Megalomaniac

What is megalomania? The dictionary says it is "a delusional mental illness that is marked by feelings of personal omnipotence and grandeur." Some of the Roman emperors were megalomaniacs. They demanded to be worshiped as gods. Hitler was a classic megalomaniac. He sought to rule the world, eliminate all non-Aryans, and create the 1000 year Reich. I think a lot of people would agree that Donald Trump is a megalomaniac. He has an obsession with power, delusions of being more important than he is, and adamant that all agree with him about how powerful and important he and his ideas are. I think that most would agree that these are delusions, not reality.

And, of course, the accusation is out there quite often that God is a megalomaniac. I mean, look at the facts. He demands obedience. His primary concern is His own glory. He ranks our primary failure as falling short of His own glory. He classifies violating His glory as a crime punishable by eternal torment. He demands worship. Aren't these the clear symptoms of megalomania?

There is a fundamental difference between your standard narcissistic megalomaniac and God. Can you guess what it is? I stated it in the first paragraph. "I think that most would agree that these are delusions, not reality." The fundamental difference between your standard megalomaniac and God is His view reflects reality. Roman emperors were not gods; God is. Hitler did not rule the world; God does. Donald Trump's obsession with power and the importance of who he is is not real; God's is. And so it goes. God is not a megalomaniac because God's view of His greatness and glory and importance and power is accurate.

"Okay, fine," some might respond, "but why all the demand for praise and such? Isn't that a bit over the top?"

Our problem here is that we think of God as a man, just like us. He's not. He actually is "holy, holy, holy" (Isa 6:3; Rev 4:8), Sovereign (1 Tim 6:15), worthy of praise (2 Sam 22:4; Psa 18:3; Rev 4:11) and more. To a megalomaniac we might say, "You think you're all that, but you're not." He really is "all that".

C.S. Lewis pointed out another aspect of this concept. It is true that God is indeed the ultimate in glory. Not a megalomaniac. But Lewis suggested another reason why God demands praise. It's not for Himself. Lewis said that humans have this particular inborn mechanism in us that requires, in order for us to enjoy something, that we express it. You can see this in a simple interaction with a lover and his love. He sees her and cannot help but say, "You are so beautiful." If he keeps it to himself, he is stifled. The expression is required to fulfill the enjoyment of the love. Lewis says that God demands that we praise Him in order that we might be fulfilled in our joy in Him. I think that's there, too.

We know of megalomaniacs. We might even know some personally. They have and do exist. God, on the other hand, differs completely with that category in that God is indeed as glorious as He thinks He is. For Him to be "humble" as we might expect of others would simply be a lie. He is the ultimate good. And, in order to complete the joy of His creation, He requires that we express that truth, not as a harsh command, but as a gift to us. Thus, when we fall short of His glory (Rom 3:23), it is to our own detriment.

Basic Principles

In life, everyone has principles. We live by principles (which doesn't declare them good or bad) by which we make our choices, have our worldviews, call good "good" and bad "bad", derive morality and values, etc. These principles are typically varied, often unconscious, and always prioritized. That is, when one principle overlaps another, one of the two will have a higher priority. Thus, at the top (bottom?) of this chain is what I'm calling "basic principles." Do you know what yours are or where they come from?

Let me illustrate. Let's say that Bob (not you, Bob ... a fictitious Bob) has a principle of "Live and let live." Thus, as he goes about his day he will likely leave people to their own devices. Then he comes across an accident and stops to help someone injured in the wreck. "Wait," someone might say, "isn't that a violation of his 'live and let live' outlook?" Yes, but clearly our friend, Bob, has a more basic principle in play here that says you help people when you can. So with a clearer idea of Bob's principles, we watch him walk by a homeless guy on the street asking for money. "Hey, wait! Didn't we just say that he has a 'help people when you can' principle?" Yes ... yes we did. But a more basic principle for Bob is "Me first," and Bob felt that giving this guy money would be too costly to Bob's comfort, so he didn't. Perhaps you get the idea now.

Everyone has principles. There is a bottom set of principles with others higher up by which we determine in a case-by-case basis what we will value and do and think. For many the most basic value is always and only "Me first." For others there is an element of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." There is, beyond these, some variation. But the most basic principles inform the rest.

It is my aim that my bottom "basic principle" would be "whatever God says." Others have a different bottom "basic principle." How do I know this? Well, it's not rocket surgery. (I said that for a laugh, not unintentionally.) There are a larger number of unbelievers than believers. These would be classified as "hostile to God" (Rom 8:7-8) and have no genuine concern about "whatever God says." But even among those who call themselves "believers" there is a significant number who do not have that bottom "basic principle." How do I know? They demonstrate it often.

Consider. In a recent event a church leader was accused of covering up a rape. The Bible (God's Word) says, "Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses" (1 Tim 5:19) which is unambiguous and easy to grasp, but this leader was professionally executed without a trial because the more basic principle in play is "If it's an accusation of impropriety between a man and a woman, the man needs to suffer the consequences." In other words, "I'll go along with God's clear statements unless I find a moral principle that overrules it." It doesn't take a "fundamentalist" to see this. Everywhere you look you will find self-identified Christians consciously tossing out absolutely clear Scripture because they find a moral principle that overrules God's Word. Christians will tell you, "I don't need some Bible to tell me what's right or wrong" in direct contradiction to the Bible (Jer 17:9). It is abundantly clear, then, that these people do not have "whatever God says" as their bottom line.

This explains a lot in today's "war against the Word." Most people are applying their bottom "basic principle" to the Scriptures rather than vice versa. They have the idea that there are values and morals and beliefs that the Scriptures must meet or Scripture will be eliminated. They will tell you, "I believe the Bible" and even "I hold it in high regard," but when push comes to shove, "what I think is right" overrides what Scripture says. Conversely, a when a person who has a "whatever God says" outlook comes across a conflict between "what I think is right" and Scripture, they will pursue at all costs "whatever God says" even if it means that they decide "What I thought was right apparently wasn't." They will dig down to discover what God thinks is right at the cost of their own value system in an attempt to align their basic principles with God's principles.

Unfortunately, this is not very common. But, then, it's what you would expect (Matt 7:13; Mark 8:18; 1 Cor 2:14; 2 Cor 4:4; Eph 2:1, etc.).

Why the Bible?

Jiminy Cricket said we should "Always let your conscience be your guide." Ah, the wisdom of Disney. Me? I tend to not trust my conscience as much as I do God's Word. I prefer to let the Scriptures be my guide. This, of course, makes me a sort of oddity. No one does that anymore. Well, of course, not no one, but certainly very few. Because, as we all know, the Bible just ain't what it used to be. Okay, that's not accurate either. But it's surely not what the Church has always contended -- the Authoritative, Infallible Word of God; the sole authority on matters of faith and practice. So I buck the trend to marginalize the Bible and prefer not to stand on my own understanding but on God's Word for my understanding of God and for the principles by which I live.

But, why? Why would I do that? Why would anyone do that? Why did Christians from the beginning of the Scriptures do that? Why would anyone think that the Bible was some sort of special book that is the authoritative, infallible Word of God? Let me give you some reasons.

1. God is Sovereign.
He is the Sovereign. As Creator and Master, He is a) absolutely perfect, truthful, good, omnipotent, omniscient, unchanging, etc., and b) the ultimate Authority.

2. God breathed.
The Bible claims that "All Scripture is God-breathed" (2 Tim 3:16). Older translations say "All Scripture is inspired by God." This isn't quite accurate. In today's vernacular one could reasonably say, "I know things about God and I'm inspired by God to write." Inspire means literally "to breathe in." In the original Greek, however, the word is the opposite term. It is to breathe out. It indicates a direct effort on God's part to those who were writing to breathe into them His Word. As such, Scripture is God's "breathed out" Word, His superintended, personal message to His creation.

3. The Bible is God's message to us.
Divinely exhaled, superintended, and protected, the Bible constitutes God's eternal words to His people. If I concur that God is the Master, the Lord, then I must concur that His words are authoritative, infallible truth.

