Love and Marriage

Bill and Melinda Gates are getting divorced after 27 years of marriage. "We no longer believe we can grow together as a couple in this next phase of our lives," they say. That, apparently, is a primary purpose in marriage.

Doing some research into changes in the concept of marriage, I read, "Right up until the end of the 18th century, though, love and marriage were mutually exclusive." Really! So, prior to today's modern world, marriage was defined as "without love" and if you did love your spouse, well, then, you just weren't married becaue "love and marriage were mutually exclusive." Strange. Of course, the problem is not in the statement. The problem is in the definition of love. If by "love" you mean "a relationship built on warm affection and deep sexual passion," then there may not have been "love" in standard "marriage" in years past. But if the command of Scripture is "Husbands, love your wives ..." (Eph 5:25), then apparently God didn't think that love and marriage were mutually exclusive.

So one of the similarities between older times and today is it appears that defining marriage has always been botched. In the early 1900's people began to think that "marriage should be based on sexual attraction and fulfillment." If you would offer that reason today and you'd get a "Duh!" response. But is that biblical? The Gates believe it is based on being able to grow together as a couple. Is that biblical? Since then changes have included increasing sexual immorality, rising divorce rates, intentionally childless marriages, and, most recently, "same-sex marriage" which, at least statistically, appears to be putting an end to marriage at all. Since the 1970's, the marriage rates have dropped by 60%. No, of course it's not just "gay marriage." It's also the "free sex" revolution and women preferring careers to relationships and women's liberation and cohabitation and divorce rates and, well, sure, "gay marriage" which managed to singlehandedly, self-consciously redefine marriage to ... well ... not much at all.

What, then, is marriage? If we don't really have a grasp on it anymore, what is it? Marriage was instituted by God despite what "modern science" might suggest. "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." (Gen 2:24) In that single sentence is some serious information. "Therefore," because it is a commentary on what just happened. God had just made Eve from Adam and Adam called her Woman (Gen 2:21-23). "Therefore" -- out of the connections that God built into the male and the female -- marriage. "A man shall leave his mother and father." This doesn't suggest or require an exit from the family, but it does indicate a new family. It isn't a division as much as it is a multiplication. A family -- mother and father -- produce an offspring who then joins with a woman. This new couple then forms a new family -- a mother and father -- and so on. "And hold fast to his wife." The King James says "cleave," as in "leave and cleave." The word is to adhere, to cling to, to be joined. Leave parents and be joined to a wife. How joined? "They shall become one flesh." A new family is now a new organism. Eve literally came from Adam's flesh; husbands and wives become one flesh still. Marriage is a union. It is certainly sexual in nature (1 Cor 6:16), but so much more. It is emotional, social, financial, spiritual, and more. Now, considering all of that, in what sense would we say that marriage is about "growing together as a couple"? In what sense would love and marriage be mutually exclusive or would marriage be predicated on sexual attraction and personal fulfillment? How small are these views??

There is one other critical aspect of marriage to consider here. In his instructions to husband and wife in his epistle to the Ephesians, Paul makes a large claim. He quotes that Genesis 2:24 passage and then he writes,

This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. (Eph 5:32)

A profound mystery. That is, all that marriage is exceeds our meager understanding. One aspect here, by God's design, points to the relationship of Christ and His Bride. What do we know about that relationship? We know that "Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her, that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that He might present the church to Himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish." (Eph 5:25-27) We know that "God shows His love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." (Rom 5:8) He didn't die for a lovely bride, but a weak and ungodly (Rom 5:6) enemy (Rom 5:10) bride. He joins Himself to that bride to sanctify and cleanse her and present her without spot or wrinkle. Given that image, how do we work "marriage is about self-fulfillment and sexual attraction and warm fuzzy feelings" into the mix?

The Bible has more to say about marriage, but I think that it should be clear at this point that our version today, even among Christians, is an anemic devolution of the original. Yes, love and marriage go together, but nothing like the plain affection and sex we define as "love" today. Yes, "grow together" is part of it, but not in a self-serving, limited, "we've run out of that" possibility. Indeed, biblical marriage has commands to love and instructions to never divorce and the certainty of a union that will, in a very real sense, tear us apart if we try to break it. One can hardly find examples of this view of marriage in our culture today. Perhaps we need to become exceptions to that problem.

Good Advice

In Proverbs Solomon offers wisdom to his son. In there, he warns him to guard his heart. "Watch over your heart with all diligence, For from it flow the springs of life." (Prov 4:23) Then he offers practical advice:

Let your eyes look directly ahead and let your gaze be fixed straight in front of you. Watch the path of your feet and all your ways will be established. Do not turn to the right nor to the left; turn your foot from evil. (Prov 4:25-27)

I think Solomon's wisdom is a bit more extreme than most of ours. He warns to guard his heart by first guarding his eyes. "Look directly ahead." Not to the side. Not at the temptations. Not at the things that might draw you away. Not the billboard with the scantily clad woman or that click bait on the news webpage you're reading. Know where you're going and look that way.

Then he warns him to guard his paths. If you watch where you are walking, "all your ways will be established." "Don't turn right. Don't turn left. Don't even take a step toward evil. Walk on by." Earlier he had told his son, "Do not enter the path of the wicked and do not proceed in the way of evil men. Avoid it, do not pass by it; turn away from it and pass on." (Prov 4:14-15) Don't even get close. No, wait, more than that. Turn away from it.

Not us. Sure, we're aware of temptations and evil around us. We see it on our TVs and internet. It's quite difficult to avoid, in fact. It's just ... there. But it's okay. We'll be strong. We'll hold out. But too often we don't. We trip and fall. We turn right. Or left. We don't turn away; not in time.

Perhaps we would benefit from Solomon's advice. Perhaps we'd be better off taking drastic measures (Matt 18:8-9) to avoid the path of the wicked rather than dancing on the edges and thinking we might be immune. Instead we should guard our hearts, watch where we're going, know where we're going, and absolutely avoid those places of evil. Well, that is, if you have a problem with sin. If you've already arrived at perfection, none of this is applicable, of course.

COVID-21

One of the interesting symptoms of COVID-19 was the fairly common loss of the sense of taste and smell. Very odd, but a dead giveaway even for many who had very few or very mild symptoms. I think I've discovered the latest mutation of the COVID-19 virus. Let's call it COVID-21. The primary symptom of this version is less of those coughs and breathing problems and more of a loss of common sense. It might be more rampant than its earlier version ever was.

