprint of God in my life.

Self-Image Help

I'm older now, but there was a time I could quote all of Psalm 139. I love that psalm. You see, I've always had a problem with self-image. This psalm seemed to be written for me.

Look at this wonderful text. It begins with the absolute certainty that God has searched me and knows me. Me! I'm not unknown. I'm not worthless. The text goes on to describe the depths of His knowledge. He is where I sit and stand, my paths, my words. "Even before a word is on my tongue, behold, YHWH, You know it altogether" (Psa 139:4). He hems me in, behind, before, and above (Psa 139:5). I'm known and I'm safe. The text talks about how He knew me as He formed me. Imagine that! "You knitted me together in my mother's womb" (Psa 139:13). Think about that. No mistakes. No inferior work. God knitted me together. "I am fearfully and wonderfully made" (Psa 139:14). Included in all this design is this astounding claim. "Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in Your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them" (Psa 139:16). Every day is already recorded. Every event, every choice, every outcome. He's planned it. "How precious to me are your thoughts, O God! (Psa 139:17).

David (the author) rails against the wicked (Psa 139:19-22), but comes back to himself. "Search me, O God, and know my heart! Try me and know my thoughts! And see if there be any grievous way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting!" (Psa 139:23-24). A good place to stay, under God's microscope with God's testing and God's correction. He cares. He did it. He is taking care of me. Now ... what was it I found so offensive about my self?

News Weakly - 11/22/2025

Sorry ... not enough time this week. A short News Weakly.

No Kings
America, stop telling us about your "No kings" complaint. There is no king in America. Just follow the news. This week, the Senate agreed to release the Epstein files which, most seem to think, will implicate the president (even though Trump urged their release, too). A judge tossed the DOJ lawsuit challenging New York's law barring ICE from state courts. And the Appeals court denied Trump's bid to revive his defamation lawsuit against CNN. The system is working. Checks and balances are checking and balancing. Stop whining.

Moral Turpitude
The famous Ten Commandments are so broadly accepted that almost every religion on the planet has something akin to them. Judaism and Christianity obviously include them, but Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Sikhism all have similar values. Even atheists recognize the value of the moral guidance while rejecting the "divine mandate" aspect. But ... hey ... the ACLU is opposed to the presence of an almost universal set of moral values, so ... they succeeded in blocking the law in Texas. And we wonder why morality is on the decline. It seems to me that banning moral values constitutes moral turpitude.

Mawage

One of my fun lines from Princess Bride. "Mawage is what brings us together today." What is marriage? It's the earliest sacred institution. It is, first and foremost, a lifelong bond between a woman and a man. "For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh" (Gen 2:24). The text is repeated in the New Testament. Jesus did it (Matt 19:3-6). Paul did it (1 Cor 6:16; Eph 5:31). That's the basic definition ... Old and New.

Of course, so few understand that today. Even Christians are confused, blinded by such nonsensical terms as "same-sex marriage" or "open marriage" ... terms in direct contradiction to biblical marriage. Why is that? Well, the world is in opposition to God (John 15:19; 1 John 2:15-17), so obviously it would be in opposition to those things that God ordains. But it's more than that. Marriage has special significance. Paul says that marriage is a picture of Christ's relationship to the Church (Eph 5:32). He says this specifically with reference to Genesis 2:24. Marriage is a practical image of how Christ gives Himself up (Php 2:5-8; Eph 5:25-27) for His bride. It's His idea. It's His model. It's His aim for our best.

Jesus promised the world would be hostile to us. We're suprised that it is. Instead of pushing against His gifts and images that He offers in order to help us understand and experience Him better, we should embrace it. Anyone who loves God certainly will.

Prison Life

In Acts 16, Paul was in Philippi. As usual, he ran afoul of some of the city folk. They were accused of throwing the city into confusion (Acts 16:20) and the magistrates ordered them beaten and imprisoned (Acts 16:22-23). So, of course, Paul and Silas were in that Philippian jail crying out to God to be rescued. Oh ... wait. No. The text says they were praying and "singing hymns of praise to God" (Acts 16:25). I'm not so sure how many of us would have been doing that. Earlier, James, the brother of John, was executed and Peter was arrested to be presented to the people, ostensibly to execute him, too (see Acts 12:2-3). Peter wasn't singing. He was ... sleeping (Acts 12:6). Bound with two chains between two soldiers and more at the front door, Peter ... was sleeping. He was awakened by an angel. The chains fell off, the guards slept, and he walked out.

This doesn't seem like typical prison activity. It doesn't seem like the kinds of things most of us would do. We'd be begging for rescue, not singing hymns or sleeping. It's not that there weren't prayers (Acts 12:5), but the people going through the trials were ... at peace. Like Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego (Dan 3:14-18), they were confident in their God regardless of the outcome. Paul and Silas sang hymns! James said to "Count it all joy" (James 1:2). Paul said to "exult" (Rom 5:3-5).

Maybe we don't get enough practice. (You know ... "Don't pray for patience ... you won't like how it comes about.") Maybe we're not trusting enough. Maybe we don't really believe God is faithful. But Scripture makes promises regarding trials and God's faithfulness. So while we're in the "prison" called "planet Earth" and the world of sin, perhaps we should adopt a more ... biblical approach to "prison life" and sing praises.

Polity

Polity is the form or process of an institution like government or a church. It is how it is run. The only way I've ever heard the word used in a sentence is in terms of church polity. What is the organizational structure of a church? The question I ask first, of course, is "What is the biblical version of church polity?" Different denominations have different structures. In the Episcopal version (where "episcopal" is derived from the Greek "episkopos" -- literally "over-seer" -- translated "bishop" in King James or "overseer" in NAS), it's a hierarchical structure with bishops on top. In the Presbyterian version (where "presbyterian" is derived from the Greek "presbuteros" -- literally "older man" -- translated "elder"), it's a representative-type government where elders are elected by congregations. In the Congregational version, it's democratic ... run by the congregation that votes on its policies and structures. But ... is there a biblical version?