The Bible has meaning. Not ambiguous, relative, or purely personal. When the words in our Scriptures were written they were written with a meaning they (the authors at God's behest) wished to convey. "We can't know for sure what they mean," some tell me. "The meaning changes over time," others argue. "The Bible is God's Word, but interpretation is personal," they assure me. All of this gets back to the original source. God didn't explain it well enough. God didn't provide us the Spirit He promised. God didn't know what it would become. God isn't wise enough to say what He means and mean what He says. We, as fallible human beings, will always differ over this minor point here or that small issue there, but if Jesus is to be believed, we have the Spirit that all believers have and on all the essential issues we all agree.

You can use your mere intellect and come up with you want. You can use your post-modern philosophy and argue there is no meaning but what we assign. You can use false humility and argue that interpretation is never sure ... and you're sure. All of it echoes Satan's words to Eve. "Did God really say ...?" And you would necessarily have to agree with him. I can't go that way. I don't trust the Bible; I trust the One who breathed it, Who supervised its creation, Who oversaw its existence over the millennia, Who gave the Spirit to explain it. You rely on the wisdom of the world and your jaded intellect; I'll go with God's Word.

Pretty Wrapping

The box is sitting on your front doorstep when you get home. You weren't expecting it. You didn't order anything. You wonder what it could be. You take it inside. The box is wrapped in pretty paper complete with a bow on top. Some sort of gift, apparently. So you tear into it and immediately head to the bathroom to stop the bleeding because it turned out to be full of broken glass and you're bleeding now. Now, stop and rewind that story. The box at your doorstep is not wrapped in pretty paper. It has markings like "Danger" and "Handle with Care." Now you don't rip it open; you open it with caution. Why? Because the box is properly marked to warn you. Life is like that. We are constantly given dangerous things with ambivalent markings and we might carelessly injure ourselves because we aren't paying attention.

What am I talking about? Well, Scripture is clear that the world is opposed to Christ (e.g., John 15:18; 1 John 5:19; Rom 8:5-8). This box has been packaged for us with careful and clear warnings. "Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him" (1 John 2:15) But Satan has packaged the world so nicely. How can it be wrong?

This is the approach that Satan used in Eden. He wasn't loud, rude, or offensive. He was subtle, friendly, enticing. He was "on Eve's side." "Did God actually say you couldn't eat from any tree in the garden?" (Gen 3:1). She corrected him, but he wasn't done. "You were misinformed. You won't actually die" (Gen 3:4). "I'm on your side," he was telling her. "I don't want you to miss out on all the good stuff. God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God" (Gen 3:5). Colorful wrapping, friendly demeanor, an "it's all good" approach, and Adam and Eve brought sin into the world.

So we fall for it. A lot. We know that the world system is not our friend, but we smuggle it in every chance we get. We open the window of our minds through the television and movies and music and entertainment. "It won't do any harm; it's just entertainment." And it lies to us ... constantly. With pretty pictures and fun storylines and pretty funny humor it feeds us lies from Hell and we ... swallow. We know that God's Word is true and trustworthy and authoritative, but you have to admit that "God loves everyone, so He embraces our sin as well" sounds much more heartwarming than "Unless you repent, you will all likewise perish" (Luke 13:5). So we buy the first and ignore the second ... the truth. Which is "kinder and gentler": "We want all people regardless of sexual immoralities, to feel loved and encouraged" or "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God?" (1 Cor 6:9)? So we diminish the latter because the former is packaged much better.

We tend to be mindless at times. We miss the clear warnings of God's Word and operate on our emotional intuition. "My, my, doesn't this look pretty?" So we tear into this nicely wrapped box offered on our favorite sitcom or that heartwarming message of acceptance of the sins God forbids and we find ourselves lacerated and bleeding -- sometimes so skillfully that we don't recognize the injury. That's why we are told, "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world" (1 John 4:1). "Test everything; hold fast what is good" (1 Thess 5:21). Don't be fooled by "an angel of light" (2 Cor 11:14).

God, the Father

I told you about the news item where The Episcopal Church is about to revise the Common Book of Prayer to eliminate God as "Father" -- to make God gender neutral. I told you that it wasn't new, that the Church of Sweden had already discouraged the use of "Lord" and the male pronoun in reference to God. The point in these efforts is not to make our references to God more biblical or more in line with how He has revealed Himself to the human race. It is ostensibly to be "more inclusive," to offer a "variety of gender-neutral options," to "modernise." It is nothing but an assault started by radical feminists on any perceived masculine preference anywhere. It is clearly an effort to erase the obvious patriarchical structure of Scripture (e.g., 1 Cor 11:3) and to eliminate biblical gender and sexuality norms. Essentially, it is "The Bible is outdated and we need to fix it." This is nothing more nor less than "Did God say ...?" And we recognize that voice; that voice was in the Garden of Eden.

But the question remains. Who cares? I mean, setting aside the attack on God's Word and putting on hold the traditions from the start of God as Father, does it really matter? We know, from Scripture, that "God it not a man" (Num 23:19; 1 Sam 15:29; Job 9:32) (which, by the way, is not a disclaimer of being male, but of being human). We can be confident that, although Jesus was certainly male, "God is spirit" (John 4:24), so He doesn't actually have male body parts. He is not, then, actually the male-gendered physical human being we think of when we use the term "father." (By the way, in all this wrangling to make God gender-neutral, these groups miss entirely the Trinity which includes God the Father, God the Spirit, and God the Son and thus the entire actual maleness of Jesus Christ, God Incarnate, in the flesh. That is, if Jesus is God the Son, God is still male.) We know that there are biblical references to God in female terms (e.g., Deut 32:18). (Note: There are lots of other biblical comparisons of God to mothers -- the phrase typically used is "like a mother" -- but these can't be construed as saying God is a mother.) So, with all this biblical support for God not being male, why bother defending the term "God the Father"? What difference does it make if (so-called) churches eliminate the term?

The first, easiest answer is "because it's in there." Or, more like you might hear from a father, "Because I said so." The Bible is full of references to God as Father, and they aren't ambiguous. We didn't make it up. It is possible, for instance, to argue that some of the references to males in the New Testament should actually be references to husbands, not general males. The same is not true in the words used for "Father". Then there's the simple fact that the reference of God as "Father" comes not from preferences or mere words, but from Jesus Christ ... you know, the One from whom we derive the term, "Christian." We know that Jesus was the Son of God and God was indeed His Father, but Jesus told His disciples to use the term, too (Matt 6:9). The Greek is πατήρ -- patēr -- and cannot be misunderstood to mean anything less than "male ancestor" or "progenitor." He told His disciples, "I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven" (Matt 5:44-45). So Jesus refers to God the Father as the Father of His spiritual children as well. That is, if we're going to erase God as Father, we'll need to do it against plain biblical texts in general and specific statements from Christ, the author and finisher of our faith.

Still, is that all there is? I mean, that should be enough, but is there more?

In the birth of Christ, we have a very clear problem. There is a mother -- a clearly human female mother -- but the male half of that process is not a human male. Joseph is not the guy. Instead, it is God. In this God is absolutely the Father of the Son of God. This is not insignificant.

So clear is the biblical imagery of God as Father that some have mistakenly argued that a clear parallel of Christianity and all religions is the Universal Fatherhood of God and the Universal Brotherhood of Man. This isn't accurate in a scriptural sense -- we are adopted into God's family and the common use of the term "brothers" in the New Testament is a reference to those in the faith, not all human beings. But it is quite clear that God is an overall Father.

In more than one instance a particular term is used in reference to God that takes this imagery a step further. Jesus started it in His Gethsemane prayer. "Abba! Father! All things are possible for You; remove this cup from Me; yet not what I will, but what You will" (Mark 14:36) But Paul carried it on (Rom 8:15; Gal 4:6). In all three cases, the two terms -- "Abba" and "Father" -- are stuck together. That is, even if you could wrangle a "Father could mean any parent" out of patēr, it is clear that both Jesus and Paul used "Abba" in reference to God the Father and "Abba" is nothing more or less than "Daddy." Never anything else. It is a familiar, loving term for a familiar, loving father.

Some have suggested that the concept of God as Father is a New Testament invention, so to speak. It came from Jesus (obviously). This isn't accurate. We read in Isaiah, "But now, O LORD, You are our Father, We are the clay, and You our potter; And all of us are the work of Your hand" (Isa 64:8). In the Song of Moses we find, "Do you thus repay the LORD, O foolish and unwise people? Is not He your Father who has bought you? He has made you and established you" (Deut 32:6). It is a repeated Old Testament theme as well.

