Arizona/Nevada Boon
California has had their final hearing. Cars sold after 2035 will have to be electric. Beyond that, 35% of cars sold in the state as of 2026 will be fossil-fuel free. (How do they enforce that? "I'm sorry, Mr. Jones, we just sold our 65% of gas cars. You'll have to buy electric or nothing.") You know the outcome, right? There is no law against buying cars outside of California. Arizona and Nevada are looking forward to the increased car sales. Since the average cost to buy and run an electric car in the U.S. is $10,360 over against a gas car at $8,691, a good portion of middle to lower income people are trying to figure out how they'll pay for their expensive housing and overpriced auto.
Practically Principled
Last year some House Republicans introduced the Life at Conception Act to the House, a bill that would give equal protection for humans in all stages of life. It hasn't gone any further than introduction. Now, however, the LA Times is reporting that it's coming back to bite some Republican candidates. They've had to "recalibrate their antiabortion stance" because America wants to kill babies and they might not get elected this November if they don't agree. In Arizona GOP Senate nominee Blake Masters has scrubbed off all his pro-life rhetoric from his website because being pro-life doesn't help you win elections. It's practical, perhaps, but it's practically murder just the same. That is, being practical doesn't make it any less murder, and if getting elected is more important than retaining fundamental principles of protecting the innocent, then perhaps the Republicans deserve to go down with the Democrats. Dropping principles because they're impractical only makes politicians practically principled.
America Has Changed
Renowned guru and font of wisdom, Ozzy Osbourne, has declared he is moving to the UK because "America has changed." Too many murders. "I'm fed up with people getting killed every day." As we all know, people don't get killed in the UK. Good move, Ozzie. But Ozzie is right. America has changed. We are a culture of death -- in entertainment, in the demand for the deaths of innocent human beings, in the willingness and even eagerness to kill for stupid things like cold french fries, etc. If we can't physically kill, we will do it in other ways like the "cancel culture" or "doxing" or "swatting." You know ... creative killing. And if you are opposed to all this killing, you are on the wrong side of history ... as long as "where we are" is the "right side of history."
Disappointed
On the series, The Expanse, while they stared into the impossible in space, the Christian character was asked, "Do you think God wants us to be here?" I thought she gave the best possible answer. "I'm pretty sure the Scriptures are silent on this." So you can understand my disappointment to read that the National Association of Evangelicals issued a report on what we should be doing about global climate change. I'm pretty sure the Scriptures are silent on global climate change. Sure, our job is supposed to be to "tend the garden" -- to take care of creation -- but it has always been and, beyond that, I'm not at all sure what that has to do with either "global climate change" or "evangelical" -- the Gospel -- except to further dilute the issues.
Then there is Matt Chandler, a pastor in Texas, asked to step down because of "inappropriate texts" to a woman not his wife, thoroughly disqualifying him from biblical pastorship ("one woman man"). (I am heartened that the elders at that church acted swiftly and decisively. Rare these days.) We see another pastor fail; the world sees Christianity and her Savior falter. I am disappointed. (Is that what would be called "understatement"?)
False Identity
If "I identify" is the rule of truth, why did British YouTuber Oli London have to apologize for identifying as transracial? He was assigned "white" at birth but considered himself Korean and had multiple surgeries to look like BTS star Park Ji-min and now realized it was "wrong." What's the difference?
Fast and Expensive Food
Without regard for inflation and the pain it causes those with the lowest wages, California has passed its "FAST Act," a law that allows workers and unions to set wages up to $22/hr on fast-food chains. No other types were included. McDonald's is warning that it will increase the cost of eating at their restaurants by 20%. Sounds good ... to avoid eating fast food in California. And, oh, by the way, fast-food workers, you know that as your wages increase, the prices get passed on to consumers ... which includes you. How long before $22/hr is not a living wage anymore? I'm guessing "tomorrow" in California. (Does anyone remember "dollar menus"?) And now lower income Californians are going to have to figure out how to afford their overly priced cars, houses, and fast food.
Don't Say Gay
A report from the New England Journal of Medicine reports that, of all monkeypox cases, "98% of the persons with infection were gay or bisexual men" and 95% of transmission can be traced to sexual close contact. Now, we don't want to stigmatize sexual relations, but God did say that same-sex sex is "unnatural" (Rom 1:26-27) and there would be physical consequences. So, if we can just start immunizing 3-year-olds, we should be able to nip this in the bud.
Who's to Blame?
A giant sunspot has developed on the surface of the Sun pointing toward Earth. It has developed a delta-class magnetic field with enough energy to release X-class solar flares. Greta Thunberg blames global climate change. Biden blames Trump and his supporters.
The Danger of Conservatives
Biden said, "MAGA forces are determined to take this country backwards. Backwards to an America where there is no right to choose, no right to privacy. No right to contraception, no right to marry who you love." Unfortunately, too many Americans will look at that and nod, as if it's true. Please note. Nowhere in the world do you have an unlimited right to choose. America does not hold to unlimited privacy. Contraception has never been an issue. And you still can't marry who you love. (Ask the guy who loves his mother or the girl that loves pizza.) Bold, blasting, blatant lies aimed at making you NOT think. That's how some intend to "heal the soul of America." I'm not a "MAGA" person, and the president is making me feel unwelcome in America.
Spelling Bee: B-E-E
Would you be surprised to learn, given the unreliability of the California electric grid, that Newsom has announced that all cars must be wind-up by 2035? Which may be one of the many reasons that California's chief export is residents. You probably would not be surprised at the latest study that says that more women are waiting to have children until after they're out of college, employed, settled down, infertile, and dead. The Bee did a story on
Todd, a chump who worked his way through college and paid off all his own loans. Loser. I mentioned the story above about Ozzy Osbourne planning to move away because America is so bad. He says he's moving back to Ghrizzah Hurgle Kroocy Breedle Boop. I'm sorry, Ozzie, I didn't catch that.
Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
Saturday, September 03, 2022
Friday, September 02, 2022
Rules for Living in This House
Timothy was a young man that Paul led to Christ (1 Tim 1:18) and then discipled for two decades. Imagine growing up in that seminary. After Paul's first imprisonment in Rome, the two traveled back to Ephesus where Paul left Timothy to clean up some problems in the church there while Paul went on to Macedonia (1 Tim 1:3). Paul's first letter to Timothy was written from Macedonia. At the end of chapter 3, Paul explains the basic reason he wrote the letter.
Think of that. The "church" refers to the "ekklēsia," literally the "called out ones." It's not that corner building; it's all believers. It refers to those whom Jesus said had been granted by the Father (John 6:65). They were the sheep who heard His voice and believe (John 10:26-28). This body of "called out ones" have the singular task of supporting, buttressing, holding up the truth. Singular in the sense that no one else is doing it. It is our assignment. We are to know it, hear it, preach it, defend it, and live it for all to see.
What truth? In the next verse, Paul references "the mystery of godliness" and recites what is clearly one of the early church hymns (1 Tim 3:16). What is this hymn about? What is the mystery of godliness? Well, godliness refers to how it is we come to and live in a right relationship with God. That, he says, is a great mystery. Why? Because the hymn is all about Christ. He came in flesh, lived a sinless life, was observed by angels and proclaimed among the nations, was believed on and was taken up in glory. Birth to death, resurrection, and ascension. Unique. And sufficient. It is in Christ that we have this "godliness." It is in Christ that we are made holy and, as such, live changed lives from changed hearts that live and express and defend the truth. The reality is it's all about Christ, "the Word" (John 1:1), beginning to end. That, Paul said, is how we are to conduct ourselves in the household of God.
I am writing these things to you, hoping to come to you before long; but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth. (1 Tim 3:14-15)Paul planned to return, but if he didn't (and, by the way, history does not record that he did), he was writing down instructions on "how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God." That's good; that's important. Why? He says why. The household of God is "the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth."
Think of that. The "church" refers to the "ekklēsia," literally the "called out ones." It's not that corner building; it's all believers. It refers to those whom Jesus said had been granted by the Father (John 6:65). They were the sheep who heard His voice and believe (John 10:26-28). This body of "called out ones" have the singular task of supporting, buttressing, holding up the truth. Singular in the sense that no one else is doing it. It is our assignment. We are to know it, hear it, preach it, defend it, and live it for all to see.
What truth? In the next verse, Paul references "the mystery of godliness" and recites what is clearly one of the early church hymns (1 Tim 3:16). What is this hymn about? What is the mystery of godliness? Well, godliness refers to how it is we come to and live in a right relationship with God. That, he says, is a great mystery. Why? Because the hymn is all about Christ. He came in flesh, lived a sinless life, was observed by angels and proclaimed among the nations, was believed on and was taken up in glory. Birth to death, resurrection, and ascension. Unique. And sufficient. It is in Christ that we have this "godliness." It is in Christ that we are made holy and, as such, live changed lives from changed hearts that live and express and defend the truth. The reality is it's all about Christ, "the Word" (John 1:1), beginning to end. That, Paul said, is how we are to conduct ourselves in the household of God.
Thursday, September 01, 2022
Reformation
You've heard the phrase. "The wrong side of history." It seems to be used solely to refer to "the side we're on now as opposed to earlier times." It seems to come from a premise that "progress" is always good, that time always makes things better. It leans into the "new and improved" as if that's a certainty. Little hint: it's not.
From the Wycliffes and the Huses on, a movement started that came to full light with Martin Luther's 95 Theses and rolled across Europe in full regalia. The Reformation was a movement within the existing Roman Catholic church (and beyond) that looked at the Scriptures and determined, "We're not doing this right." So they sought to "reform" the Church. Mind you, it wasn't in the sense of chastising a bad child. It was in the sense of "form again" -- to return to the original form. "What was Christianity at its core? Let's do that." The Reformers believed they were on the "wrong side of history" because they had progressed ... progressed away from biblical Christianity.
I would argue that America needs to reform. No, not be punished (although I wouldn't put it out of the realm of possibilities from God's mind), but to turn back again to roots. Pilgrims came to America to pursue Christian living without fear and to bring Christ to the natives. The Union was formed on the basis of Christian beliefs and values. America became great because it was morally upright. John Adams wrote, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." Patrick Henry wrote, "It is when people forget God that tyrants forge their chains." When this nation began as a nation, the federal government was not allowed to have a religious test for office (Article VI, First Amendment), but the states were. Eight states had religious qualifications for public office originally written in their constitutions. Religion was not the enemy of the people or its government. In the beginning, it was essential.
We're long past that now. It has moved from essential to banned. We have ignored the Founding Fathers and history itself and jettisoned Christianity as mainstream, affording it a meager existence as long as it sits quietly in its corner. I think we need a reformation. No, not a return to requiring religion as a test of office. Not institutionalizing the faith. We need to return to a people whose hearts were open to God and His Word. I think we are on the wrong side of history now, and it can't go well for us. Clearly the Founding Fathers didn't think so. "If America ever ceases to be good, she will cease to be great." I suspect that is becoming our legacy.
From the Wycliffes and the Huses on, a movement started that came to full light with Martin Luther's 95 Theses and rolled across Europe in full regalia. The Reformation was a movement within the existing Roman Catholic church (and beyond) that looked at the Scriptures and determined, "We're not doing this right." So they sought to "reform" the Church. Mind you, it wasn't in the sense of chastising a bad child. It was in the sense of "form again" -- to return to the original form. "What was Christianity at its core? Let's do that." The Reformers believed they were on the "wrong side of history" because they had progressed ... progressed away from biblical Christianity.