As it turns out, the answer is yes ... and no. Clearly, the head of the church is Christ (Eph 1:22). Got it. But ... what about local churches? The Bible prescribes elders/bishops/pastors (used interchangeably in various places -- see Acts 20:17, 20, 28; 1 Peter 5:1-2) as the spiritual leadership and deacons as the ... servant leadership. Scripture recognizes both of these as distinct and present (Php 1:1). Qualifications for these are listed (Elders: 1 Tim 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9. Deacons: 1 Tim 3:8-13). Peter describes the elders as "shepherds" with Christ as the lead Shepherd and elders as "servants" (1 Peter 5:1-4). Scripture also references "appointing" elders (rather than "electing") (see Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5). But in Acts 6 -- the first mention of deacons -- the deacons are "selected" by the congregation before being "ordained" (as it were) by the Apostles (Acts 6:1-6). Jesus described the congregation as having a part in church discipline in Matthew 18:15-17. Paul suggests the same in 1 Corinthians 7:5-13. Beyond that ... church polity is ... vague. The Bible neither commends nor forbids committees. Democracy to some degree is not banned from the church. Using some of the world's leadership principles that don't clash with biblical principles are not disallowed.

Does the Bible give us rules for church polity? Yes ... and no. Essential to church polity is the fundamental principle that Christ is the head of the Church, and that the Word of God is the "rule book," the ultimate authority in matters of faith, doctrine, and practice for Christians. The presence and plurality of both elders/pastors and deacons is a given biblical principle. The building up of the body as the primary function (Eph 4:11-16) is absolutely biblical. We need to avoid two very common errors. On one hand, we tend to ban things we think aren't "biblical" when the Bible doesn't ban them. On the other hand, we tend to allow worldly approaches to governance that the Bible specifically forbids. It's that middle road ... do what it says and don't forbid what it doesn't forbid ... that we have to walk. We often have a hard time doing that.

I Don't Second That Emotion

Admit it. Most of us are emotional beings. No, that's not what I mean to say. We are emotionally-driven. We operate on feelings. We decide based on feelings. We think based on feelings. And ... that makes no sense. The dictionary says emotions are "a conscious mental reaction subjectively experienced as strong feeling." So why do these reactions to experiences rule? Shouldn't the mind rule? And, yet, it happens all the time. We're told to "follow your heart" rather than "what do you think?" I've heard "I feel" replace "I think" at an extremely fast rate. (I heard a PhD explain, "I feel like this experiment should work this way." Really? You feel like it? How about "think"?)

It seems as if we're in a culture that values feelings over content. Our opinions are formed from feelings. Our plans are built on feelings. Our political views are propped up by feelings. We think that worship with feelings is superior to sacrificial worship. Romance is superior to self-sacrificial love. We recommend choosing your future based on your emotions rather than your mind. We choose spouses with feelings. (What ever happened to "I think"?) We too often let our hearts rule when our minds and wills ought to.

The greatest commandment tells us to love God with everything we are ... including specifically your mind (Matt 22:37). We are commanded to be transformed by the renewing of the mind (Rom 12:2). Emotions, in fact, are a reflection of what our minds are doing with the events and circumstances around us. Shouldn't we be spending more time thinking better in order to be more obedient and even to feel better? Emotions are human and even God-given. I just fear we give them too much power.

Enough is Enough

The Jews have a traditional song built around the story of the Exodus that they sing at Passover. The song is Dayenu ... "It Would Have Been Enough." The first recorded full text is from the 9th century, but no one knows how old it really is. And ... it is ... surprising ... and, I think ... very true

The song sings about each event of the Exodus and builds upon each event. "If He had taken us out of Egypt and not made judgements on them ..." "If He had made judgments on them and had not made [them] on their gods ..." "If He had made [them] on their gods and had not killed their firstborn ..." All the way to, "If He had brought us into the land of Israel and had not built us the ‘Chosen House’ [the Temple] ..." Each step ends with, "...[it would have been] enough for us." It's an amazing song. It builds on God's blessings to Israel, layer upon layer. Counting blessings is good ... important. But it also calls repeated attention to the fact that God is not obligated to bless us and to the reality that anything He does should be ... "enough for us." Like Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego's answer to Nebuchadnezzar, even if He doesn't do what we hope or ask, it's enough (Dan 3:16-18).

We are so often desensitized to grace. We want. We desire. We ... "need." But God knows. He supplies us with more than we need and more than we appreciate and never seems to stop. It is enough for us. Do we recognize it? To our embarrassment and shame, we are, too often, ungrateful for His countless blessings ... which are enough, even if we don't recognize it.

Are You In Love?

Matt Redman sings a song titled Let My Words Be Few. He sings,

And I'll stand in awe of You
Yes, I'll stand in awe of You
And I'll let my words be few
Jesus, I am so in love with You.

That chorus soars. "I'll stand in awe of You." It carries a sense of the grandeur and ... well ... awe of God. "Awe" ... that emotion that combines veneration and wonder and dread, inspired by overwhelming greatness. That's ... the right response. That's the only reasonable response. Veneration, wonder, and ... yes ... dread. Perfect.

Then there's that last line. "Jesus, I am so in love with You." Here's when words become important. Love is a choice ... a stable, unconditional attachment. "In love," on the other hand, is an intense romantic feeling. Love can be platonic. "In love" includes romantic attraction and desire. It is possible to keep the pledge to love someone "til death do us part," but "in love" is an emotion that no one can control and, therefore, promise. So ... is being "in love with Jesus" a good thing? Insofar as feeling warmly toward Jesus is good, I suppose so. But that's not the command. When Jesus said, "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments" (John 14;15), He wasn't talking about a warm feeling. When He said loving God was the highest commandment (Mark 12:28-31), He wasn't talking about a warm feeling.