But ... why "Father"? Won't any parent figure do? No, I don't think so. "Father" carries significant connotations. The father is to be the primary provider; God is our primary provider (Heb 13:20-21). The father is to be the stronger parent; God is our strongest parent (Psa 37:39). As the stronger one, the father provides protection; God is our protector (2 Thess 3:3). In the normal parenting structure, the father (especially biblically) is the responsible party, the "head of household"; God is the head (1 Cor 11:3). Biblically fathers are held responsible for educating the children; God is our teacher (Psa 32:8). It is typically the father who disciplines the children; God chastens the ones He loves (Heb 12:5-6).

There is one other aspect that I need to point out. More of a human one, actually. Scripture clearly presents God as Father. Jesus said it. The Old and New Testaments both agree. One primary objection to this is that, frankly, fathers are not what they ought to be. Some have complained, "How does God as Father do me any good when my father was so bad?" There are two answers to this problem. First, we all know what a good father looks like. The fact that some of us have had bad fathers does not negate the fact that we know what a good father should be, and God is the best of Fathers, so it remains meaningful. Second, with God as Father, He stands as an example of what human fathers should strive to be. Remove that position and you remove the challenge to human fathers.

I've offered plenty of reasons why God is Father and ought to be. They are, of course, primarily biblical reasons. I think, however, that the first is the most compelling: Because He said so. Now, some might still be inclined to be argumentative. "God doesn't have male body parts, so we shouldn't offer this option at all." These are factious people, demanding changes to Scripture and tradition without anything more than a selfish, sinful basis. I will offer Paul's response. "Reject a factious man after a first and second warning, knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned" (Titus 3:10-11). I'm going to need better than "We need to be more inclusive by rejecting Scripture" and "It's time to change the Bible because we know better now."

Postscript
So, this morning in my reading I came across this.

And if you call on Him as Father who judges impartially according to each one's deeds, conduct yourselves with fear throughout the time of your exile, knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot. (1 Peter 1:17-19)

Clearly Peter understood that Christians were to "call on Him as Father." Connected to that, notice two features. First, based on calling on Him as Father who judges impartially according to each one's deeds, the expectation would be they would conduct themselves with fear -- respect due a Father who judges. Second, note the connection of calling Him "Father" and "ransomed from the futile ways." The implication seems abundantly clear. If you don't call on Him as Father, there is no reasonable expectation of respect or redemption.

Win-Win

Paul wrote, "For me to live is Christ and to die is gain" (Phil 1:21). I always thought that was a bit odd. I get "to die is gain." That is, "When I die I will be in heaven, in the presence of Christ. I will be free from the miseries of this world and free from the propensity to sin and free from all sadness -- eternal bliss. An eternity with Christ. Gain." I get that. But "to live is Christ" seemed a bit elusive, both in its language and in its intent.

The language strikes me as odd. I would understand "to live for Christ" or something, but this phrase appears to suggest that Paul's living is Christ. Beyond that, what is he trying to say?

We would tend to think that Paul is saying that, in some sense, it is Christ-like to live a particular way. We generally think that Paul is saying that we live for Christ and dying is gain. Given the language, I think he's saying something more. I think he's saying that living is Christ. We see this in Galatians. "I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me" (Gal 2:20). "It is no longer I who live, but Christ." We see this in Romans. "So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus" (Rom 6:11). "Alive to God in Christ Jesus." It's there in Colossians. "To them God chose to make known how great among the Gentiles are the riches of the glory of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory" (Col 1:27). "Christ in you." It's in Philippians. "It is God who works in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure" (Phil 2:13). That is, repeatedly, the Christian life is Christ in you. He lives, He empowers, He enables -- "to live is Christ."

It's interesting, then, that the two sides -- live or die -- end up as the same thing. We live by means of Christ; we die to be with Christ. It's not like one is better than the other. It's that one is sort of simply a geographical location change. One is Christ living within you and the other is Christ living with you. Truly a win-win!

News Weakly - 7/14/18

Who's Looking Out for the Children?
Unbelievable. A 16-year-old Japanese boy just out of junior high was signed by the Kansas City Royals to a 7-year minor league baseball contract. Oh, and they threw in a $322,500 signing bonus.

Who's looking out for this kid? Where are the parents? Who thinks that giving up a basic education is the best thing for a child? What idiot in the Royals' organization thought this was a good idea? I know a 13-year-old that believes he doesn't need to go to school anymore; he's going to be rich doing YouTube videos. Don't count on it. This Japanese kid has a decent fastball, but how is not finishing his basic education any better than my 13-year-old friend?

Next Nominee
So, President Trump has offered his nominee for the Supreme Court. Brett Kavanaugh is Trump's first choice. Of course, as USA Today puts it, "Let the pitched, partisan battle begin." "Most Republicans are expected to support Kavanaugh, while most Democrats will almost certainly vote against him." What's the issue? Well, of course, Kavanaugh is a conservative, so the Democrats will be on the warpath. They'll want to ensure that no candidate offered by Trump is unduly influenced by the Constitution. (Must be true; I read it on the Internet.) Seriously, Chuck Schumer says if Kavanaugh is confirmed, "women's reproductive rights would be in the hands of five men on the Supreme Court."

Excuse me, Mr. Schumer. Since Kavanaugh is replacing a male, haven't they always been in the hands of five men on the Supreme Court? What he meant to say, you see, is that they will be "in the hands of five men we don't like."

Johnnie Moore, "an informal spokesman for the group of evangelicals who advise Trump," tweeted, "Evangelicals are singing `Hallelujah!'" Not all, Mr. Moore. Some of us don't put our trust in princes, so to speak. (Note: The Left is upset about Kavanaugh because he is opposed to the Affordable Care Act and abortion and such while the Right is upset with him because he isn't sufficiently opposed to the Affordable Care Act and abortion. Go figure.)

Irony
The deadline for reuniting children with parents from the "zero-tolerance" situation is fast approaching. They're estimating that only half of the families will be reunited by the deadline.

I think it's ironic that so many are outraged by Immigration "ripping children from their mothers' arms" but adamant that ripping them from their mothers' wombs is perfectly acceptable.

Editing Jesus
Carl Trueman starts his article about the political correctness purge in society today with a great sentence.

Yesterday's harmless activity — say, boys-only scouting — is tomorrow's act of cisgendered heteronormative patriarchal oppression of the Other.

I don't know whether to be impressed or depressed that I know what every one of those words mean. And my defense mechanism is to laugh because, well, it's so crazy although it's true. What is he writing about?

"The Episcopal Church is set to debate the gender of God, specifically whether the Supreme Being is male or gender-neutral." Ostensibly, the story is that the Episcopal Church intends to revise their Book of Common Prayer. The book withstood centuries with minimal changes. The 20th century brought big changes. Now they're planning to correct Jesus who called God "Father" (Luke 1:1-4) and protect liturgy for "the earth and same-sex marriage ceremonies." But they're just keeping up with the Swedes. "Last year, the Church of Sweden updated its rules on God's gender, dropping the words 'He' and 'Lord' from clergy usage." Because, clearly, a "heavenly Father" who is Lord is "cisgendered heteronormative patriarchal oppression of the Other." Shame on Jesus! (How do they call themselves "Christian"?)

And there it is
Because of the horror of "ripping children from their mother's arms", the cries have been getting louder. Now the Democrats have responded. Now they're pushing to abolish ICE. Now, keep in mind, there is the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and there is the border patrol. The border patrol operates within 100 miles of the border. The rest is up to ICE. All the laws about illegal immigrants outside of the 100-mile limit, all the laws about guns, money, drugs, smuggling, human trafficking, sexual exploitation of women and children connected to illegal immigrants are enforced by ICE.

So, we get it. The Democrats want to "keep us safe" by eliminating the law enforcement arm that keeps people safe from smugglers, human traffickers, and all that. Fine, if that's what you want. I say, however, that simply eliminating the enforcement of the law is pointless. It effectively eliminates the law. But, hey, if that's what you think will keep us safe, why stop there? Eliminate border enforcement. Remove police departments. Shut down the FBI. Why stop so short?