I would argue that America needs to reform. No, not be punished (although I wouldn't put it out of the realm of possibilities from God's mind), but to turn back again to roots. Pilgrims came to America to pursue Christian living without fear and to bring Christ to the natives. The Union was formed on the basis of Christian beliefs and values. America became great because it was morally upright. John Adams wrote, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." Patrick Henry wrote, "It is when people forget God that tyrants forge their chains." When this nation began as a nation, the federal government was not allowed to have a religious test for office (Article VI, First Amendment), but the states were. Eight states had religious qualifications for public office originally written in their constitutions. Religion was not the enemy of the people or its government. In the beginning, it was essential.
We're long past that now. It has moved from essential to banned. We have ignored the Founding Fathers and history itself and jettisoned Christianity as mainstream, affording it a meager existence as long as it sits quietly in its corner. I think we need a reformation. No, not a return to requiring religion as a test of office. Not institutionalizing the faith. We need to return to a people whose hearts were open to God and His Word. I think we are on the wrong side of history now, and it can't go well for us. Clearly the Founding Fathers didn't think so. "If America ever ceases to be good, she will cease to be great." I suspect that is becoming our legacy.
Wednesday, August 31, 2022
Another Gospel
The longstanding, traditional understanding of Scripture is that the Gospel refers to a particular thing. It is the root of Christianity (as in "real Christianity" vs fake). All religions have means by which you can end up in a better life, and all religions predicate that on your efforts ... except Christianity. Christianity alone begins with "you can't." The Gospel, then, is how it can come to be because you can't bring it about. So the story is that God sent His Son to ransom sinners -- pay their debt -- and be a "propitiation" -- to assuage the rage of a righteously angry God. And Jesus succeeded. Whoever believes in Christ has currently eternal life. Good news.
There are voices out there, however, who would like to correct that longstanding, traditional understanding of Scripture. They do so under the guise of "Scripture" (Acts 20:29-30; 2 Peter 3:16). They use it, but they like to twist it, and then they have to discard some because it won't "twist" far enough. So, even though the concept of death for sin is clear from Old to New Testament, they discard it in favor of another gospel. This gospel is the Social Justice good news. This good news is better than some old "saved from sin" stuff. This good news will give the poor and marginalized a better life. How do we get there? Well, Scripture, of course. Jesus said, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He has anointed Me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent Me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor" (Luke 4:18-19). So the "good news" is "to the poor" and "the captives" and "the blind" and "those who are oppressed." Not sinners. Certainly not salvation from sin. Absolutely not paying for sin. A better life now.
We know this because Jesus told them "Blessed are the poor," so He came for those with humble means. Or did He? In Matthew's version Jesus said, "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 5:3). In Luke's version He said, "Blessed are the poor, for yours is the kingdom of God" (Luke 6:20). Now, it's not unusual for one writer to record something the other did not; that's no contradiction. But in this case we do have a problem. On one hand, either Luke meant the same thing as Matthew and the "poor" in Luke are the "poor in spirit" in Matthew. If, on the other hand, we're talking about "the poor" in Luke as "those without means to live" (as opposed to those with poor spirits), then what we must conclude is 1) two different categories of people will receive the kingdom of God and 2) poor people (people without means) are blessed for being poor because they will receive the kingdom. If that's the case, it would be cruel to change their condition. If you change their condition, you would be depriving them of the kingdom of God. And that makes no sense in anyone's book.
Here's the thing. These false teachers want you to believe that Christians who believe that Christ died to save us do not care about the poor, the captives, the blind, the oppressed. This simply isn't true, or certainly ought not be. There are plenty of genuine Christians who are working diligently in those areas and it is to the embarrassment of others that they aren't doing so more. But all those things are genuine concerns of genuine Christians according to Scripture. On the other hand, these false teachers do eliminate salvation from sin as a possibility and consider their "gospel" a better one. They face a difficult problem. Leaving off the massive amount of Scripture from Paul's letters and the rest (as I said, they have to discard a lot of Scripture to hold their views), we can look to Jesus alone to see these folks are mistaken. Jesus said He had "come to seek and to save that which was lost" (Luke 19:10). They deny that by changing "lost" to "marginalized." Jesus said He would "lay down My life for the sheep" (John 10:15) and defined His sheep as those who believe and follow Him (John 10:26-27). They say He did no such thing. Jesus said He came "to give His life a ransom for many" (Matt 20:28). They categorically deny that He paid any such price. And perhaps the most difficult thing Jesus said was that He "accomplished the work which You have given Me to do" (John 17:4). If His job was to bring relief to all those people, He failed miserably. Did He feed some? Sure. Like the 5,000. One meal. In fact, He claimed, "You will always have the poor with you" (John 12:8). He claimed the job wouldn't be finished. He healed a lot, but not all. I'm not aware of Him freeing any captives from jails (although if the Gospel is salvation from the captivity of Satan, He did quite a bit of that). Jesus did some of that list from Luke, but not all, yet He claimed He had accomplished the work God had sent Him to do and He claimed "It is finished."
One of the common complaints against a Gospel that offers salvation from sin is that it isn't for everybody. Jesus Himself said, "The gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few" (Matt 7:13-14). So if it affects "few," how is that "good news"? To which I ask, "Jesus affected fewer than that. How is that better 'good news'?" No, this "Social Justice" gospel is a sham built on a scattering of Scripture that gets twisted by leaving out the rest of Scripture. True Christianity demands that we serve one another and if we aren't, we, not the Gospel, are at fault. But true Christianity also offers a payment for a condition that demands death (Rom 6:23) by a redemption price paid by Christ (Rom 3:24) who appeased an angry God (Rom 3:25) and demonstrated God's love for us (Rom 5:8). It is received not by our efforts but by faith (Rom 3:28). It's the message Jesus brought and it's the message that the rest of Scripture offers and it's far better news than "You can have a better lot in life right now." It is, then, an authentic gospel, not "another gospel" (Gal 1:6-9). The reason that the longstanding, traditional understanding of the Gospel is what it is is not "tradition," but text. Read it.
There are voices out there, however, who would like to correct that longstanding, traditional understanding of Scripture. They do so under the guise of "Scripture" (Acts 20:29-30; 2 Peter 3:16). They use it, but they like to twist it, and then they have to discard some because it won't "twist" far enough. So, even though the concept of death for sin is clear from Old to New Testament, they discard it in favor of another gospel. This gospel is the Social Justice good news. This good news is better than some old "saved from sin" stuff. This good news will give the poor and marginalized a better life. How do we get there? Well, Scripture, of course. Jesus said, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He has anointed Me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent Me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor" (Luke 4:18-19). So the "good news" is "to the poor" and "the captives" and "the blind" and "those who are oppressed." Not sinners. Certainly not salvation from sin. Absolutely not paying for sin. A better life now.
We know this because Jesus told them "Blessed are the poor," so He came for those with humble means. Or did He? In Matthew's version Jesus said, "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 5:3). In Luke's version He said, "Blessed are the poor, for yours is the kingdom of God" (Luke 6:20). Now, it's not unusual for one writer to record something the other did not; that's no contradiction. But in this case we do have a problem. On one hand, either Luke meant the same thing as Matthew and the "poor" in Luke are the "poor in spirit" in Matthew. If, on the other hand, we're talking about "the poor" in Luke as "those without means to live" (as opposed to those with poor spirits), then what we must conclude is 1) two different categories of people will receive the kingdom of God and 2) poor people (people without means) are blessed for being poor because they will receive the kingdom. If that's the case, it would be cruel to change their condition. If you change their condition, you would be depriving them of the kingdom of God. And that makes no sense in anyone's book.
Here's the thing. These false teachers want you to believe that Christians who believe that Christ died to save us do not care about the poor, the captives, the blind, the oppressed. This simply isn't true, or certainly ought not be. There are plenty of genuine Christians who are working diligently in those areas and it is to the embarrassment of others that they aren't doing so more. But all those things are genuine concerns of genuine Christians according to Scripture. On the other hand, these false teachers do eliminate salvation from sin as a possibility and consider their "gospel" a better one. They face a difficult problem. Leaving off the massive amount of Scripture from Paul's letters and the rest (as I said, they have to discard a lot of Scripture to hold their views), we can look to Jesus alone to see these folks are mistaken. Jesus said He had "come to seek and to save that which was lost" (Luke 19:10). They deny that by changing "lost" to "marginalized." Jesus said He would "lay down My life for the sheep" (John 10:15) and defined His sheep as those who believe and follow Him (John 10:26-27). They say He did no such thing. Jesus said He came "to give His life a ransom for many" (Matt 20:28). They categorically deny that He paid any such price. And perhaps the most difficult thing Jesus said was that He "accomplished the work which You have given Me to do" (John 17:4). If His job was to bring relief to all those people, He failed miserably. Did He feed some? Sure. Like the 5,000. One meal. In fact, He claimed, "You will always have the poor with you" (John 12:8). He claimed the job wouldn't be finished. He healed a lot, but not all. I'm not aware of Him freeing any captives from jails (although if the Gospel is salvation from the captivity of Satan, He did quite a bit of that). Jesus did some of that list from Luke, but not all, yet He claimed He had accomplished the work God had sent Him to do and He claimed "It is finished."
One of the common complaints against a Gospel that offers salvation from sin is that it isn't for everybody. Jesus Himself said, "The gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few" (Matt 7:13-14). So if it affects "few," how is that "good news"? To which I ask, "Jesus affected fewer than that. How is that better 'good news'?" No, this "Social Justice" gospel is a sham built on a scattering of Scripture that gets twisted by leaving out the rest of Scripture. True Christianity demands that we serve one another and if we aren't, we, not the Gospel, are at fault. But true Christianity also offers a payment for a condition that demands death (Rom 6:23) by a redemption price paid by Christ (Rom 3:24) who appeased an angry God (Rom 3:25) and demonstrated God's love for us (Rom 5:8). It is received not by our efforts but by faith (Rom 3:28). It's the message Jesus brought and it's the message that the rest of Scripture offers and it's far better news than "You can have a better lot in life right now." It is, then, an authentic gospel, not "another gospel" (Gal 1:6-9). The reason that the longstanding, traditional understanding of the Gospel is what it is is not "tradition," but text. Read it.
Tuesday, August 30, 2022
Mixing Terms
The fight is on. Most of the Democrats and even some of the Republicans are pushing against the Supreme Court's ruling that abortion is not a constitutional right and the states can decide. Courts are shooting down states who have decided but "improperly" (read "not in the way we deem suitable"). There are suggestions that this topic might sway the previously sure thing that this midterm election would see a new shift to the GOP for Congress and beyond. It's a big deal ... which is somewhat surprising since apparently very, very few know what we're talking about.
"What? Yes, we do. Abortion. The termination of a pregnancy. We know." Well, if that's the abortion we're arguing over, then allow me to let you in on a secret. In no state in the Union is abortion banned. Not one. "Oh, we're quite sure it is." And you would be quite wrong. The unspecific term we use -- "abortion" -- includes miscarriage. (The medical term is "spontaneous abortion.") No state outlaws miscarriage. Further, if the life of a mother is actually in danger, every state allows doctors to save her life over the unborn. A popular canard is "ectopic pregnancy." An ectopic pregnancy occurs when an egg implants and grows outside of the uterus. The fertilized egg cannot survive in this environment. Most ectopic pregnancies result in miscarriage and the woman never knows she was pregnant. If not, there is no medical procedure available that will save the life of that child. They will not survive. Period. So this procedure is not banned in any state nor is it an abortion -- the termination of a normal pregnancy. From the other direction, almost all states (and all nations) prior to the recent SCOTUS ruling allowed limited elective abortion, ending often at 15 weeks on up to 24 weeks. Very few allowed unlimited abortion.