I'm all in favor of awe. It's perfectly appropriate and, in fact, unavoidable if you get a real glimpse of God. I'm absolutely in favor of loving God. It's commanded and it's important. Being in love with Him? Not so much. It's an emotional thing, unsustainable, and unreliable. What He wants is our whole selves, not a warm feeling. Jesus asked Peter, "Do you love Me?" (John 21:15-17). He didn't ask, "Are you in love with Me?" Which are you?

News Weakly - 11/15/2025

International Hate
Two BBC leaders resigned after a scandal over edited Trump video that made it appear as if Trump called for violence on January 6, 2021 ... when he, in fact, did not. Amazing, isn't it? Trump was hated from Great Britain. Bias from across the pond. Of course, bias on this side is more obvious ... and no one is resigning. And we can expect that Trump may sue the BBC for it.

No Surprise
It came as no surprise that the Supreme Court refused Kim Davis's appeal to overturn their 2015 decision to make "same-sex mirage"¹ the law of the land. As stupid as the notion is, we're not backing off of it anytime soon. Have you seen those LGBT types? They're scary when they're mad.

You're Fired
Congress finally got around to restarting the government. After the longest shutdown ever, they finally found a way to compromise. Why did it take so long? Because they aren't doing their jobs. They haven't in a long time. They should be fired. But ... they represent us. Maybe we should be.

No More "Power to the People"
California's Prop 50 was touted as an "anti-Trump" proposition. In fact, it was a redistricting proposition in direct response to Texas's attempt to redistrict for Republican purposes. The double standard is deep with this one (on both sides). So now the Justice Department is suing to block the redistricting that would effectively lock out the vast areas of Republicans in the state and make California a purely Democrat state. So much for "looking out for the little guy." "Power to the Democrats" is the only purpose.

When You Wish Upon a Star
The International Olympic Committee (IOC) is considering banning biological males from competing in female sports in the 2028 Lost Angeles Olympics. (No, that wasn't a typo. I was just making a point.) California (of course) has been pushing for inclusion of biological males competing against females as long as they say in a high voice, "But ... I'm a real girl." Is it the effect of Disneyland ... you know ... Fantasyland and the "Magic Kingdom"?

Your Best Source for Fake News
Apparently the IOC watched an old episode of Mister Roger's Neighborhood and discovered, "Your body's fancy, and so is mine." Now they're considering banning biological males from competing against females. Thanks, Fred. Next, Trump is proposing a 50-year mortgage option to make payments more affordable (actual story). Lenders will require grandkids to co-sign the mortgages while some fear Trump's eternal mortgage option. And ... we've just learned that Democrats only agreed to end the shutdown in exchange for a 15% off coupon from Cracker Barrel. Shrewd ... very shrewd.

Must be true; I read it on the internet.

________

¹ I am not trying to be unkind with the use of the term "same-sex mirage". I need to continually point out that there is a fundamental difference between "marriage" and what we are calling "marriage" when we put the term "same-sex", "homosexual", or "gay" in front of it. I am not objecting to it on moral grounds. I am objecting because they're not the same thing, and I use "mirage" in its place to call that to your attention.

Why Do You Love Me?

It's not an uncommon question. You're feeling a little ... self-deprecatory. You need some reassurance from a loved one. "Why do you love me?" In a similar vein, we read this.

We love Him, because He first loved us. (1 John 4:19)

As if God asked, "Why do you love Me?" and we answered, "Because You first loved us." Except ...

Most modern translations don't translate it that way. Vincent Word Studies says, "The best texts omit 'Him.'" The Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary says, "him — omitted in the oldest manuscripts." Most translations say, "We love because He first loved us." That's kind of abrupt, isn't it? We love at all because He loved first. "Wait ... can't we love on our own?" Apparently not. And it makes sense when we look back at an earlier verse where we read the famous, "God is love" (1 John 4:7). God is love. He defines love. So ... if God defines love ... God is love ... then obviously we couldn't love if He didn't first love us.

We've messed with love a lot. We've diminished it to a feeling ... generally with sex involved. We've used it as a weapon ("If you loved me, you'd ...") and made it a plaything. God's version ... the only real version ... is to sacrifice self for the best for others. Like Jesus did (Php 2:5-8). Like we're supposed to (John 13:34; John 15:12). Scripture says, "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change" (James 1:17) Love would qualify as a "good gift." Just remember ... it's not there because you generate it. Why do I love you? Because He first loved me.

Did God Say ...?

Sometimes people (or Satan) ask "Did God say ..." kinds of questions ... challenging God. Sometimes, the question is a good one. There is a portion of the skeptics that like to claim that God requires rape victims to marry their rapist. "See," they conclude, "if God exists, He's evil!" (I cannot quite fathom why someone who believes no such being exists would wish to debate about the morality of such a being. I mean, the Chinese portray dragons as good and wise and the Europeans portray them as evil, but I'm not debating the existence of dragons based on whether or not they're either.) So, where do they get that claim?

#1
"If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days." (Deut 22:28-29)

Well, now, look ... there it is, plain as day. He "seizes her" and, if caught, has to pay a dowry and marry her for life. Too bad for him. Make sure you rape a girl you wouldn't mind spending your life with. Oh, and too bad for her.

But ... is that what it says? Again, context is important. I numbered that account because there are more to consider. Prior to this command is an earlier one centered "in the open country".

#2
"If in the open country a man meets a young woman who is betrothed, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. But you shall do nothing to the young woman; she has committed no offense punishable by death. For this case is like that of a man attacking and murdering his neighbor, because he met her in the open country, and though the betrothed young woman cried for help there was no one to rescue her." (Deut 22:25-27)

They end differently. Why? What are the similarities and what are the differences? Well, in both we have a young woman who is "seized". In one they are "in the open country" and in the other they are not. In one he pays the father and marries her and in the other he is ... executed. Now, wait! Isn't there a logical problem here? I mean, if God requires women who are raped to marry their rapists, why is one rapist killed and the other not? Hmmm. Perhaps the accusation against God is not valid.

There is another version here to take into account.