On Parenting

I was expressing my concerns about parents recently. So, since I don't like the appearance of complaining without the offering ideas, I thought I'd take a stab at parenting principles.

If we wanted to find verifiable principles for parenting, we'd likely not want to go to "modern techniques" or "the latest studies" despite that being the "go-to" for the world today. That's because we're hoping for the truth and we know that "all that is in the world — the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride of life — is not from the Father but is from the world." (1 John 2:16) We know that "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 if we want God's truth, it's best not to go to the enemies of God for answers. On the other hand, Jesus said, "Your word is truth, (John 17:17), so maybe that would be a better option. What do we find there on principles for parenting?

There are indeed biblical parenting principles in Scripture for any parent who would care to find them. For instance, the Bible puts fathers on the hot seat for bringing them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord (Eph 6:4; Heb 12:7) without exasperating them (Col 3:21). Odd ... and so many of us thought it was the job of the church. Note, that doesn't mean mothers don't do it, too. It means that fathers are the responsible party. Parents are to prioritize impressing God's commands on their children. "Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up." (Deut 6:6-7) It is essential that parents bring up their children in the way they should go (Prov 22:6). (Why do so many modern parents appear to fail to understand that raising kids to be responsible adults is a primary job?) Fathers in particular, but mothers, too, are responsible to encourage, comfort, and urge their children to live lives worthy of God (1 Thess 2:11-12). Parents are to exemplify godliness to their children (1 Cor 11:1). And, despite all the world has to tell us today, Scripture is not vague when it says, “Whoever spares the rod hates their children, but the one who loves their children is careful to discipline them." (Prov 13:24) "Careful" in the sense of diligent to do it as needed and diligent to do it carefully, not wantonly or foolishly.

There is one principle, though, that is fundamental and essential. If we are to love God with all of our being and love our neighbor as ourselves, it would seem quite clear that loving your children would be a fundamental principle of parenting. Unfortunately, I suspect that the world has worked so hard at diluting God's version of love that we might have a hard time recognizing that when we see it. It's not "be warm toward your children." It's not "encourage them in whatever they want to pursue." "But, wait a minute," you might be saying, "didn't you just say we're to love them? Isn't that loving them?" It could be, but, generally, no, it's not. It's not because of the sin nature. It's not because love isn't mere warm feelings. Love is seeking the best for the loved one. Sometimes that is decidedly not encouraging them to do what they want. It would be hate to encourage them to do what they want when what they want is bad for them. So let's keep that in mind rather than the world's "warm affection" version.

Love becomes a grand umbrella here. If the constant question is "What is best for my child?" it creates a pattern to live by. If it is "What is best for me?" that's a different pattern. But this kind of love is not always "nice." Scripture says, "The Lord disciplines the one He loves, and chastises every son whom He receives." (Heb 12:6) (That's in stark opposition to the world's version that demands that any such thing is detrimental to children.) Discipline and chastening driven by love are parenting essentials. Discipline and chastening driven by anger, selfishness, or any other motive is not biblical and not love.

Paul told the Philippians,

Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others. (Php 2:3-4)

How's that for a parenting principle? If in general we are to consider others as more important than we are and look out for the interests of others, how much more when talking about family? How different does that look from modern parenting? Fathers, our first priority is our wife and our kids. Not us; them. Mothers, your first priority is your husband and kids. Not you; them. But we're pretty sure that parenting is all about us. What makes us feel good? What do we want? What's best for us? For instance, how does "me time" fit in this paradigm? (Note: I'm not saying it can't; I'm asking if they are the point.)

You know, if I'm honest, I think the fundamental principle for parenting properly begins and ends with love. Not the warm fuzzy type. The love that is always looking away from "me" and toward them. The love that always seeks their best even to my detriment. The love that finds its greatest joy in serving their needs rather than my own. Sometimes that's painful for them, but it has to be best for them. Sometimes it costs parents -- time, talent, money, resources, social gatherings, all sorts of things -- but if it's what's best for them, it's what love requires. I think parenting built on that principle would look a lot different than our current common version.

Proof of Love

We know that God is love (1 John 4:8). Everyone knows that. Well, sort of. But, really, how do we know that God loves us? I mean, how do you know that God loves you? Sure, it says He does, but do we have any reason to believe that?

Here's what the Bible says. We were dead in sins (Eph 2:1), but God, because of the great love with which He loved us, made us alive together with Him (Eph 2:4-5). That's pretty impressive. And it appeared to have been a theme in Paul's mind. To the Romans he wrote,

God shows His love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Rom 5:8)

Same theme. But it's actually much bigger. He said, "While we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly." (Rom 5:6) Okay, so sinners and helpless and ungodly. But he wasn't done. "While we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son." (Rom 5:10) So, this love that God shows is for the helpless, for sinners, for enemies.

Paul points out the impossibility of this concept in the text. "One will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die." (Rom 5:7) "No one," he is saying, "would think it a good thing to die for helpless, enemy sinners. That just isn't what we might do." Christ did. The demonstration of God's love for us -- the living proof, so to speak -- is that Christ died for enemies. Not good people. Not righteous people. Sinners.

I wonder if sometimes we find the gospel bland. I wonder sometimes if we don't take it for granted. There really is no way to describe the vastness of this good news. God loves enemies -- sinners. He loves us so much that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. While we were dead in our sin, He made us alive together with Christ. That is God's version of proof of love. I think it's pretty conclusive.

News Weakly - 5/1/21

Mind Control
According to ABC News (and, obviously, every other news outlet), Oklahoma's governor signed 3 anti-abortion bills into law. It was because it is a "Republican-controlled Senate" according to the story (apparently because Democrats favor killing babies and calling it "reproductive rights"). The bills required those who do abortions be certified (quite clearly that's "anti-abortion" ... wait) and prohibited abortion if there is a heartbeat (because heartbeat does not constitute life; we know this because pro-abortionists have no heart and they are alive). (Idaho's governor signed the same law in his state.) Clearly the laws insure "safer abortions" (as if there is a safe way to kill a baby) and protects the lives of the baby in the womb (rightly termed "pro-life," not "anti-abortion"), but the media and the left won't ever let you hear that.