From 1973 until June, 2022, abortions were available but restricted. No one called that a "ban on abortion." Now some states have kept the same restrictions and some have shortened the time and it's called a ban. Some have restricted it to zero time but still allow life-saving efforts on behalf of the mother and it's called a ban. Clearly what is in view here is not "choice." Let me say this clearly. Women never had free choice. California and Maryland are both considering lengthening the time -- post-partum -- but no state allows women to choose to end the life of their child whenever they want. This is not about choice; it is about morality. All the other trappings -- "male control," "sexism," "it's not a baby," "choice," and on and on -- ignore the facts by mixing terms and adding coercive labels -- "white supremacist," "male control," "anti-choice," "ban on abortion," etc. -- and calling it "truth."
"What? Yes, we do. Abortion. The termination of a pregnancy. We know." Well, if that's the abortion we're arguing over, then allow me to let you in on a secret. In no state in the Union is abortion banned. Not one. "Oh, we're quite sure it is." And you would be quite wrong. The unspecific term we use -- "abortion" -- includes miscarriage. (The medical term is "spontaneous abortion.") No state outlaws miscarriage. Further, if the life of a mother is actually in danger, every state allows doctors to save her life over the unborn. A popular canard is "ectopic pregnancy." An ectopic pregnancy occurs when an egg implants and grows outside of the uterus. The fertilized egg cannot survive in this environment. Most ectopic pregnancies result in miscarriage and the woman never knows she was pregnant. If not, there is no medical procedure available that will save the life of that child. They will not survive. Period. So this procedure is not banned in any state nor is it an abortion -- the termination of a normal pregnancy. From the other direction, almost all states (and all nations) prior to the recent SCOTUS ruling allowed limited elective abortion, ending often at 15 weeks on up to 24 weeks. Very few allowed unlimited abortion.
From 1973 until June, 2022, abortions were available but restricted. No one called that a "ban on abortion." Now some states have kept the same restrictions and some have shortened the time and it's called a ban. Some have restricted it to zero time but still allow life-saving efforts on behalf of the mother and it's called a ban. Clearly what is in view here is not "choice." Let me say this clearly. Women never had free choice. California and Maryland are both considering lengthening the time -- post-partum -- but no state allows women to choose to end the life of their child whenever they want. This is not about choice; it is about morality. All the other trappings -- "male control," "sexism," "it's not a baby," "choice," and on and on -- ignore the facts by mixing terms and adding coercive labels -- "white supremacist," "male control," "anti-choice," "ban on abortion," etc. -- and calling it "truth."
Monday, August 29, 2022
Why We Pray
I've been asked fairly often why we pray. Mostly by Christians, in fact. The thinking is something like, "If God is sovereign and omniscient, what's the point?" I don't think it's necessarily a skeptical or belligerent question, either. Seems reasonable. Like Mary's "How will this be, since I am a virgin?" question (Luke 1:34). It isn't a dodge or an attempt to rebel. It's an attempt to understand. So let's see if we can.
First and foremost -- the easiest answer -- is "Because He said to." Simple obedience. Jesus urged perseverance in prayer (Luke 18:1-8). Paul said to "pray without ceasing" (1 Thess 5:17). He told the Colossians to "continue steadfastly in prayer" (Col 4:2) and told Timothy that the first step in fighting the good fight (1 Tim 1:18) was "that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people" (1 Tim 2:1). It is all over Scripture, and it is a command. Pray! So ... pray.
While it is true that prayer does not change God's mind (Num 23:19; Mal 3:6), prayer does change things. He didn't exactly explain the mechanism(s), but Jesus said prayers will be answered (e.g., John 16:23-24; Mark 11:22-24; John 15:7; etc.). Scripture indicates that God uses our prayers as an impetus to accomplish His will (1 John 5:14-15). James said, "The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much" (James 5:16). We pray because we are commanded to pray and we pray because God says prayer is effective.
As if that's not enough, there is one more critical and, perhaps, most important reason for us to pray. Prayer is our communication with God. With prayer we open our hearts to Him. In prayer we pour out our deepest concerns (Php 4:6). In a sense it is just like any human connection; they are always better if there is communication. But one thing that this communication produces simply by existing is something we may not be conscious of. It makes us dependent. It prevents self-reliance. It is a tacit admission that "I am not sufficient." It puts us clearly in His hands knowing that we have no other options but to trust Him. And, given His faithfulness, there can be no better place to be. Another good reason to pray.
First and foremost -- the easiest answer -- is "Because He said to." Simple obedience. Jesus urged perseverance in prayer (Luke 18:1-8). Paul said to "pray without ceasing" (1 Thess 5:17). He told the Colossians to "continue steadfastly in prayer" (Col 4:2) and told Timothy that the first step in fighting the good fight (1 Tim 1:18) was "that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people" (1 Tim 2:1). It is all over Scripture, and it is a command. Pray! So ... pray.
While it is true that prayer does not change God's mind (Num 23:19; Mal 3:6), prayer does change things. He didn't exactly explain the mechanism(s), but Jesus said prayers will be answered (e.g., John 16:23-24; Mark 11:22-24; John 15:7; etc.). Scripture indicates that God uses our prayers as an impetus to accomplish His will (1 John 5:14-15). James said, "The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much" (James 5:16). We pray because we are commanded to pray and we pray because God says prayer is effective.
As if that's not enough, there is one more critical and, perhaps, most important reason for us to pray. Prayer is our communication with God. With prayer we open our hearts to Him. In prayer we pour out our deepest concerns (Php 4:6). In a sense it is just like any human connection; they are always better if there is communication. But one thing that this communication produces simply by existing is something we may not be conscious of. It makes us dependent. It prevents self-reliance. It is a tacit admission that "I am not sufficient." It puts us clearly in His hands knowing that we have no other options but to trust Him. And, given His faithfulness, there can be no better place to be. Another good reason to pray.
Sunday, August 28, 2022
My Goal is God, Himself
I put this up every single day on my blog. It's over there on the sidebar in the section labeled "Thoughts." It is my suspicion that we have a tendency to come to ignore things that occur every single day, and this particular concept has been growing in importance and intensity in my thinking, so I'm borrowing it from the sidebar there and placing it right here for you to review.
In Lamentations where the prophet Jeremiah bemoaned the tragedy of the enslavement of his people, he complained about God (Lam 3:1-20). Long and loud. "My endurance has perished," he says. "So has my hope from the LORD" (Lam 3:18). But hope hasn't perished. "But this I call to mind, and therefore I have hope" (Lam 3:21). Where, in all this suffering, does he find hope?
My goal is God, Himself.We (Christians) need this mindset. Too many of us are "foxhole Christians" bartering with God. "If You will do this for me, I'll follow You." And when He doesn't, we're mad. An illness, the death of a loved one, a stubbed toe, any "setback" can trigger us. We think, albeit not likely consciously, of God as our "butler" -- our "genie" -- whose job it is to make us comfortable and happy. As long as He does that, we'll follow.
Not joy or peace or even blessing,
but Himself, my God.
'Tis His to lead me there --
not mine, but His.
By any road, dear Lord,
at any cost. - Francis Brook
In Lamentations where the prophet Jeremiah bemoaned the tragedy of the enslavement of his people, he complained about God (Lam 3:1-20). Long and loud. "My endurance has perished," he says. "So has my hope from the LORD" (Lam 3:18). But hope hasn't perished. "But this I call to mind, and therefore I have hope" (Lam 3:21). Where, in all this suffering, does he find hope?
The steadfast love of the LORD never ceases; His mercies never come to an end; they are new every morning; great is Your faithfulness. "The LORD is my portion," says my soul, "therefore I will hope in Him." (Lam 3:22-24)That is what Francis Brook said above. That is the critical key. If we seek pleasure or comfort or painlessness or other things from God, we will lose hope. If God is our portion, our point, our aim, our singular joy, then we cannot lose hope. Because we cannot lose Him. The daily process of cutting off our commitment to self-indulgent pleasures in place of God-indulgent confidence is hard, but it is necessary. It goes against normal human thinking, but it is approved by the Maker of the human. When He becomes my highest joy -- He alone -- then nothing else can shake us. And the route He takes to get us there is not a problem. "By any road, dear Lord, at any cost." Is God enough for you?
Saturday, August 27, 2022
News Weakly - 8/27/22
Ridiculing the Ridiculous
Argos, a company in the UK, has been forced to drop a term in their ads because it is sexist. They advertised that they had "two-man delivery" to bring you their products and, clearly, that's sexist. "Don't you hire women??" Of course, they do, and, of course, "two-man" can simply use "man" in the sense of "human beings," but this will never do. They cannot be that sloppy. Let me correct the phrase for their ad. They should offer "two-human-beings-with-sufficient-age-and-sufficient-strength-to-do-the-job delivery." See? Much better. Another fine example of our anti-male, anti-racist, anti-sexist, anti-whatever-I-don't-like, judgmental stupidity.
The Problem of "Mass"
A 29-year-old Walmart shopper was carrying a loaded handgun in his waistband when it started to slip and fall. He grabbed it and it accidentally discharged -- once -- wounding the shopper and three other people. This is what is classified as a "mass shooting" because 4 people were injured in this accident. This is why we need to be more careful with terminology. On the other hand, a Maryland man was charged with a mass stabbing that left two people dead and two hospitalized. I'm waiting for Congress to take up knife control legislation. Maybe assault knives? Anything?
Surprise!
You can go to jail for abusing your children. You can lose your children if you neglect them. Everybody thought that the ultimate responsibility for a child rests with their parents. A judge in Maryland ruled that that was wrong. Parents have no right to know what their kids are doing at school. They do have the responsibility to take care of them, but not the right to know what they're doing. Certainly not if those kids are performing the most heroic thing a child today can do -- transitioning genders. Surprise, parents! You were mistaken. You get the responsibility, just not the authority. Good luck with that.
Yelp!
We have met the enemy, and the enemy ... is crisis pregnancy centers. At least, that's what Yelp thinks. That's what Popular Science thinks, too. If you are not going to kill that baby in a "crisis" (in quotes because the term in this case is so broad), then you are dangerous and people need to be warned. So they will flag these centers, warning that they "provide limited medical services" as if "killing your baby" is a "medical service." No one is flagging abortion clinics for providing limited help for expectant mothers who don't wish to kill their babies. Odd. (And as a sidenote, what does it tell you about the bias of Popular Science when they report something like this?)
Please ... Just Don't
William Barber and Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove are miffed over the opposition of some in the GOP to Biden's student loan debt relief. Why? They believe the hypocrisy of Christian nationalism is on display as the GOP ignores the Bible in its panic over student loans. Now, dismantling this nonsense is not my point, but, clearly, the GOP is not the party of "Christian nationalism." There are some Christian nationalists in the GOP, but surely not all Republicans are Christian, let alone Christian nationalists. Then, when I looked at how they "ignore the Bible," it got really painful. "The Bible says, 'Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors.' See?" Please, that just hurts to read. No one is getting their student loans forgiven for forgiving any debts. The "debts" in view in the text are not student loans, but moral obligations. "Jesus was referring to Leviticus 25." It is remarkably hypocritical to have those who patently discard the Bible attempting to lecture others who discard the Bible on what it means and what they should do. I'll take them seriously when they institute Old Testament civil laws and forgive the GOP as God forgives.