#3
"If there is a betrothed virgin, and a man meets her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbor's wife. So you shall purge the evil from your midst." (Deut 22:23-24)

Keep in mind that "betrothed" was "married but not yet consummated" in those times. (It says "he violated his neighbor's wife.") This is why, when Joseph discovered that Mary was pregnant before he married her, he sought to divorce her (Matt 1:19). So in version #2 we were talking about a betrothed woman, and in this version it is a betrothed woman. The penalty for consensual sex between a betrothed or married woman (Deut 22:22) and someone not her husband is death for both as version #3 states. In version #2 -- non-consensual sex between a betrothed or married woman and someone not her husband -- the penalty is death for the rapist. So in version #1 regarding a "a virgin who is not betrothed", the penalty is somehow different.

So what exonerates the woman in version #2? In the case of married/betrothed women who encounter sex apart from their spouse, it is either death for both or death for the man, depending on whether or not it was rape. In the case of the betrothed woman in open country, the male dies, but "you shall do nothing to the young woman; she has committed no offense punishable by death." Why? "There was no one to rescue her." Ah, now we're getting someplace. In the instance where she was not in open country, note that "they are found", but not in the other accounts. This suggests that the act was mutual, not rape. If it is rape, she would cry out and find help. Oh, and in that case, the punishment for rape is death. Since she didn't cry out (remember, they were not "in the open country"), it appears to be consensual sex. For consensual sex with a woman who is not betrothed, the penalty is marriage without possibility of divorce.

Now, some will assure you that this is intended to protect the woman. No one would marry a non-virgin. She'd be stuck without a husband. Fine. I won't disagree. But my point here is that the text does not appear to require rape in the case of the virgin, but rather consensual sex. Therefore, the accusation that God requires a rape victim to marry her rapist is false. As in Exodus 22:16, the penalty for seducing a virgin is marriage. (Note that in the Exodus version the father has the right to refuse the bride-price and to give his daughter to him.) Since Deuteronomy means "the second law" and is supposed to basically be a restating of the law from the previous version, it's pretty clear that this is the case. The sad part is that too many Christians won't think it through sufficiently to be able to demonstrate this. So I would urge, "Christians ... know thy Scripture."

Peace, Peace

Interesting contrast here. Jeremiah wrote, "They have healed the wound of My people lightly, saying, 'Peace, peace,' when there is no peace" (Jer 6:14). Contrast that with, "Do not be anxious about anything, 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 understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus" (Php 4:6-7). "No peace" versus "peace which surpasses understanding."

What does the Bible say about peace? We all want it. But the Bible says, "'There is no peace,' says the LORD, 'for the wicked'" (Isa 48:22). "No peace for the wicked." That's pretty intense. What's the solution? Jesus said, "Peace I leave with you; My peace I give to you. Not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your hearts be troubled, neither let them be afraid" (John 14:27). Isaiah wrote, "You keep him in perfect peace whose mind is stayed on You, because he trusts in You" (Isa 26:3). Paul wrote, "The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace ..." (Gal 5:22). So ... no peace versus peace. No peace for the wicked; peace from God.

Everyone wants peace. No one gets it naturally. Peace is from God. Peace is available when we pray and give thanks. Peace is possible when we are filled with the Spirit. You don't get it by peaceful circumstances. And the best one is "Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ" (Rom 5:1). You can't have peace if you're not at peace with God ... and that only happens if we have been justified by faith. Thus ... "There is no peace for the wicked" versus "the peace that passes understanding."

The Logic of Inerrancy

The concept of biblical inerrancy is an ongoing and even contentious one. Two terms are used when discussing the question. One is "inerrancy" ... the absence of any factual errors. The other is "infallibility" ... The impossibility of making errors. Two sides of the same coin. It could not make an error and it did not make an error. Is it a valid doctrine? Is it rational? Is it ... biblical? That last one seems a little bit funny to me. Here's the basic line of reasoning: "The Bible never says it is inerrant." The problem is that those who use this argument don't see the problem. If the primary argument that the Bible is inerrant was based on the Bible's own statement that it was inerrant, we'd have a classic logical fallacy: Circular reasoning. "The Bible says it's inerrant. The Bible, being inerrant, cannot be wrong. Therefore, the Bible is inerrant!" Wrong. Sorry, but that's nonsense.

Does the Bible claim to be the Word of God? Absolutely! It only takes a basic search engine a brief moment to discover the phrase "Thus saith the Lord" thousands of times in the Bible. That's a claim to being God's Word. Then there's that whole "God-breathed" thing (so often minimized incorrectly as "inspired") that clearly states, "All Scripture is breathed out by God" (2 Tim 3:16). If it is God's Word, can God err? Of course not. Still, to make the argument from this that the Bible is inerrant would be circular. It's helpful to the believer, but not as a valid argument for someone who does not believe.

There are other popular arguments that we like, but just don't cut the mustard, so to speak. We like the one that says "The Spirit testifies that it's the Word of God." It is a true statement, but, again, not a valid argument. Others have testified, "The Spirit told me ..." with the part that follows being downright heresy. Shall we believe them, also? And there is the popular argument that believers offer that "It is the Word of God because it speaks truth to me." This may be a true statement and is nice confirmation to a believer, but, again, it's not a valid argument for someone who does not believe for a reason similar to the previous argument. If the Quran "speaks truth to me", have I validated it as God's Word? Still another argument is "the Church says so." It is a true statement. Orthodox Christianity has always held that God does not err and, therefore, His Word is inerrant. But you can see the same problem here, can't you? "The Church" says that the Pope is infallible. Oh, wait, no, we don't all buy that. Great! Now what? See? These types of things are true and are good as confirmation for those who believe, but not valid arguments. Comforting, but not convincing.