People who seek to remove law enforcement without changing laws or offering protection are not your friends.

Too Much Me Too
Henry Cavill, the actor who played Superman in Man of Steel, got himself in trouble with the #MeToo movement. He said, "I think a woman should be wooed and chased, but maybe I’m old-fashioned for thinking that." He went to say that it's difficult to do that these days because in today's #MeToo environment "I don’t want to go up and talk to her, because I’m going to be called a rapist or something." And social media went wild. So, being the good, but apparently wimpy "Man of Steel" that he played, he apologized.

Never mind the fact that today's environment actually is so vague that just about any male-female interaction has the potential of being called "harassment." One woman filed a sexual harassment claim because "He didn't like my ideas because I'm a woman." Since today's sexual harassment is defined as "unwanted, unwelcomed and uninvited behavior that demeans, threatens or offends the victim," the definition and application has become too broad to anticipate. The problem with that is 1) it weaponizes #MeToo to force apologies when no wrongdoing was done and, worse, 2) detracts from the genuine problem of sexual harassment. Not the outcome they should want.

Deny Yourself

Jesus was clear. "If anyone would come after Me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow Me." (Luke 9:23) Not ambiguous at all. But ... what did He mean?

The monks thought He meant "Deny yourself any pleasures, possessions, comforts, whatever you may want." That doesn't quite work out, though. Do you know why?

Jesus went on to say,

For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will save it. For what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses or forfeits himself? For whoever is ashamed of Me and of My words, of him will the Son of Man be ashamed when He comes in His glory and the glory of the Father and of the holy angels. But I tell you truly, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God." (Luke 9:24-27)

Do you see the problem? If "Deny yourself" is meant to convey, "Don't give yourself any pleasures, possessions, comforts, or joy," then why is Jesus telling them to avoid doing things that will lose them things and to do things that will gain them things? If "Deny yourself" means that you should lose your life, in essence, then Jesus's first sentence would have the opposite meaning. "Whoever would save his life will lose it" would mean, "Do that" because, after all, we're denying ourselves.

No, that notion is mistaken. Over and over we are told to make choices to our benefit and to avoid choices to our disadvantage. It's just that those choices to our benefit or disadvantage are not the natural choices of everyday people. The clear fact is that Jesus intended that we would have benefit. There are lots of rewards in Scripture which, if the aim was to deny ourselves any benefit, would be contradictory.

So, if "Deny yourself" does not mean "Don't look for any good for yourself," what does it mean? Paul carries the thought forward in Romans.

So then, brethren, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh — for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live. (Rom 8:12-13)

He contrasts living by the Spirit and living according to the flesh. If by the Spirit, "You are putting to death the deeds of the body." And what are those deeds?

Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. (Gal 5:19-21)

What is in view, then, is not to deny self everything, but to set aside old desires and pleasures and replace them with God. It isn't "nothing"; it is "something else entirely."

In Philippians 3 Paul details his reasons "for confidence in the flesh" -- the things that are in his favor (Phil 3:3-6). He has righteousness under the law, birthright, a "Hebrew of Hebrews," knows the law ("a Pharisee"), zeal ... he is "blameless." These he does not list as "bad". He does not suggest "Get rid of them." What he says is "Whatever gain I had" (referring to all of these as "gain") "I counted as loss for the sake of Christ" (Phil 3:7). Since he lists them as gain, in what sense are they loss? "I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord" (Phil 3:8). That is denying self. It is not that we can't have nice things, whether it is physical comforts or education or possessions or anything at all of this world. It's that nothing of this world compares to "the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus." It is placing all that is of this world in a lower category of "gain" -- so as to be "loss" -- in view of the absolute value of a living relationship with Christ.

Not having nice things, then, is not in view in Jesus's "Deny yourself." Not valuing them is. It is, in fact, a complete realignment of what we value. It is a putting to death of "the works of the flesh" in favor of the work of the Spirit. It is classifying what everyone around considers "really, really good" as loss in comparison to knowing Christ. It is death to the fleshly values and a new life in heavenly values. If we are unwilling to do that, dying daily, we are not able to be disciples of Christ.

Renounced

I have often referenced or quoted 2 Cor 4:4.

In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. (2 Cor 4:4)

It speaks of a group of people who are mentally blinded. They don't see "the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ." They don't see that Christ is "the image of God." Who are these people? Context might help.

But we have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways. We refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God's word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to everyone's conscience in the sight of God. And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. (2 Cor 4:2-4)

Paul speaks of renouncing "underhanded ways." He was not willing to operate disgracefully or practice cunning. He offered only "the open statement of the truth." What else was he unwilling to do? He renounced tampering with the word of God.

Different versions offer different phrases. The King James says "handling the word of God deceitfully." Young's Literal Translation says "deceitfully using the word of God." New American Standard refers to "adulterating the word of God." The Literal Translation of the Holy Bible talks about "corrupting the word of God." I'd try to tell you which one it was, except it looks like they all agree. It is the twisting of God's Word in view here. Paul wasn't willing to do that.

I wish that was so today. I wish people who call themselves Christians would renounce tampering with the word of God. But they don't. They assure us that Genesis is myth although all New Testament writers reference it as reality. They assure us that you can't take those Old Testament stories as true stories even though the language is historical, not metaphorical, and the New Testament claims those stories are "God-breathed" (2 Tim 3:16). They insist that you can't take a standard approach to biblical texts and you can't -- you mustn't -- assume it is understandable and applicable to all people. "You can't speak for God," they tell us even though God has breathed the Scriptures so that we could hear Him speak. "It's not a book of rules," they demand although it is full of rules, even rules they require of others. So they "tamper with God's word" with impunity. They tinker with it and suggest new understanding and new insights into what should have been understood throughout Church history.

In Psalm 1 we read,

How blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked, Nor stand in the path of sinners, Nor sit in the seat of scoffers! But his delight is in the law of the LORD, And in His law he meditates day and night. (Psa 1:1-2)

We see here two types of people in contrast. One is the blessed man and the other is all the rest. What distinguishes the blessed man from the rest? He doesn't hang with the wicked, spend time in the way of sinners, or sit with scoffers. Those are the negatives. On the positive side, he delights in God's Word -- spends a lot of time in it. We currently live in a world that is built on the advice of the wicked, the methods of sinners, and the place of scoffers. They occupy places of wealth and influence and even dominant places in churches. They are the ones that have not renounced underhanded ways or corrupting God's word. They don't delight in the Scriptures. They barely tolerate them, if at all.

There are, according to Paul, people whose minds are blinded. It's a biblical fact. You should check yourself. Are you willing to tamper with God's word? Are you happy with adulterating God's word by subjecting it to the world's own standards? Or is it your aim to agree with God in His word as demonstrated by the work of the Holy Spirit as you read the text and align it with the context for all of Scripture along with the Spirit's work through all of history? Wow, that's a long aim ... but a good one.

Revoice

You're sure to have heard by now of the Revoice conference to be held in a St. Louis PCA church later this month. The stated aim is "Supporting, encouraging, and empowering gay, lesbian, same-sex-attracted, and other LGBT Christians so they can flourish while observing the historic, Christian doctrine of marriage and sexuality." It's called "a new conversation." Now, I would like to think that the way we support, encourage, and empower Christians who suffer from sinful attractions so they can "flourish while observing the historic, Christian doctrine of marriage and sexuality" would be ... you know ... to support, encourage, and empower them to repent of their sinful attractions and pursue obedience ... you know ... like historic Christianity suggests. I think it's quite clear that this won't happen at the Revoice conference. The aim is to, well, make them feel better. What are their unique contributions to the church? How can they mortify their desire while embracing who they are? Repent and turn? No, no, that's not in view here.

Why is this so hard to see? Try this from another direction. In what other mode of sin does this work? "I'm a Pedophile Christian, but I'm mortifying my desires. I know the practice is sinful, so I don't practice it. There's nothing wrong with the desire as long as I don't actually act on it. I just need to feel welcomed and embraced in my orientation as a Pedophile Christian." That makes no sense. That flies in the face of Scripture in general and Jesus's teachings in particular. Nowhere do we find instructions to do anything like, "Embrace the sexually immoral believer who embraces his sexual immorality but is not practicing it" or "Welcome the Racist Christian who works hard at not being racist." We are commanded to "put to death the deeds of the body" (Rom 8:13), to "Put to death therefore what is earthly in you" (Col 3:5) -- a list which includes "sexual immorality," "passion," and "evil desire". This is nothing like what's being suggested in the Revoice conference.