Ought Not Be Overwrought
The big story of the week -- or maybe just the loudest -- is Biden's plan to bail out $300 billion of student loans. A lot of Republicans aren't happy. Even some Democrats aren't happy. It wasn't democratic. It wasn't accomplished with the legislature. A single authority figure is taking $300 billion from taxpayers on his own word to pay off student loans. People want to know. "Why did I bother paying off mine when I could have gotten it free?" How is this not buying votes from a younger generation? Why do so many borrow so much for so little return? Why isn't AOC wearing a "Tax the Poor" dress in support? One meme I saw said, "My mortgage identifies as a student loan." Why not? Why isn't Pelosi leading the charge for Biden to forgive bar tabs? Why is this not an attack on democracy? Honestly, while I'm not happy about this new step, $300 billion is a drop in the bucket compared to the trillions the government is stealing from taxpayers. And the American public has ceased to recognize who is paying for all this (Hint: It's us.) and don't care much that it will increase your cost of living ... more ... so I don't see any point of getting myself overwrought on this.
Not Only From The Left
As if to illustrate my point, the publication has a story about a "far-right Christian group" warning that Christianity is a "serious threat" when practiced "as described in the Bible and modeled by the religion's namesake." That is Christians who follow Christ and the Bible are dangerous. Which is why it's important to note that not all the "far right" or even so-called "Christian" groups are Christians ... at all. And hatred for Christ's followers doesn't only come from the Left.
Not to Bee
I'm sorry, but the Bee actually got a bit ridiculous this week. Lots and lots of satire about student debt relief. Some was funny, but I just don't feel like laughing about it. Maybe Jesus did feed the 5,000 with Olive Garden's Never-Ending Breadsticks, but I didn't much care. Maybe the Pentagon really did mandate the Monkeypox vaccine only to the Navy, but I wasn't particularly amused. I expect it is undoubtedly true that none of those worried about overpopulation have volunteered to die first, but I can't seem to get exercised over it. Let's just let it go this week, okay?
Argos, a company in the UK, has been forced to drop a term in their ads because it is sexist. They advertised that they had "two-man delivery" to bring you their products and, clearly, that's sexist. "Don't you hire women??" Of course, they do, and, of course, "two-man" can simply use "man" in the sense of "human beings," but this will never do. They cannot be that sloppy. Let me correct the phrase for their ad. They should offer "two-human-beings-with-sufficient-age-and-sufficient-strength-to-do-the-job delivery." See? Much better. Another fine example of our anti-male, anti-racist, anti-sexist, anti-whatever-I-don't-like, judgmental stupidity.
The Problem of "Mass"
A 29-year-old Walmart shopper was carrying a loaded handgun in his waistband when it started to slip and fall. He grabbed it and it accidentally discharged -- once -- wounding the shopper and three other people. This is what is classified as a "mass shooting" because 4 people were injured in this accident. This is why we need to be more careful with terminology. On the other hand, a Maryland man was charged with a mass stabbing that left two people dead and two hospitalized. I'm waiting for Congress to take up knife control legislation. Maybe assault knives? Anything?
Surprise!
You can go to jail for abusing your children. You can lose your children if you neglect them. Everybody thought that the ultimate responsibility for a child rests with their parents. A judge in Maryland ruled that that was wrong. Parents have no right to know what their kids are doing at school. They do have the responsibility to take care of them, but not the right to know what they're doing. Certainly not if those kids are performing the most heroic thing a child today can do -- transitioning genders. Surprise, parents! You were mistaken. You get the responsibility, just not the authority. Good luck with that.
Yelp!
We have met the enemy, and the enemy ... is crisis pregnancy centers. At least, that's what Yelp thinks. That's what Popular Science thinks, too. If you are not going to kill that baby in a "crisis" (in quotes because the term in this case is so broad), then you are dangerous and people need to be warned. So they will flag these centers, warning that they "provide limited medical services" as if "killing your baby" is a "medical service." No one is flagging abortion clinics for providing limited help for expectant mothers who don't wish to kill their babies. Odd. (And as a sidenote, what does it tell you about the bias of Popular Science when they report something like this?)
Please ... Just Don't
William Barber and Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove are miffed over the opposition of some in the GOP to Biden's student loan debt relief. Why? They believe the hypocrisy of Christian nationalism is on display as the GOP ignores the Bible in its panic over student loans. Now, dismantling this nonsense is not my point, but, clearly, the GOP is not the party of "Christian nationalism." There are some Christian nationalists in the GOP, but surely not all Republicans are Christian, let alone Christian nationalists. Then, when I looked at how they "ignore the Bible," it got really painful. "The Bible says, 'Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors.' See?" Please, that just hurts to read. No one is getting their student loans forgiven for forgiving any debts. The "debts" in view in the text are not student loans, but moral obligations. "Jesus was referring to Leviticus 25." It is remarkably hypocritical to have those who patently discard the Bible attempting to lecture others who discard the Bible on what it means and what they should do. I'll take them seriously when they institute Old Testament civil laws and forgive the GOP as God forgives.
Ought Not Be Overwrought
The big story of the week -- or maybe just the loudest -- is Biden's plan to bail out $300 billion of student loans. A lot of Republicans aren't happy. Even some Democrats aren't happy. It wasn't democratic. It wasn't accomplished with the legislature. A single authority figure is taking $300 billion from taxpayers on his own word to pay off student loans. People want to know. "Why did I bother paying off mine when I could have gotten it free?" How is this not buying votes from a younger generation? Why do so many borrow so much for so little return? Why isn't AOC wearing a "Tax the Poor" dress in support? One meme I saw said, "My mortgage identifies as a student loan." Why not? Why isn't Pelosi leading the charge for Biden to forgive bar tabs? Why is this not an attack on democracy? Honestly, while I'm not happy about this new step, $300 billion is a drop in the bucket compared to the trillions the government is stealing from taxpayers. And the American public has ceased to recognize who is paying for all this (Hint: It's us.) and don't care much that it will increase your cost of living ... more ... so I don't see any point of getting myself overwrought on this.
Not Only From The Left
As if to illustrate my point, the publication has a story about a "far-right Christian group" warning that Christianity is a "serious threat" when practiced "as described in the Bible and modeled by the religion's namesake." That is Christians who follow Christ and the Bible are dangerous. Which is why it's important to note that not all the "far right" or even so-called "Christian" groups are Christians ... at all. And hatred for Christ's followers doesn't only come from the Left.
Not to Bee
I'm sorry, but the Bee actually got a bit ridiculous this week. Lots and lots of satire about student debt relief. Some was funny, but I just don't feel like laughing about it. Maybe Jesus did feed the 5,000 with Olive Garden's Never-Ending Breadsticks, but I didn't much care. Maybe the Pentagon really did mandate the Monkeypox vaccine only to the Navy, but I wasn't particularly amused. I expect it is undoubtedly true that none of those worried about overpopulation have volunteered to die first, but I can't seem to get exercised over it. Let's just let it go this week, okay?
Friday, August 26, 2022
Not The Good News We Were Hoping For
In June we saw what appeared to be a sea change, a radical shift in the culture. The Supreme Court threw out Roe v Wade, removing it from an unmerited "constitutional right" status and returning it to the choice of the people. The Constitution says nothing about it; let the states decide. Since then I think it has become clear that no such sea change has occurred. Many states had preexisting bans in place ready to fire up when just such an event occurred. Many of those states found their laws blocked by the courts. Others passed laws that enshrined abortion in their states. Currently only 10 states actually ban abortion. The rest spread their permissions from "before a heartbeat is detected" to "legal at any stage" (and a couple are aiming for "and beyond"). Beyond this, some of the upcoming election candidates are being selected specifically for their approval of abortion in reaction to the Supreme Court ruling. The land is currenly militarized on the topic. So much for profound transformation (the definition of "sea change").
Back in the 70's when Roe v Wade was decided, the question was about women's rights. The question was about "reproductive rights." In the last couple of decades, though, the debate has shifted. Ultrasound images and scientific examinations and new medical knowledge all pointed to this very important point -- we're not looking at a tissue blob; we're looking at a human being. Questions like "How soon can they feel pain?" and "How soon do they have a beating heart?" became part of the open dialog. It was absolutely evident that women had been lied to. It was not a question of "women's choice" or "reproductive choice" or "men trying to control women." It was the fundamental question of when it is morally right to kill an innocent human being.
You can see, now, what I mean. No sea change. No shift. The court moved the question from "constitutional" (where it never should have been) to "states rights" and states are making their choices. The federal government is working to codify abortion at the federal level. The people of this nation now know that we're talking about killing innocent human beings ... and the loudest voices don't care. Some openly admit that abortion kills a baby and boldly claim, "We can own that." Moral philosophers like Peter Singer argue that we should be able to kill children up to the age of 3. Others suggest it doesn't matter as long as they're not breathing yet; we can kill those. But most just ignore the facts, clear and present and undeniable, and lean back on the lie of "women's choice" without regard to the life in her and "reproductive choice" while ignoring the reproduction that has already occurred. The Supreme Court changed the constitutional standing of abortion in America, but they didn't change any hearts. And the loudest voices today still clamor for more blood. If you thought the SCOTUS ruling was a victory, you misunderstood the human heart. It was the right legal choice, but it doesn't fix humans. Only God can do that.
________
Postscript. I have a question. One of the key points on which states seeking to ban abortion are getting shot down is the "right to privacy." Mind you, the right to privacy is not in the Constitution or its amendments. It might be implied, at least to some extent, but it's not actually in there. Several states, however, do have it in their state constitutions. So in those states Planned Parenthood is going on a rampage to force abortion legalization based on the right to privacy. I don't understand. The right to privacy means that, as long as they do it in private, people should be allowed to terminate the lives of innocent human beings? You may scoff, but to what extent do we have a "right to privacy"? If I'm privately cooking meth in my house, how can law enforcement interfere? If Bob lives in a state where marijuana is outlawed and he's privately growing marijuana for personal use, on what basis can law enforcement intervene? When does a "right to privacy" trump laws like ... oh, I don't know ... killing innocent human beings? What does privacy have to do with it? I read Compelling Interest which gave the story of the whole Roe v Wade process and still don't understand how privacy guarantees the right to kill babies.
Back in the 70's when Roe v Wade was decided, the question was about women's rights. The question was about "reproductive rights." In the last couple of decades, though, the debate has shifted. Ultrasound images and scientific examinations and new medical knowledge all pointed to this very important point -- we're not looking at a tissue blob; we're looking at a human being. Questions like "How soon can they feel pain?" and "How soon do they have a beating heart?" became part of the open dialog. It was absolutely evident that women had been lied to. It was not a question of "women's choice" or "reproductive choice" or "men trying to control women." It was the fundamental question of when it is morally right to kill an innocent human being.
You can see, now, what I mean. No sea change. No shift. The court moved the question from "constitutional" (where it never should have been) to "states rights" and states are making their choices. The federal government is working to codify abortion at the federal level. The people of this nation now know that we're talking about killing innocent human beings ... and the loudest voices don't care. Some openly admit that abortion kills a baby and boldly claim, "We can own that." Moral philosophers like Peter Singer argue that we should be able to kill children up to the age of 3. Others suggest it doesn't matter as long as they're not breathing yet; we can kill those. But most just ignore the facts, clear and present and undeniable, and lean back on the lie of "women's choice" without regard to the life in her and "reproductive choice" while ignoring the reproduction that has already occurred. The Supreme Court changed the constitutional standing of abortion in America, but they didn't change any hearts. And the loudest voices today still clamor for more blood. If you thought the SCOTUS ruling was a victory, you misunderstood the human heart. It was the right legal choice, but it doesn't fix humans. Only God can do that.