Is there an argument, preferably a biblical one, that would demonstrate inerrancy without relying on a biblical claim to inerrancy? Yes, there is. The argument would go something like this. If you have a messenger from God who declares the Bible to be God's Word, then that would be evidence that it is God's Word. Of course, how do you determine the authenticity of such a messenger? Well, according to Scripture, that was the primary function of miracles. If you recall, Nicodemus said, "Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him" (John 3:2). In fact, throughout John's Gospel he liked to use the word "signs" when others wrote "miracles" because that was the purpose. If a person showed up on the scene with abilities that humans didn't have -- only God would have -- then they must be a genuine messenger from God.

So, do we have a candidate? Yes! Jesus was a verified "teacher come from God". He taught that the Scripture "cannot be broken" (John 10:35). In fact, He said, "For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law ..." (Matt 5:18). The wording He liked to repeat was "It is written" to demonstrate that what He was saying was absolutely true and authoritative. Of course, that was the Old Testament. He also promised the Spirit who would lead His disciples into all truth. Jesus prayed, "Your word is truth" (John 17:17). And Peter, speaking of Paul's work, ranks it with "the other Scriptures" (2 Peter 3:15-16). So we have confirmation from God's authentic messenger, Jesus, that the New Testament would be written and confirmation from another of God's authentic messengers, Peter, that Paul's writings were Scripture. Paul's writings included this: "All Scripture is God-breathed ..." So the question becomes, "Does God make mistakes?"

But, look, this isn't just my line of thinking. I just summarized this piece by John Gerstner. So you go ahead and read it. You'll find a biblical and logical proof that the Bible is inerrant. Accepting it as such is, as always, up to you. Arguing, "No such argument exists", however, is a lie.

Cognitive Dissonance ... a Reprise

Cognitive dissonance is the feeling of uncomfortable tension you get when you try to hold two conflicting thoughts in your head at the same time. We've all experienced it, I'm sure. Of course, since my primary focus here is matters of Christian concern, my primary cognitive dissonance issues will point there. Let's say that you believe it is wrong to kill animals ... and then you discover that God ordered thousands of animals killed often for sacrifices. Or you believe that the death penalty is immoral ... and then you read that God ordered the death penalty in many instances for a variety of crimes. Maybe you're quite sure that science accurately explains the origins of the universe ... and then you read the Genesis account. Perhaps you think that there is no fundamental difference between men and women ... and then you read that Paul didn't allow women to teach men and that wives are to submit to their husbands. Or, here, how about this? You know lots of good people who aren't Christians ... and then you read "There is none good, no not one."

Cognitive dissonance is the description of what is occurring in these (and many other) examples. You have your own core beliefs ... and then you run up against another of your core beliefs. What do you do? How do you resolve this problem? Different people have different approaches, but, essentially, there are only three. One approach is to hold both beliefs at the same time, as contradictory as they are. They put themselves in an awkward position, trying to logically defend a contradiction (which, by definition, is illogical). Another very popular approach is to throw out the new paradigm in favor of the old. That is, "I've always believed X, so Y just can't be true." I suspect there are several reasons that this is so prevalent. First there's pride. "You're saying that I've been wrong all this time???!!" Then there's the emotional connection. "Hey, I learned that from my mom/pastor/favorite person ... and you're telling me they are all wrong?" Dropping an old paradigm for a new can be difficult and disconcerting. The third approach, then, is to drop the old for the new. The person encountering the dissonance says something like, "Well, I had an opposing view, but it appears to say something different, so I'll discard my original view in favor of the new."

Now, I'm sure you're well aware that this is an oversimplification. Usually people use some combination of these three. Perhaps they won't see it as one of these three. For instance, when they explain away the new view as not what it actually says, they'll think, "I'm just being wise here", not "I'm unwilling to change my original view for a new one." Conversely, they might say, "I am not even going to think about it; I'll just toss out my original view and take the new one because 'the Bible is always right'." And they don't think ... many of them.

A thinking approach might equally be any of these three positions. A thinking person might tell himself/herself "I've always been told that there is no difference between men and women. I've carefully examined the texts about men and women/husbands and wives and cannot find support for my original view in Scripture. It would seem that I need to change my view." It is possible to think, "I've seen the evidence from science and I don't know how to refute it. Perhaps I am not properly understanding what the Genesis account of Creation is actually saying. Let's see if I can correlate the two." You could say, "I believe God is good, and this passage seems to portray Him as bad. While I don't accept that He's bad, I'll still accept this passage as true and rely on my ignorance of the total character of God to retain both positions -- God is good, and this passage is accurate."

So ... what approach would I recommend? Well, think it through. Here are a few points in the order that I would recommend:

1. Ask "What does Scripture say?" That would include "What does the text say?" (including context, type of passage -- doctrine, narrative, poetry, wisdom, etc.) as well as "What does the rest of Scripture say?" since Scripture is first and foremost best interpreted by Scripture. If what you read in a passage contradicts what you read in another passage, there is valid reason to question your understanding (as opposed to the veracity of Scripture). If one passage implies something you've always believed, but another explicitly denies it, you may need to make a change. On the other hand, if there is no contradiction in Scripture, be prepared to change what you believe so that it aligns with what Scripture says.

2. Ask, "Why does this cause me problems?" If you are confused because your experience or personal views are getting in the way, then you may need to overwrite your experience or personal views. "I always thought people were like this" is not a good reason to conclude "the Bible must be wrong." Very often people refuse to change their perceptions in the face of clear biblical content because the cost is too high. "That would mean that I'm in sin" or "if that's true, then people I love are in deep trouble." I would submit that the reverse is true. If you are actually in sin or the people you love are actually in deep trouble, redefining it to protect yourself or them is a disservice ... to both.

3. Find out what historic Christianity has said on the passage. This is 3rd on my list because historically the Church has made mistakes, but if the Holy Spirit truly leads His own into all truth, then there should be a thread throughout Church history that holds one common view from beginning to end. If your conclusions are novel, question them. If your understanding defies historic orthodoxy, on what basis do you think you're right when they've all been wrong? If you come to the same conclusion that historic Christianity did, especially if it is in opposition to your original view, be very careful before you reject it.