Clueless
On Friday, April 9, 2021, the African savanna elephant was put on the endangered list from the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Seven years earlier, Wayne LaPierre, Jr., the executive VP of the NRA, and his wife killed two savanna elephants on a guided hunt. The outrage is palpable. "We're in the midst of a poaching epidemic, and rich trophy hunters like the NRA chief are blasting away at elephants while the international community calls for stiffer penalties for poachers – what message does that send?" They didn't kill an endangered animal. They didn't do it illegally. It isn't poaching. What message does it send? Some people haven't got a clue.

Trillion with a T
"I'm on a diet, but I just broke it with a piece of pie ... so I guess I'll go ahead and eat the whole pie." Lousy logic, but apparently it's Biden's logic. Last year the deficit jumped by $3 trillion for COVID relief. Then this year it jumped again with another $2 trillion COVID relief bill. "Well," he seems to think, "we've totally overrun any possibility to address any sort of national deficit, so let's push it on over the edge. Let's have an infrastructure bill for $2.6 trillion and, hey, why not another $1.8 trillion for American families? How will we pay for it? We won't! We'll just tax the people with money. No one likes them anyway." The government would steal from the rich to feed big government. Not all analysts think this is a good idea. The Babylon Bee made the point.

No Brainer
Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot is considering requiring police officers to get permission to pursue a suspect ... on foot. Well, it only makes sense. Think of it. They stopped high speed police chases when they realized there could be accidents. They took away nonlethal options from police when they realized they might hurt someone. And when do all these police killings take place? When someone resists arrest. Solution? Don't pursue people who resist arrest. It could put a complete end to police shootings if they just stop confronting potential law-breakers. I get it. The Babylon Bee does, too.

Surprise, Surprise
Seattle is reporting that over 200 police officers left their jobs last year citing "an anti-police climate." The story goes on to say, "Activists have applauded the reductions and called for additional city police department cuts." And the city council is considering a $5.4 million cut in the police department’s budget. Surprised? I'd be surprised if you were.

Pro-Female
West Virginia's governor just signed into law a bill that prevents biological males from competing with biological females in school sports. CNN calls it an "anti-transgender sports bill." Governor Jim Justice said, "I do not think that from the standpoint of our girls, that we ought to allow a situation to where, you know, for whatever reason may be, we end up with a superior athlete that could just knock our girls right out of the competition." I'd label it a pro-woman bill. The terms the media uses indicate the bias the media has. (Like on another story where CBS says, "Mike Pence praises Trump" versus Yahoo's "Mike Pence sucks up to Trump." No bias there!) An LGBTQ advocacy group said, "Lawmakers are sending a clear message that they don't value trans lives and would prefer we did not exist entirely." The language doesn't even make sense. ("We want to protect our girls" does not equate to "Trans lives shouldn't even exist.") (Note, by the way, that no one appears to be outlawing women who identify as males from competing with biological males.)

Uncommon
A small city in eastern Oregon, Baker City, has declared a state of emergency ... for the supreme lack of common sense in Oregon in terms of the response to COVID. They're trying to figure out how to counter the governor's edicts and declaring themselves a Common Sense Sanctuary. I kinda like it.

The Happiest Place
Disneyland in California opened this week 412 days into "15 days to flatten the curve." I think it's the new math. I'm just sayin'.

Parents

The pastor preached a sermon recently from Proverbs about creating family traditions. Well, specific traditions, like teaching your kids wisdom. He started off with the observation that parenting has decayed over time. It seems as if each subsequent generation of parents gets farther and farther removed from good parenting skills until very few these days even know that that means. For the vast majority, it's just, "Whatever I decide is best."

I observed that at my church there are no parenting skills being taught. There is no class for moms or dads to learn how to be good mothers and fathers. The Bible urges older women to teach younger women (Titus 2:3-5), and I think some of that is going on, but what are the older women teaching younger women about being good moms? What is their source of information? I ask because most of what I see and most of what I hear is our modern world's ideas. "You have to make 'me' time." And no one is teaching dads.

I raised a couple of boys. They're men now. They tell me I was a good dad. Now, I don't know if that's ignorance talking or actual. They told me that because I apologized to them for the mistakes I made as their father. But, thinking about "no one is teaching dads," I don't know if I would qualify myself as a good person to teach other dads, even with my sons' endorsement. Where do we get good parenting instruction? Where do we find good parenting principles? Where do we get good teachers and mentors for this? And if these are lacking as they appear to be lacking, is there any wonder that today's parents lack the skills and knowledge required to be godly parents? What I see offered most of the time is simply a secular notion of "good parenting" without any biblical backing.

Understand. I'm not complaining about "these modern parents." I'm not whining about "they're doing it all wrong!" I'm asking who has the secret code, the tribal knowledge, the experiential and biblical know-how to pass on to parents what God expects of them? I'm not complaining about "sin in the camp." I'm worried about families who don't seem to have the resources available to do the job. Parenting is a critical task in all societies. Christian parents should be the best informed and the most correct because they should have access to God's plan for that. I'm just concerned that they don't.

His Great Love

Ephesians 2 begins with a serious problems for humans.

And you were dead in the trespasses and sins. (Eph 2:1)

That can't be good. And Paul spreads it on thick in the next 2 verses so that it looks like no hope for the home team, so to speak. But then, writing to "the saints who are in Ephesus, and are faithful in Christ Jesus" (Eph 1:1), he offers hope, he turns the corner, he shares the good news.

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)

It is astoundingly good news. Thus, the "But God." In opposition to everything we could have anticipated, God did something else. Because He is "rich in mercy." "Because of the great love with which He loved us."

This idea left its mark on Paul. He says this in Romans:

For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person — though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die — but God shows His love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Rom 5:6-8)

There it is again -- "but God." "Here's the problem," Paul is saying, "but God ..." The problem? We were the ungodly. We were sinners. We were enemies of God (Rom 5:10). This is not rational, Paul is saying. You don't die for those kinds of people. But God.

Paul magnifies God here. No, he doesn't make God bigger. He simply shows us how big He already is. If we don't believe the problem -- "dead in sin," "ungodly," "sinners," "enemies of God" -- then it's not a big leap, and "but God" has no real impact. However, in both of these texts, the really good news is that there is a serious problem, but God remedies it. And in both of these texts, there is the same back drop -- God's great love for those He redeems, for enemies He rescues.