________
Postscript. I have a question. One of the key points on which states seeking to ban abortion are getting shot down is the "right to privacy." Mind you, the right to privacy is not in the Constitution or its amendments. It might be implied, at least to some extent, but it's not actually in there. Several states, however, do have it in their state constitutions. So in those states Planned Parenthood is going on a rampage to force abortion legalization based on the right to privacy. I don't understand. The right to privacy means that, as long as they do it in private, people should be allowed to terminate the lives of innocent human beings? You may scoff, but to what extent do we have a "right to privacy"? If I'm privately cooking meth in my house, how can law enforcement interfere? If Bob lives in a state where marijuana is outlawed and he's privately growing marijuana for personal use, on what basis can law enforcement intervene? When does a "right to privacy" trump laws like ... oh, I don't know ... killing innocent human beings? What does privacy have to do with it? I read Compelling Interest which gave the story of the whole Roe v Wade process and still don't understand how privacy guarantees the right to kill babies.
Thursday, August 25, 2022
Why Faith?
We Christians have this thing called "the Gospel." It is, in fact, unique in the world of religions. Every other religion on the planet has some sort of "earn your way to heaven" except Christianity. That's because we start with "You can't" and go from there. So our Gospel includes this fundamental principle: we are saved by faith in Christ. Not by works. Not by our efforts. Not by birth. Not by becoming a better person. Not by following laws. Faith. Apart from works. And that is truly Gospel, truly good news.
But have you ever asked why? I mean, sure, it's because we can't do it on our own. We are sinners at the core and can't stop it. So that's one reason why. But the Bible actually says why faith alone apart from works, circumcision, or works of the law is required (Rom 4:1-15). It is faith alone for a reason. These other things don't suffice is, which is why it depends on faith, and that it is by faith "in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham" (Rom 4:16). The reason God designed our salvation to be based on faith is so that His grace is the answer. And when His grace is the answer, the certainty -- the guarantee -- is found in Him and not something we are or do.
We are saved by grace through faith so that God gets the glory. "If it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace" (Rom 11:6). If we did something to earn it, it would no longer be grace. If we were born into the right family or performed some ceremony (like circumcision) or obeyed the right rules, we would get the credit and it would not be grace. No, we don't have the ability to do any of those things, and that is certainly a primary reason that we are saved by faith -- there is no other option. But first and foremost, our salvation on the basis of faith is to demonstrate God's glory in God's grace. And that's a very good thing.
But have you ever asked why? I mean, sure, it's because we can't do it on our own. We are sinners at the core and can't stop it. So that's one reason why. But the Bible actually says why faith alone apart from works, circumcision, or works of the law is required (Rom 4:1-15). It is faith alone for a reason. These other things don't suffice is, which is why it depends on faith, and that it is by faith "in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham" (Rom 4:16). The reason God designed our salvation to be based on faith is so that His grace is the answer. And when His grace is the answer, the certainty -- the guarantee -- is found in Him and not something we are or do.
We are saved by grace through faith so that God gets the glory. "If it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace" (Rom 11:6). If we did something to earn it, it would no longer be grace. If we were born into the right family or performed some ceremony (like circumcision) or obeyed the right rules, we would get the credit and it would not be grace. No, we don't have the ability to do any of those things, and that is certainly a primary reason that we are saved by faith -- there is no other option. But first and foremost, our salvation on the basis of faith is to demonstrate God's glory in God's grace. And that's a very good thing.
Wednesday, August 24, 2022
Bad Bereans
I may be way off, but I think I've put my finger on a serious issue. If you've been watching much you might have noticed that the church in America is in decline. Oh, sure, numbers are down, but that's not the decline I'm talking about. More and more are marked by compromise. "Yes, sure, that's what God's Word says, but we think it's wrong. We need to adjust, to go along to get along." So they give in on women as pastors or marriage as between a man and a woman and for life or the like. Look at all the scandals in churches, big and small, where pastors and other church leadership are accused and "convicted" of sexual abuse. And you wonder, "Why didn't anyone catch it? Why didn't anyone pick up on it before?" Think of the softness of modern Christian theology in America. "Sure, the bible says God is Sovereign, but we know that He's a gentleman and won't interfere where He's not wanted." Really? Is that what you read in your bibles? "It's not God's will that people should suffer." Weird. My bible says exactly the opposite. "Oh, come on. What's with that 'wives submit' stuff? That's outdated. That's wrong." The bible is outdated and wrong? And I think I see part of the problem.
Almost every church I've attended or visited in the last 30 years has given up teaching the Word. Oh, no, not as bad as all that. I've been under lots of good pastors preaching Scripture from the pulpit. I've been in lots of good churches where they declare the value of God's Word. No, it's not on the face; it's behind the scenes. It's in the adult classes and the home bible studies. They call them "bible studies," but they are, in fact, more like "book clubs." They read good books about the Good Book ... hopefully. We've become "humble." "Oh, I'm not really qualified to teach the Word. Why should I with all these good teachers out there who are? No, I'm no teacher. I'm a facilitator." We give lipservice to the Word and then back off, bow out, let someone else take over. We don't dig into it for ourselves let alone to pass on to fellow believers. We husbands aren't too keen on cleansing our wives with "the washing of water with the Word" (Eph 5:26). Sure, sure, we consider ourselves "Christ followers" and Jesus said, "Your Word is truth" (John 17:17). Perhaps we're just not as interested in the pursuit of truth as Jesus was.
Fundamentally, American Christianity has largely arrived, at best, at a "once removed" condition. We still value the Word, but at a distance, so to speak. "You learn it, you teach it, and we'll listen." "It's good stuff, but we need more. More up to date. More relevant. More applicable. More 'today'." The claim that Scripture makes about Scripture flies in the face of our ambivalence.
Almost every church I've attended or visited in the last 30 years has given up teaching the Word. Oh, no, not as bad as all that. I've been under lots of good pastors preaching Scripture from the pulpit. I've been in lots of good churches where they declare the value of God's Word. No, it's not on the face; it's behind the scenes. It's in the adult classes and the home bible studies. They call them "bible studies," but they are, in fact, more like "book clubs." They read good books about the Good Book ... hopefully. We've become "humble." "Oh, I'm not really qualified to teach the Word. Why should I with all these good teachers out there who are? No, I'm no teacher. I'm a facilitator." We give lipservice to the Word and then back off, bow out, let someone else take over. We don't dig into it for ourselves let alone to pass on to fellow believers. We husbands aren't too keen on cleansing our wives with "the washing of water with the Word" (Eph 5:26). Sure, sure, we consider ourselves "Christ followers" and Jesus said, "Your Word is truth" (John 17:17). Perhaps we're just not as interested in the pursuit of truth as Jesus was.
Fundamentally, American Christianity has largely arrived, at best, at a "once removed" condition. We still value the Word, but at a distance, so to speak. "You learn it, you teach it, and we'll listen." "It's good stuff, but we need more. More up to date. More relevant. More applicable. More 'today'." The claim that Scripture makes about Scripture flies in the face of our ambivalence.
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. (2 Tim 3:16-17)"All Scripture," not just the parts we like. "Breathed out by God." Not merely "inspired." "Profitable." Very much so. It tells us what we should know, where we go wrong, how to correct it, and where to continue to walk. Note the breadth of this claim. It will make the man of God "complete, equipped for every good work." No lack. No insufficiency. We don't really believe that the Holy Spirit will lead us into the truth. God's Word claims that God's Word is sufficient. It's what we need. It does the necessary task. It is authoritative. It is primary. And we've relegated it to second place. Maybe third. Or somewhere else down the line. Like a good advisor to our already capable understanding ... from science and experience and culture and society and politics and all. "No, no, God, that's okay. We've got this. We don't need to dig into Your Word. We have some really good books on it." It should be no wonder that the American Christian church is a mile wide and an inch deep. Face it; we're not very good Bereans (Acts 17:11).
Tuesday, August 23, 2022
Oversimplification
We have made huge advances in our times. Advances in science, in technology, in transportation and space exploration, in medicine and education. Having worked in the arena of medical science for some years, I have been fascinated by the huge leaps as well as the uncovering of a vast unknown. David wrote, "I am fearfully and wonderfully made; wonderful are Your works, and my soul knows it very well" (Psa 139:14), and he was right. From the previously unknown connection between gut health and brain function to the still undiscovered operations of memory and other brain functions up to the most recent concerns about the human immune system, we are a complicated and wonderful creation.
Since we know all this, and since it carries on into so much of life, why is it that we've become so oversimplified? Think about it. Racism was a complex concept explaining how some people come to regard their own race as superior to others, sometimes taking that perception to extremes. Now it is "white people," "white people only," and "all white people." With tendrils in so many other things. If you believe in the Bill of Rights, you're a racist. It is the cause for white supremacy, sure, but it's also the reason a black person might disagree with the current theory, becoming the impossible "black racist." It is the cause of capitalism and Christianity. It is the reason for all sorts of woes. Racism is blamed for deadly riots and poverty and hate (both ways). It is the reason that abortion is higher in black communities and the reason that some people oppose abortion. It is the reason why there are fewer blacks in high ranking business positions and why there are more blacks than whites in some professional sports. It has freed so many people from personal responsibility and accused so many others of hate who never gave a hint of it. Racism is one of the single most pervasive causes of evil in the world today. Simple.
Think about it. Think of the "phobes." If you have a reason to believe that fundamentalist Islamic followers represent a serious threat to America, you are an "Islamophobe." If you see in Scripture that homosexual behavior is classified as a sexual sin, you are a "homophobe." If you believe that males are males and females are females like science says they are, you are a "transphobe." (And, oh, by the way, that suffix, "phobe," is supposed to mean "fear," but we've translated that into "hate" and that without cause.) Thus, instead of having reasons to believe what you believe regarding one of these or another, your ideas are dismissed out of hand without consideration because you are a "phobe" -- a hater -- with incoherent bigotry not worthy of being heard. Simple.
I'm sure you can come up with your own examples in racism, "phobias," and even other areas. Sexism, the political labels of "Left" and "rightwing," "socialism," "Christian," and more are all oversimplifications of complex issues. They deny individuality within their area of influence and they expand that area of influence beyond any rational connection. They control (read "silence") discussion with sharp labels that seem to bear meaning without any actual support. No one is safe. Christians who deem it necessary to follow what the Bible says are labeled "evil" if they don't believe what is considered "proper." Supreme Court Justices who see their job as interpreting the Constitution and comparing a case to it are labeled as evil if they don't rule how some wanted them to rule. Reasoning has no part in it. We're oversimplifying ourselves to death, and that might end up a literal concept in too many cases when the precursor of discussion and dialog are disallowed.