4. Ultimately, determine your source. Are you, in the end, going to go with yourself as your source, or are you going to submit to the Bible as your source? Is God's written Word sufficient, or are you going to hold yourself in higher esteem? Your call. Make it the right one.

Let's look at an example. You know lots of nice people. You know atheists who are good husbands (or wives) and good parents and good citizens. They do lots of good. Then you read,

"For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written: 'None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one'" (Rom 3:9-12).

Wow! Didn't see that coming. So, let's take a look. What is the context? Well, Paul has just spent Romans 1:18-3:8 explaining that sin is a problem, that God's just wrath is against sinners, and we're all in a heap of trouble with God. The context, then, supports the passage as written. But does other Scripture? Well, later we read, "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom 3:23), "you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness" (Rom 6:16), and "The mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God" (Rom 8:7-8). Wow! Just as harsh! And over in 1 Corinthians we read, "The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Cor. 2:14). Then in Ephesians Paul writes, "You were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience -- among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind" (Eph 2:1-3). And on it goes. It appears that the Scriptures hold a dim view of the capabilities of natural man for any possibility of good.

Still, I know good people, so perhaps the text doesn't mean what it appears to say. Maybe it's hyperbole, you know? Let's look at that. The Bible certainly uses hyperbole at times. In Mark 1:33 we read, "And the whole city was gathered together at the door." Seriously, Mark? The whole city? Well, no, of course not. He's trying to get across the large number of people that showed up. But ... what if he actually intended to say "every man, woman, and child"? Well, he'd need a few more words, but it would look something like this: "And the whole city -- every single person -- was gathered together at the door." You see, in that case Mark would have been saying "the whole city -- and I'm not speaking in hyperbole." We find this type of thing in Genesis. "But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house" (Gen 19:4). Do you see the care taken to explain this? When you first read "the men of the city", you might think "hyperbole -- overstatement to make a point". But the passage explains carefully -- it's not hyperbole. It is "the men of Sodom" (as opposed to Gomorrah), "both young and old" (as opposed to any particular age group), and "to the last man" (as opposed to "a whole lot"). This description is designed to say that actually every single adult male in the city of Sodom was outside of Lot's door. So ... what do we see in the passage in question? Paul uses this descriptive tool, doesn't he? When he says, "There is none righteous" he doesn't leave room for hyperbole. He emphasizes it: "no, not one". When he says "no one does good" he doesn't leave room for misunderstanding. He emphasizes again "not even one". He is clarifying, "I'm not speaking in hyperbole" (or, to be more accurate, "the psalmist I'm quoting wasn't speaking in hyperbole"). He actually means all.

Now we have a choice. We can redefine our experience -- those good non-believers we know -- or we can redefine what is plain in the passage, allowing our experience to override the text. If we chose the latter, it would not be because of context or contradiction of other Scripture. It would be on the basis of our personal experience and preference. Essentially we would be saying, "That passage cannot mean what it clearly intends to say because I trust my instinct and experience over that text, so I will not accept it at face value." And we would do so at our own risk.

It's important to read the Bible for all it is worth. It is important to know what it says both in immediate context and in its entire context. The Bible is our sole source on matters of faith and practice, God's Word to us. We should "rightly divide" -- handle carefully -- the Word. But be very, very careful if you decide that despite all the texts and contexts and history and commentaries that you're right and they're all wrong. Be very, very careful.

Blessed

It's not uncommon to hear someone say, almost as a "thank you," "You blessed me" or something like it. It sounds vaguely "Christian," but not necessarily. It sounds Christian because of things like the Beatitudes (Matt 5:3-12). We've come to mean it as "happy," but is it?

The Greek word is makarios which means "fortunate." It is translated "happy" in places or "blessed" or "fortunate." But biblically it is more. It is spiritual favor, divine grace. "Happy" refers to favorable fortune while "blessed" refers to divine aid. Perhaps you can see it clearly in the Aaronic Blessing.

The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace. (Num 6:24-26)

The structures of the phrases are parallel. In this form, "bless" and "make His face to shine" and "lift up His countenance" are synonymous. So are "keep" and "be gracious" and "give you peace." So "bless and keep" are the same as "make His face to shine and be gracious" and "lift up His countenance and give you peace," and they are all expanding on a single notion ... "bless." In this, then, you can see the intentions of the word, "blessed." It includes being kept, having Him see you, His grace, and giving you peace. So "blessed" means so much more than merely "favorable fortune."

Scripture says God "has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places" (Eph 1:3). That's so much more than "made you happy." It's His face on you, His hand keeping you, His grace for you, His peace. It's so much more than "happy."

News Weakly - 11/8/2025

The Muslim Muscleman
Zohran Mamdani won the election for mayor of New York City. He plans to cripple small businesses by requiring a minimum wage of $30/hr by 2030, oppose the federal government on immigration, control rents, decriminalize prostitution, and more. He's an ultra-liberal that puts liberals to shame and New York City wants him. That's called a "representative government."

The Double Standard
In order to fight the attempts at redistricting in Texas, California pushed Prop 50 ... to redistrict California for added Democrat control. It was sold as a "stick it to Trump" proposition, and voters bought it. It's not a "stick it to Trump" proposition; it's a "gain more power in California" law. And the double standard is strong with this one because it was specifically aimed at doing in California what they complained about Texas doing.

A Reason to Hope?
Denmark has long been a left-leaning nation, so it's strange when they are set to ban social media access for children under 15. Don't get me wrong. I'm all for it. I think that stuff has rotted the brains of our children. Is it possible the left-leaning nation of Denmark is waking up to this?

Your Best Source for Fake News
Mamdani is assuring New Yorkers there's no problem so large that government can't make it worse. He's right, of course. Due to the government shutdown, an unpaid air traffic controller is now sending all planes to Duluth, Minnesota just for fun. I guess I get it. And, finally, on Pelosi's retirement, the Bee has a story about how she's preparing for the sad future of outsider trading. Poor Nancy.

Must be true; I read it on the internet.