Maybe you're like me. I know where I stand. I am no prize. I'm no great catch. I'm a sinner. If you are, "but God" is huge. And it has a big impact on how you live (Luke 7:47). On the other hand, if sin isn't that big a deal, then God is just being a wise investor in you. No big deal. And no major impact.

Radical

We're Christians; we know. Sin is a bad thing. Don't do it. Well, if by "we know" I mean "we acknowledge" then we know because we don't act like we know. We sin. Despite all the places in Scripture that warn, order, command, cajole, urge, and demand that we avoid sin, we sin. Sin of all types. We are forgiven sinners, but we still sin. What are we to do?

We have strategies. Read our Bibles. Get in an accountability group. Memorize verses. Get counseling. We've got a million of them. And how is that working for you? We still sin.

So what does the Bible recommend? Scripture takes a somewhat radical approach. While we're trying to legislate and mediate and provide therapy for our sin, God urges us to kill it. You can find things like "I am crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ in me." (Gal 2:20) Or, "You have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God." (Col 3:3) The command is "If anyone would come after Me, let him deny himself, take up his cross, and follow Me." (Matt 16:24) Jesus said, "Whoever would save his llife will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel's will save it." (Mark 8:35) We must "lay aside the old self" (Eph 4:22-24) and "consider the members of your earthly body as dead to immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed." (Col 3:5) Paul wrote, "I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship." (Rom 12:1) "Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires." (Gal 5:24) "If you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live." (Rom 8:12-13)

There is a pattern, and it is radical. Do you want to beat sin? Die. Don't medicate it. Don't treat it. Don't give it therapy. Don't send it to reform school. Kill it. Take it out back and beat it to death with a shovel. Then burn it and bury it. Hyperbole? Sure, like Jesus's, "If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell." (Matt 5:29-30) Radical? Absolutely. Literal? I don't think so. But to take it as anything less than serious is to ignore it completely, and we've gotten to be pretty good at that.

By What Measure?

In anything we measure we have to have a standard against which to measure it. For length, then, we might choose inches or meters or some such -- standard measurements of length. For sound we often use decibels (although most of us don't really know what that means). Oh, I know a good example. For sin, we use God's law. You see, that last one is illustrative of the point because we can use God's law which isn't changing or we can use Man's law which changes daily ... almost literally. Which means Man's law can't be a standard ... because it's changing continuously. And that's a problem.

In everything that we measure there must be a standard. The trick, then, is picking a good standard -- a good means of measurement. So for business you might use profit and growth, but not for charitable organizations. Those would look at wise spending for the broadest effect. So what standard we use varies by application. "Good" is a valuation that requires "bad" to define it, because a "good pizza" and a "good dog" and a "good man" are not the same things. Standards.

Paul wrote:

When they measure themselves by one another and compare themselves with one another, they are without understanding. (2 Cor 10:12)

Welcome to our nightmare. Here we see the problem that nearly all of us face. How do we measure our success? Am I a good _____? A good father/mother, good son/daughter, good worker, good Christian ... on and on. How do we measure that? By what standard? Almost without exception we do it by comparing ourselves to others of the same type. Which would normally seem like a good idea and even normally would be, except not in this case. Because we have genuine, reliable standards, and they aren't each other. Do you want to know if you're successful as one of those types of things? Compare yourself to The Standard. Look to Jesus (Heb 12:1). Find what God says. "By this we may know that we are in Him," John wrote. "Whoever says he abides in Him ought to walk in the same way in which He walked." (1 John 2:6-7) Paul told the Corinthian Christians, "Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ." (1 Cor 11:1) We have the seemingly impossible command to "be imitators of God, as beloved children." (Eph 5:1) It is, in fact, God's plan for your life (Rom 8:29). "As good as your neighbor" is not the standard we are handed. "Be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect" is (Matt 5:48).

We have a lot of problem with standards. Typically it is precisely the problem of comparing ourselves with each other. Then I'm not so bad. I'm more middle. Maybe even a little better. But not bad. It's the wrong standard. And that's where we get tripped up. We even have the audacity to judge God by our own standards. Now that's arrogance.

The Harm Principle

For those of you who know who "Dan" is, you'll likely be surprised to hear this. There is something that he and I agree on. Seriously. Dan argues that morality is based on harm. Without quite agreeing with that, I believe that harm is a principle that is involved with morality. Unfortunately, at that single point of agreement ... we diverge. Dan believes, next, that we can reliably figure out what "harm" is so we can reliably determine what should or should not be moral. I don't.

Generally, people think that "immoral" is a violation of some rule or another. I don't think so. I think that the rule documents what is immoral, but it was immoral before the rule was given. It's like the conscience. Sometimes we know things are wrong somehow without even being able to quote the rule or reason. Scripture talks about how Gentiles "show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness." (Rom 2:15) Adam and Eve ate from "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" (Gen 2:17) which meant that from hence forth, with or without "Thus saith the Lord," we would instinctively know before the law was ever given. Now, we can sear our consciences (1 Tim 4:1-3), so conscience is not foolproof, but neither is it absent. Sin, then, is a violation of what is good or bad, not "harmful or harmless."

So how am I agreeing about sin and harm? Because I'm absolutely convinced that what is moral and immoral is either helpful or harmful to us. I am certain that God's "Ten Commandments," for instance, weren't some sort of morality game He was playing. They were more of a user's guide to the human being. "Don't do these things; they will hurt you. Like "You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate Me." (Exo 20:5) "Do those things; they will be good for you." Like "Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the LORD your God is giving you." (Exo 20:12)

This leads to an alternative to "judgment." Some people point to Scripture and say, "This says what you're doing is sin." And others wail, "You shouldn't be judgmental" If the aim was to try to eliminate sin in the world, it would be judgmental. If the goal was to squash evil wherever you find it, it would be misguided. But if I believe -- and I do -- that God commands what He commands for our best interest, then my intent would not be to kill sin where I find it. My intent would be to help people wherever I find them. "You know, if you do that or don't do this, I have it on good authority that it will hurt you." It's not judgmental. It's not even my own idea. It is concern for others.

Dan and I both believe that morality and harm are interlinked. The difference is that Dan is absolutely certain that he has the ability and wisdom and far-reaching understanding to determine what constitutes harm, and I'm just not that good. So I tend to rely on the Manufacturer, the Maker of humans. If He says, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? ..." (1 Cor 6:9-10) (for instance), I'm not going to castigate Him for saying so. I'm going to warn those I love. "Watch out! This will hurt you!"