Since we know all this, and since it carries on into so much of life, why is it that we've become so oversimplified? Think about it. Racism was a complex concept explaining how some people come to regard their own race as superior to others, sometimes taking that perception to extremes. Now it is "white people," "white people only," and "all white people." With tendrils in so many other things. If you believe in the Bill of Rights, you're a racist. It is the cause for white supremacy, sure, but it's also the reason a black person might disagree with the current theory, becoming the impossible "black racist." It is the cause of capitalism and Christianity. It is the reason for all sorts of woes. Racism is blamed for deadly riots and poverty and hate (both ways). It is the reason that abortion is higher in black communities and the reason that some people oppose abortion. It is the reason why there are fewer blacks in high ranking business positions and why there are more blacks than whites in some professional sports. It has freed so many people from personal responsibility and accused so many others of hate who never gave a hint of it. Racism is one of the single most pervasive causes of evil in the world today. Simple.
Think about it. Think of the "phobes." If you have a reason to believe that fundamentalist Islamic followers represent a serious threat to America, you are an "Islamophobe." If you see in Scripture that homosexual behavior is classified as a sexual sin, you are a "homophobe." If you believe that males are males and females are females like science says they are, you are a "transphobe." (And, oh, by the way, that suffix, "phobe," is supposed to mean "fear," but we've translated that into "hate" and that without cause.) Thus, instead of having reasons to believe what you believe regarding one of these or another, your ideas are dismissed out of hand without consideration because you are a "phobe" -- a hater -- with incoherent bigotry not worthy of being heard. Simple.
I'm sure you can come up with your own examples in racism, "phobias," and even other areas. Sexism, the political labels of "Left" and "rightwing," "socialism," "Christian," and more are all oversimplifications of complex issues. They deny individuality within their area of influence and they expand that area of influence beyond any rational connection. They control (read "silence") discussion with sharp labels that seem to bear meaning without any actual support. No one is safe. Christians who deem it necessary to follow what the Bible says are labeled "evil" if they don't believe what is considered "proper." Supreme Court Justices who see their job as interpreting the Constitution and comparing a case to it are labeled as evil if they don't rule how some wanted them to rule. Reasoning has no part in it. We're oversimplifying ourselves to death, and that might end up a literal concept in too many cases when the precursor of discussion and dialog are disallowed.
Monday, August 22, 2022
Like the Back of My Hand
What is it with hands? We seem to have a host of phrases that deal with hands that, often, seem to make no sense ... even though we all know what we mean by them.
We know what it means to do some work "by hand." That's easy. It's not by machine. Okay. Good. And we like to keep some things "on hand." Near. In easy reach so to speak. Some of these make reasonable sense because they actually have to do with hands. On the other hand ...
You might experience something "first hand," meaning "in person." What does "hand" have to do with it? Why do we buy "second hand" items? What is the "second hand"? I've heard it said, "I know this like the back of my hand." How well do you know the back of your hand? Would you be able to pick yours out in a photo lineup? I understand that government might be "heavy-handed" and even "underhanded," but the former is clearer to me than the latter. Under what? What does someone have in their hand that would cause you to force it? I know to "wash your hands" of a problem is actually biblical (coming from Pilate washing his hands when he ordered Jesus's crucifixion), but how would you "lend a hand" without, you know, dismembering yourself? Ships will order "all hands on deck." Why just their hands, and why should they put them on the deck? If it's possible to be in "safe hands" is it possible to be in "dangerous hands"? Maybe, but I've never heard that one. I spoke to someone just the other day who told me, "We're shorthanded today." What a strange word picture that conjures up, right? Jesus Himself said, "Do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing" (Matt 6:3). I'd think that would be pretty easy since my left hand doesn't know anything at all. If I wanted a tool, I might ask, "Would you hand me a wrench?" but I'd never say, "Would you mouth me a wrench?" if I hoped they'd use their teeth, right? Of course it would be hands. You can have nothing in your hands, your hands full, your hands tied, and in no case are you actually stating any of those as actual fact. If you get something from someone else, it's a "hand-me-down" which is as much a poorly constructed sentence as a strange idiom. Who are you handing down?
It seems to me this is all getting out of hand. Which is strange because, at no time as far as I can tell, was any of it actually in my hand. Still, you know exactly what I meant. It's all very handsome, which originally meant "easy to handle" or "ready at hand" and now means nothing at all like it. Which only goes to show that communication is tenuous at best, isn't it?
We know what it means to do some work "by hand." That's easy. It's not by machine. Okay. Good. And we like to keep some things "on hand." Near. In easy reach so to speak. Some of these make reasonable sense because they actually have to do with hands. On the other hand ...
You might experience something "first hand," meaning "in person." What does "hand" have to do with it? Why do we buy "second hand" items? What is the "second hand"? I've heard it said, "I know this like the back of my hand." How well do you know the back of your hand? Would you be able to pick yours out in a photo lineup? I understand that government might be "heavy-handed" and even "underhanded," but the former is clearer to me than the latter. Under what? What does someone have in their hand that would cause you to force it? I know to "wash your hands" of a problem is actually biblical (coming from Pilate washing his hands when he ordered Jesus's crucifixion), but how would you "lend a hand" without, you know, dismembering yourself? Ships will order "all hands on deck." Why just their hands, and why should they put them on the deck? If it's possible to be in "safe hands" is it possible to be in "dangerous hands"? Maybe, but I've never heard that one. I spoke to someone just the other day who told me, "We're shorthanded today." What a strange word picture that conjures up, right? Jesus Himself said, "Do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing" (Matt 6:3). I'd think that would be pretty easy since my left hand doesn't know anything at all. If I wanted a tool, I might ask, "Would you hand me a wrench?" but I'd never say, "Would you mouth me a wrench?" if I hoped they'd use their teeth, right? Of course it would be hands. You can have nothing in your hands, your hands full, your hands tied, and in no case are you actually stating any of those as actual fact. If you get something from someone else, it's a "hand-me-down" which is as much a poorly constructed sentence as a strange idiom. Who are you handing down?
It seems to me this is all getting out of hand. Which is strange because, at no time as far as I can tell, was any of it actually in my hand. Still, you know exactly what I meant. It's all very handsome, which originally meant "easy to handle" or "ready at hand" and now means nothing at all like it. Which only goes to show that communication is tenuous at best, isn't it?
Sunday, August 21, 2022
Marriage Advice
Her husband died several years ago and she was considering remarrying. Her kids were grown, but his were still at home. She wanted advice. "How do I navigate this blended family thing?" The temptation is to come up with a 12-step plan or something, some pithy approach with practical instructions. But it's not that simple, you understand. Every person in this equation is different. Every condition is variable. There is gender and age, attachments and distances, perceptions and preferences, personality and personal motivations, a list that just keeps coming. All influenced by each other. It's not that easy. There are so many varieties and variables that it would, in fact, seem impossible.
It occurred to me that there was an answer. It just wouldn't be ... satisfying. The single answer was simple: "love." "Oh, great," I can hear some groaning, "all we need is love, right?" Too vague. Too simple. Inadequate. And I'd agree if we were talking about today's modern version. Warm feelings. Affection. "Feel good toward everyone" is just not very helpful advice. Except that's not the love I'm talking about. This love is more ... biblical. This love does nothing from selfishness or empty conceit; it regards others as more important than me (Php 2:3). This love looks out first for the interest of others (Php 2:4). This love gives up self and seeks only the best for those it touches. It doesn't seek its own, is not easily provoked, does not keep accounts of wrongs (1 Cor 13:5). It is, above all, patient and kind (1 Cor 13:4). This love endures (1 Cor 13:7). Sure, it is actually a death to self, and that's really what makes it work, but it's not like the one who loves loses because it is premised on the fact that you are loved perfectly and completely already by God (Rom 5:8). That simply makes you an open conduit to flood those around you with His love because, after all, you already have what you need.
Simple answer, sure, but not simply accomplished. It is, however, the answer to most interpersonal conflicts and questions. It is commanded. And it is well supplied. "In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins" (1 John 4:10). In fact, we love because He first loved us (1 John 4:19). Sure, it's a simple answer. Die to self and give all. But it is amazingly effective. And it is clearly something not accomplished by human effort.
It occurred to me that there was an answer. It just wouldn't be ... satisfying. The single answer was simple: "love." "Oh, great," I can hear some groaning, "all we need is love, right?" Too vague. Too simple. Inadequate. And I'd agree if we were talking about today's modern version. Warm feelings. Affection. "Feel good toward everyone" is just not very helpful advice. Except that's not the love I'm talking about. This love is more ... biblical. This love does nothing from selfishness or empty conceit; it regards others as more important than me (Php 2:3). This love looks out first for the interest of others (Php 2:4). This love gives up self and seeks only the best for those it touches. It doesn't seek its own, is not easily provoked, does not keep accounts of wrongs (1 Cor 13:5). It is, above all, patient and kind (1 Cor 13:4). This love endures (1 Cor 13:7). Sure, it is actually a death to self, and that's really what makes it work, but it's not like the one who loves loses because it is premised on the fact that you are loved perfectly and completely already by God (Rom 5:8). That simply makes you an open conduit to flood those around you with His love because, after all, you already have what you need.
Simple answer, sure, but not simply accomplished. It is, however, the answer to most interpersonal conflicts and questions. It is commanded. And it is well supplied. "In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins" (1 John 4:10). In fact, we love because He first loved us (1 John 4:19). Sure, it's a simple answer. Die to self and give all. But it is amazingly effective. And it is clearly something not accomplished by human effort.
Saturday, August 20, 2022
News Weakly - 8/20/22
Saving the World One Poor Person at a Time
In order to stop the decline in the price of gas, the BLM is pausing oil and gas leasing on 2.2 million acres of public land because environmental groups say they've failed to consider "climate impacts." The Sierra Club and the like hope to save the planet, but they plan to do it at your expense. Massachusetts is on board as well. They just passed a "major climage and clean-energy bill" that will block access to the cheapest ways to cook and heat homes or buy the most economical transportation. You economically challenged people, suck it up. This will save the world even if it destroys yours.
Questionable Motives
Salman Rushdie, the one who wrote Satanic Verses which earned him a fatwa, a Muslim death sentence, was stabbed at a lecture in Chautauqua, New York, by Hadi Matar, a 24-year-old Muslim from New Jersey. The authorities don't know his motive ... because they can't say the obvious. Don't want to be Islamophobic, you know. If it's not a white guy killing a person of color, they just can't be sure. Iran, on the other hand, has no problem laying blame. They celebrated the attack and made it clear it was Rushdie's fault.
Fight for your Rights
Six fraternities at USC have cut ties with USC. Why? Because the university is trying to curb their right ... to party. The school is trying to "prevent sexual assault and drug abuse" and, as everyone knows, fraternities are all about sexual assault and drug abuse, and you've got to fight for your right to party.
Leave That To The Experts
We decry it when the Left ignores their own "sins" and rants about the right. Now we have folks on the right ramping up threats against the FBI for serving a search warrant on former president Trump. This is more than embarrassing. It's wrong. Calls for civil war and armed rebellion? It's crazy. When the non-existent "insurrection" took place that fateful January 6th, it was deemed a "threat to democracy." Nonsense. But the current atmosphere of the extreme "Trump Love" types (that is, some of those who love Trump to the radical extreme) is indeed dangerous to democracy and is actually a call for insurrection. It has to stop. That kind of double standard ("It's wrong for you to to break the law with your so-called 'search warrant', but we're justified in breaking the law in our outrage") should be the sole domain of the Left who seems to have mastered it. Leave that to the experts.
Let's Play "Racial Discrimination"
They couldn't pull off reparations for black people, so the Minneapolis school district figured out how to make teachers pay for "the effects of past discrimination." In a blast of "fairness" where the primary mode of determining who to lay off will be "white or not," they will lay off white teachers first and give preferential hiring treatment to people of color. Because choosing who to hire and fire on the basis of race is a prime example of racism, and now we will get to see it as policy.