Consider the Source

There is a logical fallacy called, "ad hominem" ... "to the man." It's an attack on the person, not the logic. Not the argument. One kind attacks the person directly. Another bases the attack on hypocrisy or inconsistency. Or maybe it's based on a perceived bias. Very popular is the "poisoning the well" version where they convince you not to listen because of other perceived errors in advance. Or there's the "tu quoque" variety where, for instance, a person is caught in a lie and accuses the other of a lie to discredit them. "Oh, yeah? Well, you lied, too!" All in the same category of ad hominem. The problem is they're an attack on the speaker and don't address the argument. So, for instance, when some Christians hear that C.S. Lewis had some bad theology, they refuse to read anything he wrote. Was what he wrote wrong? They'll never know.

I've found it interesting to read some of that "bad stuff." A guy I worked for gave me a book titled, The Lost Books of the Bible. He assured me I'd see how our Bibles are unreliable. The introduction said they accumulated the book so you could read this apocryphal stuff and see for yourself that it's not Scripture. And it really did. I saw, when I read it, how it clearly wasn't inspired. The result? My faith was bolstered. I think we are shorting ourselves if we don't examine the claims of the opposition to see where they miss the mark. Obviously it has to be done carefully. Clearly a reliance on the Holy Spirit is necessary. But I've found that it can be encouraging to actually see the error, and I don't think we can address the error of other views if we don't know what they are.

It's not for everyone. It is work. But Paul said, "Examine all things; hold fast to what is good" (1 Thess 5:21). So some of us ought to do that. Avoid the obvious error. We don't need to be dwelling on it. I still think that we can gain from seeing the error and answering it. Consider the source. Sometimes God can use a donkey to tell the truth (Num 22:27-31). He can use even me.

Where Your Treasure Is

Her husband died recently. She's in her late eighties. Her health is declining. She's already had some Emergency Room visits. It's not safe for her to live at home alone. "Home" is a 4-bedroom, two-story house she can't even see half the time, let alone maintain. (She can't even manage the stairs.) She has to pay for yard maintenance and everything else. She has a substantial bank account and receives a couple of sources of income, so she's not hurting financially, but ... she doesn't want to move to someplace she can be cared for. Why? Because, according to her, "Where will I put my furniture?"

What is it we value? I'm stunned at times. She values ... her furniture. She values her furniture above safety, health, and anyone else's concerns. What do I value above anything else? That question disturbs me a lot. My head says, "Christ alone," but what do my actions say? I'm concerned about cost of living when God promises to supply all my needs (Php 4:19). I'm worried about politics when God says all authority comes from Him (Rom 13:1-2). I preach doing loving your neighbor by sacrificing self (John 13:34) and too often fail to do so. I ... too often ... love things I shouldn't more than what I should love more.

My lady of the first paragraph isn't quite all there mentally. Old people, you know. So the problematic thinking is dramatic. Unfortunately, we all suffer from this kind of problematic thinking, even without the age problem. We're humans in constant need of a renewed mind (Rom 12:2). Solomon wrote, "Guard your heart with all vigilance, for from it are the sources of life" (Pro 4:23). Everything comes from our hearts and minds. I fear we're too lax in guarding them from error.

No, Lord

One of the biggest arguments ("Biggest" in the sense of "most common" or "most difficult.") against God is the problem of evil. Apparently, God is either not all powerful -- He can't stop evil -- or He's not all-loving -- He doesn't intend to stop evil. It's fascinating because ... it's so arrogant. We believe that God is just like us, and if He is powerful and loving, He should do what we think He should do. Scripture is abundantly clear that He's not like us, but ... "Hey ... don't bother me with facts; I know I'm right."

Our problem is that we unknowingly approach the "Most High" with the proposition that we are the Most High. We know best. And if He doesn't see that and submit ... He's just not there. The true approach to God should be, "Whatever you say, Lord." But, like Peter's oxymoron, "No, Lord" (Acts 10:14), we stand in His face and correct Him. "You shouldn't have done that to me." Job said, "YHWH gave, and YHWH has taken away; blessed be the name of YHWH" (Job 1:21), a position that begins with God being right. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego told Nebuchadnezzar that God could save them, but it didn't matter if He did (Dan 3:16-18), a position that begins with God being right. Joseph told his brothers, "You meant evil against me, but God meant it for good" (Gen 50:20), a position that begins with God being right.

It's a dangerous thing to answer back to God. It's a foolish thing to think we know better. Even humans can understand that painful things can be good. We vaccinate children, causing temporary pain, knowing that it will make them safer, for instance. We know "No pain, no gain." So why do we assume that we know more than the Almighty regarding good and right and the future? It's not a safe or rational position to take. We should probably take a step back from such foolishness and start with, "Yes, Lord."

Is He Able?

The debate rages on. Can you lose your salvation or can't you? There are lots of verses about "If you" warnings that are frightening if you're paying attention. These are the ones that convince so many that salvation can be lost. But if you look at the texts about God's capabilities, the picture is quite different.

The top text used to prove that salvation can be lost is in Hebrews.

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

Some argue that the description isn't real Christians. I find that hard to believe. "Enlightened" alone is a sure indication, given 1 Corinthians 2:14. And non-believers don't get to share in the Holy Spirit. The whole list appears to prove a real believer, not a "hit and run." See? Case proved. Except ... almost none of those who favor this text ... agree with it. The text says if that happens, it is impossible to restore them again to repentance. That is, once lost, always lost. If you have salvation and lose it, you lose it forever. No second chances. No repentance possible. Are we actually going with that one? Of course, that's only one, but it's a prime example of me and my responsibilities ... and the seriousness of obedience. On the other hand, there is God. Jesus said, "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of My hand" (John 10:27-28). No one. (And, let me ask you, how is it "eternal life" if it can be lost?) Paul said, "And I am sure of this, that He who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Php 1:6). Was Paul misguided? Jude said He is "able to keep you from stumbling and to present you blameless before the presence of His glory with great joy" (Jude 1:24). Is He? Or is He dependent on us? In Ephesians, Paul says that God has blessed us with every spiritual blessing (Eph 1:3) and goes on to list some of them, including being chosen before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4), being predestined for adoption (Eph 1:5) and having the seal and guarantee of the Holy Spirit (Eph 1:13-14). Does my failure to be all I should be nullify those blessings already given?