How does this happen? How does what is ostensibly a good church (The PCA is generally a good denomination.) end up hoping to encourage "evil desires" while (hopefully) hoping they won't act on them? How do we get to that from "die to self"? We get there by buying a worldly worldview and then feeding it back into our doctrines. We get there by "feeling warmly toward" people in need like they truly are without considering the biblical commands about it. We get there by allowing the world to dictate the language we use, like "LGBT Christians", as if Christians can be identified by their sinful predilections. Without a solid footing and a solid relationship with Christ, this is where we end up -- a depraved mind in a Christian suit. This is what "conformed to this world" rather than "transformed by the renewing of the mind" (Rom 12:2) looks like.

Is This Really the Aim?

I was reading an AP article about the reality that parents likely don't know what their kids are doing on their smartphones, tablets, or other devices and I started to wonder what software is available that would allow a parent to monitor that stuff. In my search the first one that came up was a Norton product called Norton Family Premier. It's supposed to help you monitor and protect your kids from predators. I got stopped from examining it further, however, because of the picture that was on the page.

The picture shows two young kids, each with their own device, completely immersed in whatever it is they're doing on those things. And a couple of thoughts struck me. I wondered if this is in the best interest of children so young, being so attached to such technology. I thought that it was sad that two what appeared to be brothers, maybe even twins, would be so involved with their devices that they didn't seem to notice that the other was there. I wondered who was watching. Who was watching what they were looking at? Who was watching who they were interacting with (since it wasn't each other and it wasn't anyone in the room)? Who was watching them (because it is so common today for cameras to be hijacked)? Who was keeping them safe and verifying the quality and value of what they were doing? Anyone?

In earlier times poor, blighted parents were stuck with the horrible task of watching their own children or, perhaps, getting some other person to do it. Then they invented that wonderful "babysitter", television. Now we could plop those empty heads down in front of the electro-nanny and let them be. The fact that their young brains were being shaped by the media of the screen and their young minds were being taught by those over whom we had no control or input didn't matter. Parents were free. Now we have the ultimate in distraction. We can give these new machines to our little children, confident that they won't go places they shouldn't go, see things they shouldn't see, interact with people who would do them harm, and learn stuff they shouldn't learn because, well, we gave these devices to them. What could go wrong?

Is this really a good plan? Is this really what we're hoping for? Is this really what we think is best for our kids?

The Crazy Command

Jesus was asked, "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?" (Matt 22:36) You remember His answer. The great command is to "love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind" (Matt 22:37). The second was similar. "A second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself" (Matt 22:39). Jesus said and others repeat that this singular command -- love -- is the basis of every command (Matt 24:40). "Love," Paul wrote, "is the fulfillment of the law" (Rom 13:10). So far, so good.

But have you ever thought about how crazy that is? Look, which one of us, if we are honest, are actually capable of loving God "with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind"? I mean, "all"? That's huge! And then we have what, on the surface, seems really good, but ends up nearly impossible -- "Love your neighbor as yourself." Really? The dictionary defines love as "a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person," "a feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection," or "sexual passion or desire." Is it even remotely reasonable that we would be expected to feel that way toward every single neighbor there is, especially considering what Jesus defined as "neighbor" (Luke 10:25-37)? How can we possibly drum up that much "affection" ... for everyone? I mean, it can be difficult to produce that for those with whom we're closest.

It is, of course, a mistaken view we're looking at here. The biblical command is not a requirement for us to control our emotions. The command is to love, and not in the way the world does. We know, for instance, that love is from God (1 John 4:8). We don't produce it. We don't drum it up. We love because He first loved us (1 John 4:19). To understand that the command is to feel a certain way misses the biblical concept of love entirely (1 Cor 13:4-8). Love, the urgent aim for the very best for another, is a gift from God to us to be applied to others. While it often includes warm feelings, it doesn't always. And while we can exercise it without warm feelings, it will often produce them in us when we do exercise it.

When we apply the world's current definition of "love" to God's command to love, we are making God out to be crazy. "What ... me feel warmly toward them? I hardly even know them. In fact, a lot of them aren't very ... lovable." That's not the command. We are commanded to, with all our heart, soul, and mind, seek for God's best and, as we do for ourselves, seek for the best for those around us. How you feel about it at the moment is irrelevant. That you do it is critical. In the end, then, it is not a crazy command. It just looks that way when we fail to think God's way. Besides, if we love because He first loved us and if love is from God, then, looking from His perspective, it's just not that hard, is it? Seek God's best and the best for others? How hard can that be?

(And, oh, by the way, when we understand that God "loves us" not as in "feels warmly toward us", but as in "intends the very best for us", it makes things a lot different. Because sometimes He doesn't necessarily feel very affectionate toward us ... but He always loves us.)

Focus Adjustment

You all know this verse, but has it ever struck you as ... a bit odd?

All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. (Rom 3:23)

It is a sweeping statement and we all fall under its weight, but that last part ... what's up with that? We've sinned; we get it. What's the last thing?

Wikipedia says, "Glory is used to describe the manifestation of God's presence as perceived by humans." The Classroom website says, "The most common use of the word 'glory' in the Bible is to describe the splendor, holiness and majesty of God." Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology says, "God's glory is the external manifestation of His being." We use the word often ourselves, but perhaps you begin to see that it's ... well ... really, really big. In reference to God, "glory" is the word that describes God's perfections in every sense and His ultimate worth insofar as we can apprehend it. We know, that is, that He exceeds our capability to grasp the infinite, but as much of Himself as He reveals to us that we can encounter and recognize is what is called His glory.

God's glory is a running theme in Scripture. You knew that, I'm sure. But did you know it is the theme in Scripture? Did you know that God's glory is what the Bible is all about? That God's glory is what we're all about? Here, let's try this little exercise. If I were to ask you, generally speaking, what is God's whole purpose in creation, salvation -- what is the purpose of life, the universe, and everything? -- what would you answer? There are lots of possibilities. "To know God." Okay. "To have a relationship with God." Sure. "To love." That's something, to be sure. But if you were to ask, "What does Scripture say?", that would be a different answer. Paul wrote, "So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all ... to know God." No. "To love God and your neighbor." No. "To be a good person." No. "Do all to the glory of God." (1 Cor 10:31) Everything for that purpose. Jesus said, "Let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven" (Matt 5:16). See that? "Do what you do so that they give glory to God." Salvation itself is "to the praise of the glory of His grace" (Eph 1:6). Paul goes on to say, "We have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will, to the end that we who were the first to hope in Christ would be to the praise of His glory" (Eph 1:11-12).

Perhaps now we can start to see something of the issue. If God's glory ("the glory of God") is the manifestation of the worth and attributes and greatness and perfections of God, that verse in Romans 3 is not saying, "You've all sinned and that's naughty." It's saying, "Sin is a violation of who God is." Thus the problem. Thus the penalty. It isn't a faux pas that we need to apologize for; it is an attack on the Absolute Sovereign of the universe, the Holy, Holy, Holy God. As such, "being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus" (Rom 3:24) is much, much bigger than we initially thought.

That's the wonder of salvation. God is "just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus" (Rom 3:26). The point of the Christian life, then, is not to "be good", to "live for Jesus", to "share the Gospel", or all those other certainly good things. The aim of the Christian life is, "Whatever you do, do all to the glory of God" (1 Cor 10:31). Our aim, our goal, our call, our purpose, our marching orders are to do all we can to bring glory to God by manifesting His beauties and perfections to all around us. Through good works? Sure (Matt 5:16), as a start. But it's not about those things; it's about Him, His glory. That's the long view. That's the focus. If you begin with "How can I glorify God in this?", it will likely be a good start.