Spending to Cut Costs?
Well, he signed it, didn't he? That oxymoronic "Inflation Reduction Act." You know, where they spend 3/4 of a trillion dollars to ... reduce inflation. Oh, don't worry. They're just going to tax the rich -- a 15% minimum corporate tax rate. Mind you, it is you who will pay for that. More inflation. Another $370 billion for climate change, because climate change is clearly driving up inflation right now. A few will likely benefit from limits on Medicare drug prices. Of course, that group makes up the smallest portion (17%) of the population, but, hey, who's counting? Anything Big Government can do to dip into your wallet and call it "Inflation Reduction" has to be good, right? They will expect thank-you notes from all of you. (Did you know that this "climate change fighting bill" gives a boost to oil and gas companies?)
Just ... Stop
Similar to a story last week, a school identified as "Christian" in Florida is asking students guilty of sexual immorality to leave the school. They have a list of sexual sins that "are sinful in the sight of God" (complete with Bible references), but, oddly enough, they aren't sasying that students who murder, steal, dishonor parents, or fail to love God with their whole heart need to leave, too. Strange standards, only made worse by the name -- "Grace Christian School." False advertising -- twice -- if you ask me.
Helpful insights from the Bee
Some helpful tidbits from the Babylon Bee this week. Merrick Garland explained why the raid on Melania's closet was justified as he appeared wearing a stunning evening gown and matching sun hat. From Massachusetts, Boston Children's Hospital made history by throwing a child who claimed to be a bird off the roof as "species-affirming care." And why not? One piece offers 10 things you can do with $150K instead of paying a college to brainwash your kid. Something to think about. One savvy Trump voter is waiting to see if he gets raided by the FBI or gunned down by the IRS while the word is out that Liz Cheney won't return for season 2 of the wildly popular January 6 Hearings. We'll see.
Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
In order to stop the decline in the price of gas, the BLM is pausing oil and gas leasing on 2.2 million acres of public land because environmental groups say they've failed to consider "climate impacts." The Sierra Club and the like hope to save the planet, but they plan to do it at your expense. Massachusetts is on board as well. They just passed a "major climage and clean-energy bill" that will block access to the cheapest ways to cook and heat homes or buy the most economical transportation. You economically challenged people, suck it up. This will save the world even if it destroys yours.
Questionable Motives
Salman Rushdie, the one who wrote Satanic Verses which earned him a fatwa, a Muslim death sentence, was stabbed at a lecture in Chautauqua, New York, by Hadi Matar, a 24-year-old Muslim from New Jersey. The authorities don't know his motive ... because they can't say the obvious. Don't want to be Islamophobic, you know. If it's not a white guy killing a person of color, they just can't be sure. Iran, on the other hand, has no problem laying blame. They celebrated the attack and made it clear it was Rushdie's fault.
Fight for your Rights
Six fraternities at USC have cut ties with USC. Why? Because the university is trying to curb their right ... to party. The school is trying to "prevent sexual assault and drug abuse" and, as everyone knows, fraternities are all about sexual assault and drug abuse, and you've got to fight for your right to party.
Leave That To The Experts
We decry it when the Left ignores their own "sins" and rants about the right. Now we have folks on the right ramping up threats against the FBI for serving a search warrant on former president Trump. This is more than embarrassing. It's wrong. Calls for civil war and armed rebellion? It's crazy. When the non-existent "insurrection" took place that fateful January 6th, it was deemed a "threat to democracy." Nonsense. But the current atmosphere of the extreme "Trump Love" types (that is, some of those who love Trump to the radical extreme) is indeed dangerous to democracy and is actually a call for insurrection. It has to stop. That kind of double standard ("It's wrong for you to to break the law with your so-called 'search warrant', but we're justified in breaking the law in our outrage") should be the sole domain of the Left who seems to have mastered it. Leave that to the experts.
Let's Play "Racial Discrimination"
They couldn't pull off reparations for black people, so the Minneapolis school district figured out how to make teachers pay for "the effects of past discrimination." In a blast of "fairness" where the primary mode of determining who to lay off will be "white or not," they will lay off white teachers first and give preferential hiring treatment to people of color. Because choosing who to hire and fire on the basis of race is a prime example of racism, and now we will get to see it as policy.
Spending to Cut Costs?
Well, he signed it, didn't he? That oxymoronic "Inflation Reduction Act." You know, where they spend 3/4 of a trillion dollars to ... reduce inflation. Oh, don't worry. They're just going to tax the rich -- a 15% minimum corporate tax rate. Mind you, it is you who will pay for that. More inflation. Another $370 billion for climate change, because climate change is clearly driving up inflation right now. A few will likely benefit from limits on Medicare drug prices. Of course, that group makes up the smallest portion (17%) of the population, but, hey, who's counting? Anything Big Government can do to dip into your wallet and call it "Inflation Reduction" has to be good, right? They will expect thank-you notes from all of you. (Did you know that this "climate change fighting bill" gives a boost to oil and gas companies?)
Just ... Stop
Similar to a story last week, a school identified as "Christian" in Florida is asking students guilty of sexual immorality to leave the school. They have a list of sexual sins that "are sinful in the sight of God" (complete with Bible references), but, oddly enough, they aren't sasying that students who murder, steal, dishonor parents, or fail to love God with their whole heart need to leave, too. Strange standards, only made worse by the name -- "Grace Christian School." False advertising -- twice -- if you ask me.
Helpful insights from the Bee
Some helpful tidbits from the Babylon Bee this week. Merrick Garland explained why the raid on Melania's closet was justified as he appeared wearing a stunning evening gown and matching sun hat. From Massachusetts, Boston Children's Hospital made history by throwing a child who claimed to be a bird off the roof as "species-affirming care." And why not? One piece offers 10 things you can do with $150K instead of paying a college to brainwash your kid. Something to think about. One savvy Trump voter is waiting to see if he gets raided by the FBI or gunned down by the IRS while the word is out that Liz Cheney won't return for season 2 of the wildly popular January 6 Hearings. We'll see.
Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
Friday, August 19, 2022
A Little Bit of Heaven
We all know the prayer. It begins, "Our Father who is in heaven, hallowed be Your name. Your kingdom come. Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven" (Matt 6:9-10). So ... just how is the Father's will done in heaven? Well, that's not too hard to guess. It is done completely, consistently, without question or refusal. It is done correctly. It is done from, through, and to the Father. Easy. And that, dear readers, is what Jesus told His disciples to pray. "Let that be done here, too."
So, look, here's what I'm thinking. If heaven includes "Your will be done" and that is our daily prayer, why not get to work on it? Why not begin to experience a little bit of heaven here? Why not make it your aim to do His will in all cases, completely, consistently, without question or refusal? Why not seek to do it correctly, by His power, and for His glory? Sure, we may not know all that that entails. But there is a very large amount laid out for us in His Word. Why not start with that? "Oh, this says I should ____, so I will." If we love God and believe He knows best, I'd think it would just be a natural thing to do.
So, look, here's what I'm thinking. If heaven includes "Your will be done" and that is our daily prayer, why not get to work on it? Why not begin to experience a little bit of heaven here? Why not make it your aim to do His will in all cases, completely, consistently, without question or refusal? Why not seek to do it correctly, by His power, and for His glory? Sure, we may not know all that that entails. But there is a very large amount laid out for us in His Word. Why not start with that? "Oh, this says I should ____, so I will." If we love God and believe He knows best, I'd think it would just be a natural thing to do.
Thursday, August 18, 2022
Pointing Fingers
There have been discussions about the nature of sins. Are some sins worse than others? Should we point them out or leave them be? Is it judgmental to see a sin in Scripture and recognize it in someone? Easy stuff, really. Yes, Scripture indicates that some sins are worse than others. (For instance, Jesus said, "And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You will be brought down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I tell you that it will be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom than for you" (Matt 11:23-24). The sins of Sodom were bad, but the sins of Capernaum were worse. So, while all sin earns death (Rom 6:31), the anguish of that death varies. On the other hand, Christ redeemed us from our sin, so while all sin earns death to varying degree, those who trust Christ for their salvation have all sin forgiven. Some worse than others? Yes ... and no. Should we point them out? Jesus said, "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother" (Matt 18:15). So, yes, it is important to seek to restore a fellow believer who sins. (See also Gal 6:1.) But "righteous indignation" carries no concern for the sinner, so that's right out. So it is not judgmental to see sin, but the aim is repentance and the danger is failing to judge ... yourself (Matt 7:3-5).
Here's the problem. The world (currently) likes to tell us to not be judgmental and to just nod and smile, nay, embrace the sin. Today if you call out the select sins the world is currently in love with, you aren't merely "judgmental"; you're a hater. So we're not supposed to notice ... except that Christ did (see, for instance, Matt 11:20-23). And we're supposed to be followers of Christ. Turning a blind eye to sin -- let alone calling sin "good" -- is outside of our operating guidelines. Calling sin "sin" may put us on the "wrong side of history," but it puts on the right side of our Savior's example and instructions. To fail to see sin and call it such is to fail to follow Christ. On the other hand, Jesus was quite clear. Look to yourself. And we are pitifully bad at that.
It is said that when you point a finger at someone, three are pointing back at you. You get the idea. We point at people and their homosexual activity and decry it as sin without checking our own sexual immorality in our minds or our porn use or our sexually immoral liaisons, as if "my sin isn't as bad as theirs." We decry the drug users while we ignore our drug of choice -- Internet or TV or political conflict or ... a whole host of "narcotics" that occupy our hearts. We rail against false teachers while we turn a blind eye to our refusal to sacrificially love our wives, submit to our husbands, pray without ceasing, give thanks in everything ... you know, clear and obvious commands that we can recognize and even quote but simply choose to ignore. We point out their sin accurately if not lovingly but we blatantly ignore our own. Too many fingers pointing back. Our own fingers. Brothers and sisters, before you go listing up the sins of others around you, inside and outside the faith, "first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye" (Matt 7:5). It is my suspicion that this will be a full time job. Well, okay, for me. You're probably much more righteous than I.
Here's the problem. The world (currently) likes to tell us to not be judgmental and to just nod and smile, nay, embrace the sin. Today if you call out the select sins the world is currently in love with, you aren't merely "judgmental"; you're a hater. So we're not supposed to notice ... except that Christ did (see, for instance, Matt 11:20-23). And we're supposed to be followers of Christ. Turning a blind eye to sin -- let alone calling sin "good" -- is outside of our operating guidelines. Calling sin "sin" may put us on the "wrong side of history," but it puts on the right side of our Savior's example and instructions. To fail to see sin and call it such is to fail to follow Christ. On the other hand, Jesus was quite clear. Look to yourself. And we are pitifully bad at that.
It is said that when you point a finger at someone, three are pointing back at you. You get the idea. We point at people and their homosexual activity and decry it as sin without checking our own sexual immorality in our minds or our porn use or our sexually immoral liaisons, as if "my sin isn't as bad as theirs." We decry the drug users while we ignore our drug of choice -- Internet or TV or political conflict or ... a whole host of "narcotics" that occupy our hearts. We rail against false teachers while we turn a blind eye to our refusal to sacrificially love our wives, submit to our husbands, pray without ceasing, give thanks in everything ... you know, clear and obvious commands that we can recognize and even quote but simply choose to ignore. We point out their sin accurately if not lovingly but we blatantly ignore our own. Too many fingers pointing back. Our own fingers. Brothers and sisters, before you go listing up the sins of others around you, inside and outside the faith, "first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye" (Matt 7:5). It is my suspicion that this will be a full time job. Well, okay, for me. You're probably much more righteous than I.