If you look at Scripture, we are commanded and warned and cautioned regarding maintaining salvation. It's true. So ... are we dependent on our own proper obedience? Paul said, "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). If we can lose our salvation, the answer is "Yes ... we are perfected by the flesh." Paul assured us salvation was a gift so that none should boast (Eph 2:8-9). If I get to heaven because I properly maintained my salvation, that's quite an achievement. So I'm delighted that it's God who is at work in me to will (to choose) and to work (to have the power for) His good pleasure (Php 2:13). So I will "work out my salvation" (Php 2:12) based on His work in me and trust Him to keep me to the end ... not keeping myself.

Is That True?

According to Scripture, all Scripture is God-breathed (2 Tim 3:16-17). Jesus claimed God's word is truth (John 17:17). So ... Scripture ... is true. That is, on the basis of God being true and reliable (Jesus said, "I am the truth (John 14:6).), Scripture is true as well. So ... why do we read so many impossible things? A prime example is the number of things that Scripture says are impossible that we believe to be possible.

Scripture says, "No one can come to Me unless it is granted him by the Father" (John 6:65). Wait ... really? "No one can"? It requires a grant from the Father? We always thought anyone could. Similar to Jesus telling Nicodemus, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God" (John 3:5). "Born of the Spirit" is required to even perceive the kingdom of God? Or take Paul's astounding statement, "The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Cor 2:14). That's a "not able." Lacking the capability. They can neither accept nor understand. But ... we're pretty sure they can. (Understand the implications. If it is true that they can neither accept nor understand, then they cannot come to Christ before being born again.) And this one. "No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him; and he cannot keep on sinning, because he has been born of God" (1 John 3:9). "Cannot keep on sinning"?? I know. It says, "make a practice of." That doesn't preclude a sin. It precludes uninterrupted, unrepented sin. But we generally think that genuine Christians can and do sin on a lifelong, unrepentant manner. Or the standard, "No one does good, not even one" (Rom 3:12). No one does good? No one? Doesn't everyone? This says no.

So ... who are you going to believe? Common sense? The tide of public opinion? Your own perceptions? Or will you stand on God and His Word? I suspect that we who claim to be "Bible-believing Christians" might have a lot of modifications to our thinking to align with God's Word ... and God's thinking. I just hope we're sincere enough and brave enough to do it. You know ... to renew your mind (Rom 12:2).

Sure, There's a Problem

I live in Arizona. The state used to be a solid "red state." When we moved here we had a Republican governor, Republican senators, and mostly Republican representatives ... and Sheriff Joe. No longer. It's now termed a "purple state" because ... there is still a base of conservatives, but none of the above factors are still true. And the transition was sudden. One day, red ... practically the next, purple. Okay, one election. You get the idea. Literally, over an eight-year period, we watched it go from red to purple. What happened? The largest reason for the shift is the influx of Californians. They've fled the "Left coast" because they didn't like the prices and politics ... and brought their politics with them. In the past decade, an average of 173 Californians a day. They've shifted the tides.

What's my point? The problem is not Californians. The problem is ... the heart. Years ago the company I worked for invited 6 Chinese university students to work with us for a year. They offered to pay employees to put them up in their homes. I thought it was a great missions opportunity ... and it was really good. Gao was a wonderful guy who told me, "China needs Jesus." Once in a conversation at work with me, Gao, and a coworker who went to my church, the coworker asked if Gao was a communist. Gao was puzzled. "No ... why would you ask that?" "Well," the friend said, "your government is communist." Gao smiled. "Our government rules by force; we didn't select them." And it hit me. Our government is a "representative government." It represents us. The problem in American politics today isn't politicians; it's voters. It's a problem ... of the heart. Jesus said, "Out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person. But to eat with unwashed hands does not defile anyone" (Matt 15:19-20). The source of all of human-caused problems is the heart. Californians that ran from their "horrible politics" brought their hearts with them and, therefore, their politics. Looking around you, it's possible to see hearts because of actions. We always act on what we truly believe.

This is why we must be born again. It's why we need to die to self. James asks why there are conflicts and quarrels among us. He says it's because we don't ask for help, and when we do ask, we ask for the wrong reasons. "You ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly, to spend it on your passions" (James 4:3). So, when you wonder what's wrong with "those people" or the world, try looking at the heart. Start with your own. Look at what you do as opposed to what you say you believe. Work from there. The problem with the world isn't Democrats or Republicans, Californians or other states, communists or democracies ... the problem with the world ... is us. You and me.

News Weakly - 11/1/2025

Manufactured Emergency
New York Governor Hochul has declared a food state of emergency at the impending halt of SNAP funding. Mind you, the judges say they'll require Trump to pay despite the government shutdown, but apparently New York can't feed their own needy people.

ACA Face Plant
The "Affordable" Care Act is threatening the largest increase in costs for this new enrollment period. So much for "affordable"? The people I've talked to who use it all complain about how expensive it is with unimpressive benefits ... so ... let's boost the prices.

Religion of Peace?
The "religion of peace" was planning an attack on Halloween in the U.S. The FBI averted it and all's well, but I'm trying to figure out how this "religion of peace" isn't sued for false advertising.

Your Best Source for Fake News
Democrats are embarrassed that they can't remember why they shut down the government. Well ... of course not. It's a bunch of old white men. With Mamdani running for election in New York, Al-Qaeda has activated sleeper cells to get the vote out for him. And Democrats are vowing to starve as many food stamp recipients as it takes to get free healthcare for illegal immigrants. Seems to be in full alignment with their values.

Must be true; I read it on the internet.