News Weakly - 7/7/18

Little House on the Prairie Fire
Did you hear about this? Since 1954 there has been a "Laura Ingalls Wilder Medal" awarded by the American Library Association to those who made a significant achievement in children's literature. Recently they jettisoned it. "This decision was made in consideration of the fact that Wilder's legacy, as represented by her body of work, includes expressions of stereotypical attitudes inconsistent with ALSC's core values of inclusiveness, integrity and respect, and responsiveness."

What was her "sin"? Primarily it was a statement in Little House on the Prairie that read, "There the wild animals wandered and fed as though they were in a pasture that stretched much farther than a man could see, and there were no people. Only Indians lived there." When someone mentioned it to Wilder (in 1952), she responded, "You are perfectly right about the fault in Little House on the Prairie and have my permission to make the correction as you suggest. It was a stupid blunder of mine. Of course Indians are people and I did not intend to imply they were not." The sentence was changed to read "... there were no settlers." That doesn't matter. Once again "inclusiveness, integrity and respect" are defended by exclusiveness, dishonesty, and disrespect.

The Sin of Capitalism
The media is outraged (and, therefore, expects us to be also) that First Lady Melania Trump earned $100,000 in 2017 for use of images under a licensing agreement. Now, the photos were taken back in 2010, 2011, and 2016, and the agreement required that they be used only in "positive coverage", so clearly it's evil. She was a model, so obviously she shouldn't be paid for pictures taken.

All that, of course, is nonsense. What did she really do wrong? She is a Trump. End of story.

Married with Children
If you're a parent with kids at home -- just about any age, it seems -- you might want to read this story. You're over-matched, mom and dad. You might want to think about limiting access to the "weapon of choice" -- modern technology. Enough said.

(As a side question, the story quotes one consultant as saying, "There is no such thing as privacy for children." Do you agree or disagree? Should children be afforded the same privacy rights as adults? Just idly wondering.)

This is what insanity looks like
In Somalia a jihadist terror group known as Al-Shabaab, in a social-justice sensitive move, banned plastic bags because they are "bad for animals and the environment." With ties to Al Qaeda, the group also suggested "plans to introduce an immediate ban on the logging of native trees." Save the environment; kill the infidels. Insanity.

Trump is at it again
The evil Despot Trump appears to be at it again. Apparently the federal government is trying to reunify those children with their illegal immigrant parents by doing DNA testing. They make the obviously stupid claim, "The safety and security is paramount and that it is not uncommon for children to be trafficked or smuggled by those claiming to be parents." Clearly a dodge. What they really want, according to RAICES, a nonprofit in Texas that offers free and low-cost legal services to immigrants and refugees, is to be able to conduct surveillance on these children for the rest of their lives. Dirty, rotten, evil Trump. Just hand those kids back to whoever they came with and be done with it. Child traffickers, smugglers, people with malicious intent? Doesn't matter. No one is that kind of evil. That's the government's job. So the government, in an effort to right the wrong of "ripping children from their mothers' arms," are asking personal questions like "Who are your children?" and "Are there distinguishing marks?" and "Where were they born?" ostensibly to try to ascertain who their children are. Dirty, rotten government. Let the attorney's handle it. They always know what's best. Or maybe social media, the justice dispenser of the world.

It Could Really Cost You
An apparently racist fellow in Winston-Salem asked a black woman for ID to verify she was allowed to be using the private community pool. Bad move, man; really bad move. He was, as it turned out, the pool's chairman and board member. But the kicker is that after she posted her complaint on Facebook, the company for which he worked received "hundreds of messages" and fired him. That's right. The man lost his job. He wasn't on duty or at work. The company had no connection to the pool. The man was identified by the HOA where they lived, tThe Internet got ahold of his personal information (like where he worked), and he now has no income. Not welcome at his house anymore, either. (He had to leave with his family because of the death threats.)

The message is clear. Say or do something of which social media disapproves and expect retribution. Serious retribution. What will social media disapprove? Who knows? Today it was the pool chairman verifying that the people there were supposed to be. Tomorrow it might be your shirt color. The police didn't bring any charges, but social media has produced "justice" ... without, you know, any sort of due process or legal right. Don't cross the masses. It could really cost you.

Stand Firm

We all hate the recent mass murders. Mass shootings at schools or churches, innocent people victimized by terrorists, things like this are all things we abhor. It's bad. It's wrong. It's evil. Something needs to be done. But on what do we base that conclusion? A Christian worldview would say, "God said so" and it is, at that, authoritative. Today's society doesn't have that -- won't allow that. On what, then, do they base the same conclusion? "Harm," they will tell you. But you have to ask, "Whose opinion of what constitutes harm are we going to use?" Since "free will" and "freedom" and "consent" are all played as trump cards against "harm", who gets to decide what is moral and what is not, what is evil and what is not? Who gets to decide for the rest of us what constitutes "harm"?

The current "high moral ground" taken by the Progressives turns out to be based on personal preference. Is that accurate? Sure it is. You can tell because they keep changing their own "high moral ground". "Gay? Bad. Okay, now good. Gay marriage? Bad. Oh, now it's good. Transgender? Mental illness. Oh, no, now we'll say it's not only perfectly normal; it's to be celebrated. Religious freedom? Good! Until it violates whatever else we've deemed as better. Denying service based on principle? Bad. Oh, no, not always. If we agree with the principle, then it's good." And so it goes.

Christians who still believe the Bible are being told we're on "the wrong side of history". That seems odd. We were on the "wrong side of history" when they were executing us for our beliefs. We were on the "right side of history" when our beliefs brought about greater peace and prosperity. And now we're on the "wrong side of history" again. They tell us that like it's a bad thing. You have to ask yourself, "Is it?" When we live in an age that is demonstrating Jesus's own words, "If the world hates you, know that it has hated Me before it hated you." (John 15:18), you might ask yourself if being opposed to the world's values in favor of God's values is truly wrong. Christianity isn't right because it's in power or favor. God's Word isn't true because lots of people believe it or admire it. In this instance, numbers don't matter.

So we'll need to stand. In some places we'll need to die for doing so. In our culture it will only be a metaphorical death. Perhaps a social death or an economic death or the like. None of this means that we shouldn't stand. If America has lost her roots in the Christian faith and is dying because of it, we need to be sure to firmly establish our roots there. God doesn't change. Morality doesn't change. And "winning" in the Christian life is not about "standing on top of the heap". Sometimes it requires time in a lions' den (Dan 6:16-17), a walk through the fire (Dan 3:17), the gift of persecution (Phil 1:29).

For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm. (Eph 6:12-13)

Stand firm.

Progress

We've moved a long way in our society from when I was young. They call it "progress" and hand the credit to the "progressives". While it is abundantly clear that "when I was young" is not the definition of "utopia" -- that there were lots of things wrong when I was young -- it seems equally clear that what we've deemed "progress" is not necessarily positive. That is, if "progress" is "forward movement", it doesn't follow that it is positive forward movement. Let me give you some examples of some of the "progress" I've learned from "progressives".

"If it feels good, do it."
Radical in its origins in the '60's, it has become the rule in our day. While they try to tell me that morality is determined by "harm", they counter with this axiom as well and are perfectly happy with "If it feels good, do it ... regardless of the harm." This is obvious in current standards regarding such prevalent actions as murdering babies in the womb, the embrace of sadomasochism in the mainstream, and the full use of divorce as a "feel good" mechanism. Then they further push "harm" out and leave it more firmly under "consent", where "If I consent, it's okay" (even if it causes harm). It is pure, unadulterated, moral relativism where "I determine what is right or wrong" and it doesn't matter the basis of such a ruling or whether it's truly right or wrong.

"Only God can judge me."
It's a popular notion these days, carrying lots of baggage with it. It shows up in the "Judge not" mentality where progressives are delighted to judge you for being judgmental. It is not an admission that "God will judge me" but entirely a defense from people around them pointing out "That's not right." It incorporates the double standard of "Don't tell me when I'm wrong morally" even though if you fail to tell them when they're wrong in other areas you're not a very good friend. (Imagine, for instance, keeping your mouth shut when they accidentally go to drink some noxious liquid thinking it was good.) In essence, the point is "You can't judge me and God won't judge me; I'm above all that."