A Circumcision/Baptism Connection?

Is there a correlation between New Testament baptism and Old Testament circumcision? Some say, "Definitely not!" I would have to disagree.

In Him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised with Him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised Him from the dead. (Col 2:11-12)

Paul clearly draws a parallel between circumcision and baptism here. The connection is in regards to "the putting off of the flesh." Baptism, in this text, is the sign of having had a spiritual circumcision that parallels Christ's "circumcision" where He "put of the flesh" in His literal death and we show the same in being "buried with Him in baptism" and then "raised with Him through faith."

So, just what was circumcision all about? Recently someone asked me, "How did that work? Instead of 'Show me your papers' it was 'Whip it out and show me you're a Jew'?" That is, not a very good sign, right? Whose crazy idea was this? Oh, not crazy; it was God's idea. He instituted it as a sign of the covenant between God and Abraham and his offspring (Gen 17:10-11). It was to be accomplished on the eighth day of the boy's life (Gen 17:12). And Abraham obeyed (Gen 21:4). When Moses didn't, it was nearly fatal (Exo 4:24-26).

But what was that all about? In what way would circumcision be a sign? Well, first, it was clearly a cutting away the flesh (Jer 4:4). Just the phrase should give you an image that helps you understand. We need to cut away the sinful flesh. God does it to us spiritually. But even modern medicine understands the situation. According to the Mayo Clinic, circumcision makes for easier hygiene, decreased risk of urinary tract infections, decreased risk of STDs, and decreased risk of penile cancer. Foreskins, then, are problematically dirty and potentially dangerous. And being located where they are located (trying to be delicate here), there is an unavoidable suggestion of cutting away sexual immorality in particular (a common (universal?) problem for males in particular). Beyond this, Scripture is clear that salvation requires the shedding of blood (Heb 9:22). Zipporah cut off her son's foreskin and declared her husband "a bridegroom of blood" (Exo 4:26) because it was clearly a bloody process, and without the shedding of blood there can be no forgiveness of sins. There is a third sense here. In a very real way, being included among God's children is a form of procreation (Gal 3:7; Rom 9:8). Paul referred to Timothy as his "beloved son" (2 Tim 1:1). We know Paul wasn't his physical father; he was his spiritual father. We understand that a father might bring you to faith or raise you in Christ. It is a procreation parallel, and circumcision hints at that.

So why do people resist the correlation between baptism and circumcision? This would generally boil down to the paedobaptism-vs-believer's-baptism debate. Paedobaptism is infant baptism. If there is a correlation between the two and infants were circumcised in the Old Testament, then shouldn't we baptize infants now? I don't think so. First, New Testament baptism is displayed as a sign of being immersed into Christ's death and resurrection, and that doesn't happen until ... you are mmersed into Christ's death and resurrection. Second, circumcision occurred in the Old Testament when you were born and became part of the family; shouldn't New Testament "circumcision" -- baptism -- occur when you are born again and become a part of the family? Third, circumcision was a sign of a covenant between God and His people. Baptism is the sign of a covenant between God and His people. In the Old Testament, they became "His people" by being born into the family (or converted). In the New Testament the covenant is with "the one who shares the faith of Abraham" (Rom 4:16). So in order to have the sign (baptism), you'd need to have the faith. I think that makes more sense than identifying a baby with Christ's death and resurrection even if they never do. So I have no problem finding a clear and biblical correlation between the two. I do wonder if we're not waiting too long between coming to faith and getting baptised. What was it ... eight days?

News Weakly - 4/24/21

As Predicted
Long Beach, California, passed a city ordinance that would require grocery stores to pay their workers an additional $4/hour "hero pay" due to COVID. What could go wrong? Well, grocery company, Kroger, says they can't afford it in that area and has opted instead to close two stores. Good job, Long Beach. (See what I did there? "Good job," as in "they don't have jobs anymore"? It's really bad when I have to say, "I'm being funny" because apparently I'm not.)

Inflammatory
Who in Brooklyn Center said, "We've got to stay on the street and we've got to get more active, we've got to get more confrontational. We've got to make sure that they know that we mean business."? That would be California congresswoman Maxine Waters. "Of Chauvin, Waters said: 'I hope we're going to get a verdict that will say guilty, guilty, guilty. And if we don't, we cannot go away.'" But, of course, since she's black, it's not inflammatory. It's not inciting violence. Only orange-colored white men can be inflammatory.

Blessed Are The Peacemakers
Another tragic police shooting in Columbus. A black 16-year-old girl, Ma'Khia Bryant, was shot by a police officer after she lunged at two women with a knife. He ordered her to "Get down!" and, when she didn't, shot her. Her mother said her daughter was a “very loving, peaceful little girl" and "promoted peace." Just for the sake of clarity, while I'm unhappy about a young person shot by police, wielding a knife and lunging at people with it doesn't really qualify as "peacemaker."

The Verdict
I'm sure you've all heard: Derek Chauvin was convicted of two counts of murder and one of manslaughter. Biden called it "a step forward" although we need to continue to deal with "systemic racism." And America nods and agrees. So I'm baffled. If George Floyd's death was part of systemic racism, especially in the police, why was Chauvin not convicted of a hate crime? Why was there no charges and no evidence offered? If this was a crime of racism and we were hoping this verdict would address that, why wasn't it in there? "It was a murder in the full light of day, and it ripped the blinders off the whole world to see," Biden said. "Systemic racism is a stain on our nation's soul." Really? I didn't see that in the verdict. Neither did anybody else, and, yet, everyone else did, too. Chauvin was convicted of a crime of which there was no prosecution or proof since he was clearly guilty without any possibility of innocence.

Canceled by "Freethinkers'
Richard Dawkins, the darling of atheists (aka "freethinkers") everywhere, transgressed the religious rules of his clan and got canceled. Dawkins received the 1996 American Humanist Association "Humanist of the Year" award only to have it revoked by the AHA because he suggested that Rachel Dolezal identified as black and some men identify as women and some women identify as men but "You will be vilified if you deny that they literally are what they identify as." Oh, bad form, Richard. Denying that a transgenders are not actually, scientifically, precisely how they identify themselves? "You believe there is no God? Yes! You're one of us. You believe that truth is not how he/she defines it? You're out of here!" As Stephen McAlpine put it, Dawkins got blindsided by the Sexual Spaghetti Monster. Yes, Freethinkers, there is a god -- the god of your own making. Dawkins thought it was Reason. He was wrong. Currently it's sexual identity, apparently. Dawkins was a sexual identity fundamentalist, and they shot him dead. So much for "freethinkers."