Wednesday, August 17, 2022
The Goofy Gophers
I grew up with Warner Brothers cartoon characters like Bugs Bunny and the Road Runner. All good stuff. My favorites, however, were somewhat obscure. They did perhaps 6 episodes with these characters. They were called the "goofy gophers." Their primary characteristic was their extreme politeness to each other. "You first." "Oh, no, I insist, you first." Always cheerful; always kind to each other. I think that these two are the caricature of marriage.
Think about it. The command to wives is clear and unequivocal. "Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord" (Eph 5:22). Dance around that all you want, but if you're going to be true to the text and the context, it is some serious submission. I mean, "as to the Lord"? That's serious. On the other hand, husbands have their own particular instruction. "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her" (Eph 5:25). "Love your wives." Oh, that's not too bad. Hang on. "As Christ loved." Well, okay, that raises the bar. "As Christ loved the church." And how did He do that? He "gave Himself up for her." Gave self up. Picture that. He didn't ask, "What are my preferences?" He didn't wonder, "Hey, what about Me?" He didn't demand that she submit or that He get what He wanted. He gave self up. For her.
In Philippians Pauls writes,
And we end up here at the "goofy gophers." She is saying, "I delight in submitting to my Lord, so I will submit to my husband as to the Lord. I'll do whatever it is he commands because I am trusting God." And he is saying, "I find my joy in obeying my God, so I will surrender my own personal wishes and desires in order to give her anything and everything I am and have for her very best." Finding great joy in seeking eagerly to give to the other the very best at all times. "After you!" "Oh, no, I insist. You go first." As a way of life. I like it. I don't see it much because we believers are rarely eager to obey to that extent, but, hey, I can dream, can't I?
Think about it. The command to wives is clear and unequivocal. "Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord" (Eph 5:22). Dance around that all you want, but if you're going to be true to the text and the context, it is some serious submission. I mean, "as to the Lord"? That's serious. On the other hand, husbands have their own particular instruction. "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her" (Eph 5:25). "Love your wives." Oh, that's not too bad. Hang on. "As Christ loved." Well, okay, that raises the bar. "As Christ loved the church." And how did He do that? He "gave Himself up for her." Gave self up. Picture that. He didn't ask, "What are my preferences?" He didn't wonder, "Hey, what about Me?" He didn't demand that she submit or that He get what He wanted. He gave self up. For her.
In Philippians Pauls writes,
Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though He was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. (Php 2:5-8)Let's see. What did He start with? "In the form of God." Now that's the top, isn't it? Did He hang on to "What would I enjoy?" No. He "emptied Himself" and He took on "the form of a servant" and humbled Himself to death. By choice. That is not possibly "What about Me?" That is "gave Himself up for her" to the extreme. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her. Even to death. Even against all the things you think you'd like better than that.
And we end up here at the "goofy gophers." She is saying, "I delight in submitting to my Lord, so I will submit to my husband as to the Lord. I'll do whatever it is he commands because I am trusting God." And he is saying, "I find my joy in obeying my God, so I will surrender my own personal wishes and desires in order to give her anything and everything I am and have for her very best." Finding great joy in seeking eagerly to give to the other the very best at all times. "After you!" "Oh, no, I insist. You go first." As a way of life. I like it. I don't see it much because we believers are rarely eager to obey to that extent, but, hey, I can dream, can't I?
Tuesday, August 16, 2022
The Sims
Perhaps you've heard of this apparently extremely popular game. The Sims is more of a gaming franchise than a single game. It falls in the gaming category of "life simulation" (thus, "The Sims"). First released in 2000, the latest release was in 2014 with multiple spinoffs and other expansion packs. It's a "sandbox game" meaning that it has no real end or "win" method. You just meander about and do what you want. Its purpose is to simply let the player make virtual people and play in virtual worlds to experience virtual life.
The Sims is a prime example of our love affair with the not real. We have games that simulate reality which are not real. We have "reality TV" which is not real. We have "social media" that allows us to simulate personal contact without actual personal contact. We have pornography that allows us to simulate intimacy without having to actually be connected to anyone at all. We have the news media that gives us the sense that we're informed about what's going on although we can never be sure that they're telling us what's going on. Quite a few have jumped into virtual church where we "attend" on Sunday in front of our screens and watch, never even approaching edifying believers or the fellowship of the saints. We have virtual shopping, virtual sex, virtual friendships, virtual fun, virtual vacations, virtual doctors ... the list just goes on and on. And we're fine with it. While we understand that "virtual" means "approaching but not quite real," we think we get to experience real life in our virtual worlds. By once removing the actual contact, we can enjoy what God says as sin because, after all, it's not real.
In 1998 President Bill Clinton was being questioned over about to Congress. His reply was famous. "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." It was a nice dodge, but we seem to have just absorbed it and moved on. We don't want to define "is." We're good with "virtual." Virtual reality, virtual spirituality, virtual friendships, virtual dating, virtual sex, virtual money, virtual church, virtual fun ... we just keep going. And we lose sight that "virtual" is not real. At the same time, "virtual sin" is still sin because "That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man. "For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness. All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man" (Mark 7:20-23). And we're getting immunized to it.
The Sims is a prime example of our love affair with the not real. We have games that simulate reality which are not real. We have "reality TV" which is not real. We have "social media" that allows us to simulate personal contact without actual personal contact. We have pornography that allows us to simulate intimacy without having to actually be connected to anyone at all. We have the news media that gives us the sense that we're informed about what's going on although we can never be sure that they're telling us what's going on. Quite a few have jumped into virtual church where we "attend" on Sunday in front of our screens and watch, never even approaching edifying believers or the fellowship of the saints. We have virtual shopping, virtual sex, virtual friendships, virtual fun, virtual vacations, virtual doctors ... the list just goes on and on. And we're fine with it. While we understand that "virtual" means "approaching but not quite real," we think we get to experience real life in our virtual worlds. By once removing the actual contact, we can enjoy what God says as sin because, after all, it's not real.
In 1998 President Bill Clinton was being questioned over about to Congress. His reply was famous. "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." It was a nice dodge, but we seem to have just absorbed it and moved on. We don't want to define "is." We're good with "virtual." Virtual reality, virtual spirituality, virtual friendships, virtual dating, virtual sex, virtual money, virtual church, virtual fun ... we just keep going. And we lose sight that "virtual" is not real. At the same time, "virtual sin" is still sin because "That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man. "For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness. All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man" (Mark 7:20-23). And we're getting immunized to it.
Monday, August 15, 2022
Hate Speech
I have a friend who identifies as charismatic. Maybe pentecostal. I told him of several abuses. Some have assigned "prophecy" to the same category as God's Word offering both a corrective to Scripture as well as commands to individuals "because it's God's Word." Some have declared that if you don't speak in tongues, you aren't saved. A large number of them are perfectly happy to have masses speaking in tongues in church without an interpreter in direct contradiction to Scripture (1 Cor 14:27). And so on. When I asked about the abuses of the gifts in the theology of that group of people, he was dumbfounded. "We don't do that." Now, I know those things do happen and happen openly, but he agreed that those were abuses and argued that they shouldn't be associated with his beliefs and practices. I was wrongly connecting him with the abuses of others in his group.
It's not uncommon. In fact, it appears to be the norm. I'm white, so I must be racist. I'm a male, so I must be sexist. I'm a Christian, so I must be a right-wing loon. I'm a Republican, so I must be a Trump lover. I'm conservative, so I must want a civil war because they served Trump with a search warrant. All glaringly false. But my objections are overruled because, well, I am all of those first statements and we all know that the conclusions inevitably follow. It doesn't work in reverse, though, does it? Aren't all liberals socialists, maybe even communists, hoping to jail all the conservatives and lock up the Christians? Aren't they all TINOs -- "theists in name only"? If they do claim to have a faith, it's only so that people won't recognize that they are practical atheists. They all want to mind-control your kids, all want to groom your children for the LGBTQ, all want to take away your gun rights and your free speech and ... you get the sense of it. And the correct answer is accurately a resounding, "No!" That particular group of people I described are a minority. A loud minority, perhaps, but no less a minority than the other side I described above in the previous group.
I will set the record straight. I was born a white person, but I got in trouble in high school because my best friends were black and hispanic. I'm not racist. I am a male, but I absolutely deny that men are more important or valuable than women. I'm a Christian, but my only "right leanings" there are in the direction of what God's Word says. I'm a Republican, but fellow Republicans near and far have repudiated me for warning against Trump and for refusing to vote for him on multiple occasions. (Oddly enough, one of those who likes to lump me with Trump lovers actually lauded one of my pieces in opposition to Trump but still lumps me with Trump lovers.) I'm conservative but have no issue with legal search warrants being served on anyone. In fact, according to those Internet tests, I fall mostly in the category of "centrist" rather than liberal or conservative in matters of morality, social values, and even economics.
I am actually not concerned about being misidentified based on my demographics. Setting the record straight won't fix the problem. Telling the truth here won't change minds. There are individuals in all categories and generalizations of those individuals is always in danger of being completely off base. But, hey, let's not allow the truth of individuality get in the way of our prejudice and stereotyping. Wait ... what is it that so many on the left call prejudice and stereotyping? Oh, yeah, "hate."
It's not uncommon. In fact, it appears to be the norm. I'm white, so I must be racist. I'm a male, so I must be sexist. I'm a Christian, so I must be a right-wing loon. I'm a Republican, so I must be a Trump lover. I'm conservative, so I must want a civil war because they served Trump with a search warrant. All glaringly false. But my objections are overruled because, well, I am all of those first statements and we all know that the conclusions inevitably follow. It doesn't work in reverse, though, does it? Aren't all liberals socialists, maybe even communists, hoping to jail all the conservatives and lock up the Christians? Aren't they all TINOs -- "theists in name only"? If they do claim to have a faith, it's only so that people won't recognize that they are practical atheists. They all want to mind-control your kids, all want to groom your children for the LGBTQ, all want to take away your gun rights and your free speech and ... you get the sense of it. And the correct answer is accurately a resounding, "No!" That particular group of people I described are a minority. A loud minority, perhaps, but no less a minority than the other side I described above in the previous group.
I will set the record straight. I was born a white person, but I got in trouble in high school because my best friends were black and hispanic. I'm not racist. I am a male, but I absolutely deny that men are more important or valuable than women. I'm a Christian, but my only "right leanings" there are in the direction of what God's Word says. I'm a Republican, but fellow Republicans near and far have repudiated me for warning against Trump and for refusing to vote for him on multiple occasions. (Oddly enough, one of those who likes to lump me with Trump lovers actually lauded one of my pieces in opposition to Trump but still lumps me with Trump lovers.) I'm conservative but have no issue with legal search warrants being served on anyone. In fact, according to those Internet tests, I fall mostly in the category of "centrist" rather than liberal or conservative in matters of morality, social values, and even economics.
I am actually not concerned about being misidentified based on my demographics. Setting the record straight won't fix the problem. Telling the truth here won't change minds. There are individuals in all categories and generalizations of those individuals is always in danger of being completely off base. But, hey, let's not allow the truth of individuality get in the way of our prejudice and stereotyping. Wait ... what is it that so many on the left call prejudice and stereotyping? Oh, yeah, "hate."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)