"You're not God."
Closely related to the previous one, this one is very popular among the progressive "Christians". It is not a claim of the obvious, "The person who is talking to me is not actually God Incarnate." No one would dispute that. It is, instead, the claim that no one can speak for God ... even if, say, you're reading God's Word ... verbatim ... in clear and obvious texts. So by "no one" I mean not even God. But the bizarre part in this is that they definitively speak for God in their attack of your beliefs that you're reading God's Word. They urge you to embrace humility with the arrogance that says, "I don't care what the Scriptures say; I know you're wrong ... and you should stop talking." Like a line from a Steve Taylor song, they seem to be claiming, "You want humility? Look at me; I got it." And, of course, it takes extreme arrogance to claim what they essentially claim -- "I know better than God's Word." In the end, it is unavoidably, "You're not God; I am."

In the end, then, "You're not God" is a demand that you have a humility they don't possess, especially in regards to our primary source of information about God. The Bible claims to be God-breathed (2 Tim 3:16-17), but they are telling us, "No, that's not God's Word." "No, no," some will assure you, "we're not saying that. We're just saying you can't know what it is saying for certain." It is, therefore, God's unknowable Word and, therefore, basically useless. "No, no," others will counter, "we're not saying that, either. We're just saying it's a personal thing and you have no right or even capability of telling us what it means." You should have noticed by now that all of these are the same. If it is God's Word, it is God's Word. If it is not, it is not. If it is unknowable or purely personal, it is not God's Word. But they'll still stand there claiming this is "humility" and, ironically enough, judging and arguing with you that you're wrong and they're right and you (not them) need to stop. Makes sense? Not at all.

"Tolerance, inclusivity, diversity!!"
The catchwords of our day are those kinds of things. The enforcement of these values is ... intolerance, exclusivity, and uniformity. How that is missed eludes me completely. "We tolerate anything but intolerance" is their defense, but cannot see how self-refuting it is or how widespread their intolerance is. They hold their "warm and tender" tolerance in one hand and hurl invectives with their other such as "homophobe", "bigot", "sexist", "racist" ... you get the idea. Oh, no, it doesn't really matter if any of those tags are true or even make sense. (Examine, for instance, the word "homophobic" over against they way they generally use it, and you'll find it makes no sense at all.) The goal is to stir up hate against those they ... hate. Not tolerance. Not inclusivity. There is no effort to include those whose views differ. Remember the Women's March at Trump's inauguration where the women excluded the women who were pro-life? Diversity? No way! And they still stand on what they consider the moral high ground which is, as it turns out, the bones of their felled opponents who they deemed intolerant, exclusive, and anti-diversity.

Here's my problem. As I said at the beginning, my youth did not constitute a pure, wonderful society. There were issues, problems, things that needed fixing. Unfortunately, the things they set out to fix were not those. They set out to take down the things of value and exerted little effort toward fixing the real issues. They shifted the focus from real problems to manufactured problems, effectively removing any possibility of fixing things at all while destroying the solid ground that was there to begin with. Progress? In the sense of "forward motion", of "moving on", perhaps. But this is not progress toward a positive outcome. It is insanity (Rom 1:28).

"Alteration is not always improvement, as the pigeon said when she got out of the net and into the pie." - Charles Spurgeon

Independence Day, 2018

It is our day of celebrating our independence from England, but on days like this we're treated to a host of revisionist historians who aim to rewrite the origins of this nation. "It was never Christian," they tell us. And while, of course, a nation cannot be Christian and certainly not all of our Founding Fathers were Christians, I think it is unavoidable that the vast majority of them were genuine believers. Here are a few quotes from a few names you might know.

George Washington
1st President of the United States; President of the Constitutional Convention; Member of the Continental Congress

"While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian."

"The blessing and protection of Heaven are at all times necessary but especially so in times of public distress and danger. The General hopes and trusts that every officer and man will endeavor to live and act as becomes a Christian soldier, defending the dearest rights and liberties of his country."

John Adams
Signer of Declaration of Independence and 2nd President of the United States

"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God."

"The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity."

John Quincy Adams
6th President of the United States

"My hopes of a future life are all founded upon the Gospel of Christ and I cannot cavil or quibble away ... the whole tenor of His conduct by which He sometimes positively asserted and at others countenances His disciples in asserting that He was God."

Samuel Adams
Signer of the Declaration of Independence; ratified the U.S. Constitution

"I . . . [rely] upon the merits of Jesus Christ for a pardon of all my sins."

Noah Webster
Revolutionary War soldier; judge; legislator; educator

"[T]he religion which has introduced civil liberty is the religion of Christ and His apostles ... This is genuine Christianity and to this we owe our free constitutions of government."

Just a few ... a very few. Clearly these (and many, many more) were strong believers. It would be a mistake to dismiss the influence of Christianity in the building of this nation.

A couple of years ago I came across this speech.



It is a Christmas Eve address by an American President, but it speaks to the Christian roots of the country. Harry Truman, in 1950, urged his nation to celebrate the birth of God's Son and to "pray for a peace that is based on righteousness." Think about that. As recently as 1950 a Democrat was preaching Christ and calling on his nation to pray.

It is historical fact that America was founded on Christianity. It is also historical fact that America has departed from that foundation. As Dr. Mohler points out, "The church no longer represents the central core of Western culture." I think a sizable portion of the country is working hard at demonstrating this fact. But that doesn't change the fact that America's roots and early success were in a religious grounding, a Christian basis. Remember that while you celebrate our independence today, because the larger part today are celebrating an independence from God, the One that made this nation great.

How Does God Feel?

We are all about feelings these days. "How I feel" determines what is right or wrong. End of story. "'Illegal immigrant' hurts my feelings, so call them 'undocumented immigrants' and we're all good now." "'Sexual immorality' sounds so harsh; can't we use 'sexual minority' instead?" "I feel like he didn't listen to my ideas because I'm a woman. Clearly sexual abuse because, after all, I felt abused." "I know how I would feel if I couldn't marry the one I love, so we must allow a radical redefinition of 'marriage' in order to allow everyone who loves to 'marry'. Oh, no, not everyone. Only the ones that I feel good about." "Sure, that is a human being in the womb, but I empathize with the poor women who don't have much money and feel like their future comfort is in jeopardy if they have this baby (even though preventing the pregnancy before it occurred is usually a possibility) and I can see that killing this child is the best option for the emotional welfare of these women." Our feelings are paramount. But does anyone ever wonder about God's feelings?

Now, you might think it would be presumptuous to try to declare God's feelings about something or other. I think it really could be. But what if I just go with what He has told us? Just taking into account what Scripture says God feels, what do we know?

On the question, for instance, of "binary gender" we read, "So God created Man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." (Gen 1:27) Hmm, odd. Only two genders. Does that tell us how God feels on the subject of gender dysphoria? Maybe not, but inferences could be drawn. On abortion, we know God said, "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in His own image." (Gen 9:6) Does that tell us what God feels about killing babies? Maybe. Since God gives explicit instructions -- "By man shall his blood be shed" -- and specific reasoning -- "for God made man in His own image" -- it might be quite obvious how God feels about it. But other things are not as vague.

We know God feels compassion (Psa 135:14). There are even references to God laughing (Psa 2:4; Psa 37:13), although that is laughing in derision at the wicked. There are obviously passages that talk about God rejoicing (Isa 62:5; Jer 32:41; Zeph 3:17). But there are many others that talk about God's feelings in a negative sense. There is certainly God's anger (Psa 7:11; Rom 1:18) and grief over our sin (Gen 6:6; Psa 78:40). Scripture says He experiences hatred (Psa 5:5; Psa 11:5; Prov 6:16). Imagine that! The One we call a "God of love" actually hates. (Note: You might be tempted to point out that very clearly another emotion God feels is love. I would be quick to point out that biblical love (and, therefore, God's love) is not primarily emotional in content, but a matter of choosing to give the very best to the one loved.)