Words Mean Something
A high school in South Dakota is changing their plans for a "slave auction." What??!!!" I can hear you say. "They were planning to auction off slaves??" No. They weren't. They were planning to auction off student workers who would give a day's labor in exchange for contributions to the club. Not slaves. But they're changing the name because "This is a term that is so demeaning of black culture and humanity." I thought the same thing when, in electronics, they taught us about devices that had a "race condition" that was solved by a "master/slave relationship." Racist electronics. Must be white.

Insurrection
Following up on my concerns (above) about inflammatory speech, the FBI is seeking information about the insurrectionist pictured here.

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

About God

Paul's lengthy diatribe on Man's sin in Romans covers Romans 1:18 through Romans 3:20. That's some diatribe. He wrote the epistle to talk about the gospel, "For it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes ... For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith ..." (Rom 1:16-17) So, there he is, ready to extol the good news and God's righteousness -- God's justice -- but he starts with

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. (Rom 1:18)

Ouch! I thought we were going to "good news." Now we're at "the wrath of God"? So, Paul, what truth is suppressed that makes God so angry?

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For His invisible attributes, namely, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. (Rom 1:19-20)

Interesting. According to Paul, there is no such thing as an atheist. All we have are ... liars. Why would I say such a thing? It says, "What can be known about God is plain to them." Why? "Because God has shown it to them." He concludes, "They are without excuse." So here's the real question. What can be known about God and how has He made it known?

He made it known "in the things that have been made." It's called "Natural Revelation." David wrote about it. "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims His handiwork. Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard. (Psa 19:1-3) Simply put, "Look around you!" But what can be known from that source of revelation? Paul said, "His eternal power and divine nature." Okay, good! Some of that is easy. Look around and you will see that it took some serious power to make all that is -- power we can't even comprehend. And knowledge. Even the ardent atheist can hardly resist referring to the universe as "designed." And what design? Beauty, practicality, intricacy, wonder upon wonder. My doctor told me this week that there are 13 components in the blood to get it to produce a scab -- that thing that prevents you from bleeding to death at the drop of a hat but doesn't cause your blood to harden in the body. Irreducible complexity! Design. Smart God. We know that God is gracious because of the rain that falls on the good and the wicked. Natural Revelation tells us that this God is worth our ultimate attention. There is none like Him. Creation tells us that God is uncreated (Acts 17:24), the Creator (Acts 14:15), the Sustainer (Acts 14:16; 17:25), the universal Lord (Acts 17:24), self-sufficient (Acts 17:25), transcendent (Acts 17:24), imminent (Acts 17:26–27), eternal (Ps. 93:2), great (Ps. 8:3–4), majestic (Ps. 29:4), powerful (Ps. 29:4; Rom. 1:20), wise (Ps. 104:24), good (Acts 14:17), and righteous (Rom. 1:32); He has a sovereign will (Acts 17:26), and should be worshiped (Acts 14:15;17:23) ... for starters.

What don't we learn from Natural Revelation? We don't learn the law (Psa 19:7-9) -- God's standards for right and wrong. Without that, we don't learn about God's mercy, not knowing how far off we are. We can't know the Trinity. We don't learn about Jesus who was sent, the Scriptures tell us, by God. We wouldn't be aware of salvation in Christ. These kinds of things require words to explain them. That's called "Special Revelation." In former times it came through prophets and apostles. Now it's found in the Scriptures. Natural Revelation, then, has its limits. So if you're happy with God's power and knowledge and beauty and wisdom and grace, but don't really need mercy or salvation, I suppose you can wing it without the Bible. Of course, given Paul's premise -- that we suppress the truth about God -- I'll wish you good luck with that because it won't likely end well.

Blessed Are You ...

I've written more than once on what is looking like a coming persecution of Christians. I've pointed out that Jesus said, "Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on My account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you." (Matt 5:11-12) That is, being reviled and falsely accused is persecution. I've shown that we should expect it (John 15:20; 2 Tim 3:12). Scripture promises it and our current social climate leans toward it, so don't be surprised if it happens.

I suspect, however, that, like so many other such times, I've been misunderstood. There are those who cry a warning so that you can gear up and get ready to defend yourself. There are those who tell us it's coming so that we can prevent it. And I get that; it's just not me. That's not my aim.

If, as I believe, God's word teaches us that all who wish to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted (2 Tim 3:12), the remedy is easy. Don't live godly in Christ Jesus. Of course, that's just foolish. All followers of Christ must wish to live godly in Christ. So that's not an option. Now what? Prepare to take a beating. Notice that nowhere in that last sentence did I suggest that you prepare to defend yourself from taking a beating. Nowhere did I recommend you get some good lawyers and some like-minded lawmakers and some reasonable judges and some good friends and set about making sure it doesn't happen. I mean get ready for it.

Jesus said it best. "Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you. (Matt 5:12) The call here isn't "What must we do to prevent this travesty of justice?" No. The call here is to "Rejoice and be glad." The recommendation from God is to be other-worldly. Set your sights elsewhere. This world is not our home, but we sure work hard to make it feel that way. God has provided something better for us. (Heb 11:40) Hebrews 11 talks about "the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God." (Heb 11:10) It talks about the people of faith who "desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one." (Heb 11:16) This world is not our home.

That's what I'm urging. Paul said, "This light momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison." (2 Cor 4:17) So ask yourself, what does that look like? What does life lived here for there look like? How would I live differently if I didn't live for this world? How do I need to change to do that? Hard questions.

Wasting God

High on God's list of "10 Words" -- the Ten Commandments -- is "You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain." (Exo 20:7) Well, we know what that means. "Don't use the word, 'God,' in a flippant manner. Good. We can avoid that. Move on." The Jews took it further, trying to avoid using it at all. So you'll see them writing "G_d" so as not to actually spell it out just to be sure it's not used in vain. Very diligent. And missing the point.

It misses the point on two counts. First, God's name is not "God." That's His title. His name is the Tetragrammaton, the famous YHWH that He gave to Moses at the burning bush. "I am." He is the self-existent One, depending on no one, without beginning or end, the uncaused Cause, the unmoved Mover. That's who He is. Second, in Scripture the use of the concept of "the name" wasn't merely a word that designated you. When Jesus said, "If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it," (John 14:14), He wasn't requiring an obligatory, "In Jesus's name, Amen" at the end of every prayer. There is no magic in repeating a word that designates Jesus. "The name" meant something. It meant "Who I am." So His name "is Holy" (Isa 57:15) and "Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." (Isa 9:6) Joseph was told, "You shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins." (Matt 1:21) He was named "to deliver" because He was the Savior. Names were not mere designators; they were descriptors of who they were.

Feed that back into that commandment, then. "You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain." That is, "You shall not take the nature of the Lord your God in vain. You shall not take all that He is in vain. You shall not take anything about the reality of who the Lord your God is in vain."

Now it gets hard, doesn't it? Don't take Him in vain. Don't minimize His power. Don't ignore His wisdom. Don't claim to follow Him while pursuing other "gods." Don't ignore His commands. Don't act as if He's not there. Don't fail to glorify Him at all times.

If "no other gods before me" is first on the list (Exo 20:3) and actually represents our #1 sin -- we routinely have other gods that precede Him -- then taking who He is in vain would likely be an equally inclusive problem for us. We routinely minimize God in our lives. "Oh, He didn't mean that when He said it." "Well, sure, I know what He commanded, but it isn't particularly suitable in today's culture." "Obedience is hard; I think I'll try for fun instead." We daily take the Lord our God in vain. We constantly love Him too little. It is, then, an astounding mercy to be forgiven by the blood of Christ and calls for daily efforts to stop that kind of blind sin. If He is indeed Lord, we owe Him much more than we're giving Him.

The Fundamental Problem

The Bible is clear. All human beings share a basic problem. It's called "sin." With the sole exception in all of history of one Person, all have sinned. The basic problem for humans is sin. Jesus came to save sinners (1 Tim 1:15). Now, we're all pretty clear what "sin" is. It is "lawlessness" (1 John 3:4) -- the violation of God's law. But it's not merely "doing bad things." The root of violating God's law is the violation of God's glory (Rom 3:23). So it is there that we find our basic problem -- the failure to honor God or give thanks to Him (Rom 1:21). A big problem.

Now, for the world, not honoring God is of no consequence. They don't care. But to the believer, it's bad. I mean, we are offended by our own failure to honor God. We are offended by our own sin. So what do we do? Well, we work hard at not sinning. We read the Bible and we find someone to help us with accountability and we get in groups and we pray and we seek God's help and ... lots of really good things. I'm here to offer one more -- something you may not have thought about.

According to Paul, God's wrath is "revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth." (Rom 1:18) He even tells specifically what truth is suppressed -- "what can be known about God" (Rom 1:19-20). The rest of that first chapter is a series of steps we humans have accomplished in our suppression of the truth of God that has precipitated our demise. Now, if the suppression of the truth about God is the primary cause of our sin problem, then it would make sense that the reception of the truth about God would be a solution.

It could be an interesting approach. "I'm tempted to ____." You know that however you might fill in that blank, it is sin. We might ask, "What is it about that sin that entices us?" But what if we asked, "What does that temptation tell me about what I think about God?" Is He not enough? Is He not sufficient? Is He not competent? Is He not capable? Is He not wise? Is He not loving? Is He not aware? I think if we thought about it in this light, we might begin to see that it is a deficient understanding of who God is that drives us to pursue those things God tells us not to. I think we would see that, when we're tempted to sin, we're suppressing the truth about God ... to ourselves. We're lying to ourselves about who God is and, therefore, feel the need to fill that void that God has failed to fill. I wonder if that approach might help us in times of temptation and in struggles against sin.

The Bible is Not Reliable

It is a common notion today, offered by skeptics and Christians alike. From the far left to the near right, lots of people tell us, "You can't take the Bible at face value." There are, of course, degrees of that claim. Some discard it altogether. Some think it's sort of a "nice book," as it were, with some good ideas in it, but certainly not truth. Moving up this ladder, there are those who believe that the Bible contains God's word but is not itself God's word. Some point to actual quotes of God in the Bible and argue that those are the only actual "God's word" contents. Others stretch it further and say that, sure, it's in there; you just have to figure out what is and is not God's word. Accumulating these notions, you find that the largest number of people, whether they utterly disregard it or have some respect for it, still hold that the Bible is not completely reliable and you're a fool if you think otherwise.

We believe otherwise. We believe that, as the Bible claims, the Bible is "God-breathed" -- the actual word used in 2 Timothy 3:16-17. "Inspired" is okay, but the idea conveyed in the word is that God actually "exhaled" it in a sense. Authors of the Bible claim divine direction. Peter assured his readers that Scripture is not a matter of one's own interpretation, nor was it produced by the will of man, "but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." (2 Peter 1:20-21) So we believe that God breathed His word to the authors and God has superintended it since, so that, if God is to be trusted at all, we can be absolutely confident that what we have today in our Bibles is genuinely God's reliable word.

But, you knew that. I mean, you knew that this is what we believe. If you count yourselves among "we," that's what you believe. We're not "bibliolaters," worshiping a book. We don't regard the Bible as "holy" like Islam does. But as worshipers of God, we have absolute respect for His word commensurate with our respect for God. If you do not count yourselves among "we," you at least know that's what we believe.

So, what if you place yourself in the "Christian" category but not in the "we believe the Bible is God's word" category? So what? On the face of it you might be tempted to think it's a mere disagreement over which we can disagree without division. Like Paul's "whether or not to eat meat sacrificed to idols." I would argue that this is not that. If the Bible is accurate in its claim to be God-breathed -- if Jesus was right when He said, "Your word is truth" (John 17:17) -- and you deny that, you've managed to "pull an Aaron." What's that? Well, after God gave Israel His word (Exo 20), Moses went up to talk with God and the people demanded an idol. Aaron, like the fabled rabbit-out-of-the-hat trick, pulled one out of their gold (Exo 32:1-5; Exo 32:24). He created an image for them to worship instead of God Himself. If you disregard God's word as genuine truth, you've set yourself up as the image to be worshiped. You've set yourself as the ultimate arbiter of truth. You've made an idol of yourself. "No, it's not actual truth. I'll tell you what is and is not." I would argue that this is not trivial and it's not a safe place to stand.

Love One Another

I've had the same doctor for probably 15 years. This year I tried out a new doctor. He did his exam, analyzed the tests and blood work and history, and immediately prescribed new drugs and gave me referrals to a hematologist, a dietician, a cardiologist, and a dermatologist.

I, of course, as you can understand, was offended. "Can't you be my doctor without being so judgmental? Can't you just be nice and smile and tell me you like me? Why do you have to be so negative? Why do you feel the need to impose your version of reality on me? I think you should be more 'embracing,' more affirming. What is wrong with you doctors, anyway? Can't you just be accepting of people rather than so narrow-minded and 'judgy'? Why all the hate?"

I, of course, as I'm sure you guessed, did no such thing. The fact that someone pointed out potential problems and offered genuine solutions in terms of health does not translate to hate, judgment, or unkindness. Just the opposite. If you had a doctor who saw things that concerned him and he failed to bring them up to you, you'd fire him. Reporting negative things is not, by definition, hate. If those negatives are true, failing to report them would be. "Sure, I knew you had conditions that could kill you, but, hey, I didn't want to upset you or hurt your feelings, so I didn't say anything." Thanks, but no thanks.

I'm sure you can see where this is going. We are told, by those "within" and without, that we should be more accepting, more loving, more embracing. We shouldn't be pointing to sin. We shouldn't be recognizing what's wrong. We should be ... how does the song put it ... "friends of sinners." Not enemies, pointing out what's wrong. We should tell ourselves, "Pay no attention to that fatal belief they have and just be loving." Like that makes some sense somehow.

It is true that we should be more loving. It is true that we can be too judgmental. It is true that we can often thrive on "righteous indignation," and it is true that that's wrong. The answer, however, is not to stay silent. That would be evil. That would be hateful. "Sure, I have it on the best authority that you have no place in the kingdom, but, don't worry. I won't warn you at all. I'll just pat you on the back and watch you walk into the fire." That is not what friends do. Our approach admittedly often falls short, but that means we need to correct our approach (and our attitude), not ignore the reality. That isn't loving and if we get to heaven and hear God tell one of those we "loved" that way, "Your sin has condemned you to hell," they won't turn to us, give us a wink, and say, "Thanks for being so loving and not telling me about this."

News Weakly - 4/17/21

Paging Dr. Dolittle
Actor Hank Azaria voiced the animated character, Apu, on The Simpsons for years. Now he has apologized to "every single Indian person" for doing so. It was a racist caricature of the "Kwik-E-Mart" kind of owners we've seen in so many 7-11's and such. "Azaria said that he now supports people of color voicing characters of color." Because what we want out of our animated shows is realism and diversity, not humor. The industry will now move to have cats voicing cats, dogs voicing dogs, and so on. Let's not take jobs away from those who don't have enough jobs. (I'm not opposed to this in principle, but do you suppose if they had a white character voiced by a Latinx anyone would complain? So do you suppose it's actually about having the proper people voicing the characters?)

We've Got Your Back
In February the Supreme Court lifted California's ban on indoor church services for something silly -- the First Amendment. Then this last Friday they again told the state you can't ban home Bible studies or prayer meetings ... again, for that crazy First Amendment. So, California, out of their deep and abiding respect for their citizens' rights and the need for religious gatherings, lifted worship-related restrictions. "Because, don't worry, Californians, we've got your back. (Pay no attention to the Supreme Court standing over our shoulders telling us we have to. Or the multiple knives we've stuck there so far.)"

New "Family Values"
Since they opened, Disney has been known as a special place. It has been known as a "family" place, an ultra-conservative place with fairy princesses and friendly animal characters and all. If you wanted to work at Disney, you had to conform to their strict, conservative policies, which may, at times, appear narrow and austere, but resulted in a family place where kids could feel safe and parents didn't have to worry. In their ever changing approach, Disney has decided to jettison that image. Now they're going "gender inclusive" ... so that employees can "feel a sense of belonging at work." That means LGBTQ Mickey ears and tattooed vendors. (I'm not joking; that's actually in the story.) I'm picturing a Cinderella character with beard, a cigar, and tattoos asking in a gruff voice -- "Hey, little girl, wanna sit in a princess's lap?" What could go wrong?

Legal Hate?
I will be honest. I'm a little confused. The Senate is debating a new hate crime bill to protect Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders. Now, I'm not in favor of hate crimes and I'm not in favor of hate crimes against the people in this bill, but I'm completely lost here. The Congress has passed hate crime legislation before. So far it is a hate crime to cause or attempt to cause harm or injury to people on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. Now, I'm pretty sure "Asian American" is encompassed in that list. So what are they trying to outlaw that is not specifically outlawed? (Interestingly, it is also a hate crime "for two or more persons to conspire to injure, threaten, or intimidate a person in any state, territory, or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him or her by the Constitution or the laws of the U.S." Like when Congress conspires to block First or Second Amendment rights?)

Legal Murder
While we're all upset about the (accidental) shooting of the young black man in Minnesota on one hand -- "We demand justice!!" -- we are not all upset about the intentional shooting of an unarmed white woman in Washington D.C. The Capitol police officer who shot Ashli Babbitt January 6 when she was trying to go through a door will not be charged. The white woman who accidently shot Daunte Wright will be charged. I see how this goes.

Cancel Culture and the Free Press
An officer who was shot in the Breonna Taylor debacle (and who did not shoot Taylor) is writing a book to tell the story. Publisher Post Hill Press believes the officer "deserves to have his account of the tragic events heard publicly." The public disagrees. They petitioned to ban the book and Simon and Schuster has agreed. Let's not have an open dialog. Let's not hear all sides. Let's not examine the case. Let's simply block the press (which, by the way, falls under the existing "hate crimes" law).

Off the Internet
You remember last week that the New York Times reported that white evangelicals will prolong the COVID crisis because they're opposed to the vaccine for religious reasons. I think the Babylon Bee has discovered the real reason. Conservatives are deciding not to get vaccinated after they learned that liberals will stay away from them. A more likely reason, I think.

In other news, Ben and Jerry's is planning to fight white supremacy by discontinuing vanilla ice cream. Seems reasonable given today's version of "reasoning."

Finally, the military is announcing that they will accept anyone who identifies as a good soldier even if they're a "no-skill fat slob." I'm not sure, given today's idea that "reality is what I think it is," how to refute the logic.