You must know that there is one big word in Scripture that expresses an emotion God experiences over some issues. That word is "abomination". The Bible lists lots of "abominations", things which some people experience (e.g., Gen 43:32; Prov 13:19; Prov 29:7) but that God experiences, too. There was a lot in the Old Testament about the abomination of improper worship (e.g., Deut 7:25; Deut 17:1; Deut 18:9-12; Deut 23:18; Prov 15:8), but much more about how abominable God found certain sins. Adultery was one (e.g., Ezek 22:11). Dishonest business practices were another (e.g., Deut 25:13-16; Prov 11:1; Prov 20:10). And, of course, there were certain behaviors that inspired this emotion in God (e.g., Lev 18:22; Prov 6:16-19; Prov 12:22). Some of the more notable include "men of perverse mind" (Prov 11:20), those who justify the wicked or condemn the righteous (Prov 17:15), and those who turn away from God's Word (Prov 28:9). Very clearly there are things that God does not merely hate; there are things that He finds abominable. There are things that disgust God.

God has lots of "warm" emotions; things we like. God clearly has lots of less than pleasant emotions as well. We quip "When Mama's not happy, no one is happy." What if God is not happy? What if, in fact, God is disgusted? If we view "How I feel" as definitive for right and wrong, what do we do with "How God feels"? I would think "How God feels" would certainly override anything we might feel. So, what would that lead us to conclude about right and wrong? I'll leave that to you. But I think it is abundantly clear that leaving morality up to "How do I feel" without regard to God's feelings on the matter is a grave error.

Who's Driving the Bus?

Back in 2008 when I still had Facebook a California judge threw out the law that defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Someone I knew posted her great joy over this ruling. I asked her (privately -- not to get in a public debate) why she was so happy about it. She said, "Well, I just know how bad I would feel if I wasn't allowed to marry the one I loved."

Now, I wasn't setting out to correct or debate her, but I thought, "Wow, don't think that through. If you do, you'll discover that this kind of position would require legalizing polygamy, polyamory, incest, bestiality, and "object sexuality". The logic of the position breaks down too easily. But I didn't pursue it because that would require logic and she wasn't using logic; she was using feelings.

Normally, how we think determines how we feel. If I think "X is a good thing" I will feel good about X and if I think it's a bad thing, I'll feel bad about X. Simple. That's a perspective driven by thinking. A perspective driven by feeling, however, works quite differently. While the same mechanism exists -- how we think determines how we feel -- if we start out from an emotional position that determines how we think going forward, we end up in this impenetrable loop. My friend, for instance, could not think her way out of that "gay marriage" paper bag because it would require thinking outside of her comfort zone, so she would refuse. Her premise was "how I would feel", so "how I think" is subject to the premise. On the other hand, a person who begins with how they think is able to think through "how I feel", analyze the facts, and potentially change "how I feel".

We are largely a society today driven by how we feel over against how we think. We start with "How does this make me feel?" and then figure out what to think from there instead of figuring out what's right and wrong first and then adjusting our thoughts and resulting feelings to match. We even do it self-consciously, arguing "I have to follow my heart rather than my head." It's heroic to be emotional rather then reasonable. This is why so many of us are finding that well-reasoned, carefully presented arguments, logic, and evidence fall on deaf ears so much of the time. It's because they're not thinking, they're feeling. If you don't start there, they won't hear you. It's a product of eyes blinded by the god of this world.

Hidden Faults

You know Psalm 19, right? Many of you could probably start quoting right away.

The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims His handiwork. (Psa 19:1)

From the lover of nature to the apologist, we like that one just fine, thank you very much. That all of creation tells us about God is a wonderful thing. "Natural revelation" they call it. True stuff.

You might be a little less aware of the next step the psalm takes.

The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul; the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple; the precepts of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes; the fear of the LORD is clean, enduring forever; the rules of the LORD are true, and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold, even much fine gold; sweeter also than honey and drippings of the honeycomb. (Psa 19:7-10)

We all think it's pretty neat that God's creation tells us about God, but this passage tells us that the best information comes from God's Word. And surely you can see that must be true. We can draw inferences about God from Creation, but straightforward statements from God are much clearer and explicit ... and, therefore, desirable (Psa 19:10).

What's interesting to me in this psalm, then, is the next thought.

Moreover, by them is your servant warned; in keeping them there is great reward. Who can discern his errors? Declare me innocent from hidden faults. Keep back your servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me! Then I shall be blameless, and innocent of great transgression. (Psa 19:11-13)

According to David, God's Word has a side effect, so to speak. It warns us against sin. And the progression here is interesting. There are the "hidden faults", there are the "presumptuous sins", and there are the "great transgressions". We have those secret sins, those things we struggle with inside that we keep quiet. They lead to open sins -- presumptuous sins. Eventually they become great transgressions. This is the obvious process, but the text indicates that God's Word warns us against and keeps us from that process.

In this day and age when Scripture is challenged by theological liberals and conservatives alike, when we are told repeatedly that "You can't take it as it is written", when they assure us that "It's a good book, but don't get carried away", it is no surprise that we see an increase in great transgression. We are being told to embrace the hidden sins and, since we don't have an authoritative, reliable Word of God, we have nowhere to stand to defend against that.

It is absolutely true. The heavens declare the glory of God. It is equally unavoidable that God's Word gives us a clearer picture of who He is than the heavens do. We ignore that Word to our own peril, because each of us have our own hidden sins waiting to become presumptuous sins ending in great transgression. We cannot afford to go there. And God has provided the remedy right here in this psalm -- God's Word.

News Weakly - 6/30/18

I'm Not Getting It
Last week White House press secretary Sarah Sanders was kicked out of a restaurant in Lexington, VA, for ... being the White House press secretary. The Left defends the restaurant owner for doing it; the right is complaining that it was unfair. I'm not getting it.

To the Left, I ask if it's wrong, wrong, wrong for a Christian baker to refuse to make a wedding cake for a couple of same-sex individuals because it violates the baker's constitutionally protected First Amendment rights, why is it not equally wrong for a restaurateur to refuse to serve someone because it violates her conscience? To the Right I ask if it's right for a Christian photographer to deny service to a same-sex couple because it violates her religious beliefs, why is not equally right for this restaurant owner to stand on principle and deny Sanders service? It seems as if the two sides have run amok, not noting that they both are alternately defending and attacking the same principle depending on whether or not they like what was done. Seems like really bad standards all the way around. Either tell the innkeepers they're right for standing on principle and so is the restaurant, or tell them they're both wrong, but don't waffle here.

That having been said, I want to ask the owner of the restaurant, "Do you subject all your patrons to the same standard? You asked Sanders to leave because 'the restaurant has certain standards that I feel it has to uphold, such as honesty, and compassion, and cooperation.' Do you require these standards of all your customers?" Remember, it was unequal discrimination in Colorado that exonerated the Christian baker in the Supreme Court.

Beyond That
Following that incident, Maxine Waters (D-Calif) (thanks for that, California) urged people to harass anybody from Trump's administration, telling them, "You get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them, and you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere." When the florist or the baker or the photographer backed out of providing service on the basis of religious principles, they all recommended other sources for the same service elsewhere. Imagine if any of them said, "You're not welcome anymore, anywhere." Double standard, anyone?

This Week in SCOTUS
First the Supreme Court finds in favor of the Christian baker in Colorado who refused to celebrate a gay wedding by making them a cake (surprise, surprise), and now they throw out a case against a florist for the same thing? Amazing!

Remember, now, the court did not rule that the baker's religious rights were violated. They simply said that the state had mistreated the baker in comparison with how it treated others on the other side. They said the state's anti-discrimination measures had to be fairly enforced for both sides. So don't think this one is a 1st Amendment victory either. No, the court simply said the Washington Supreme Court would need to look again to see if Washington, like Colorado, has failed to fairly enforce their anti-discrimination laws. If they have, it will be legal in Washington to deny 1st Amendment rights as long as they treat others who "discriminate" in the same way.

While we're at it, the Supreme Court approved ("upheld") Trump's "travel ban"??? Seriously? Even the president was surprised, tweeting, "Wow!" Critics have called it a "Muslim ban" which, if true, was the most inane "Muslim ban" on the planet since it didn't ban ... you know ... Muslims. It limits (not bans) travel from seven (not all) countries with Muslims in them. (Note: The list includes Venezuela ... not a "Muslim nation.") Now, mind you, I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the policy. I'm just pointing out that if you want to criticize the president's limitations on travel, do it from fact rather than emotional allegation.

Then, in another stunning outcome from the Supreme Court this week, I learned a new term: "constitutionally protected medical services like abortion." It came up in the story about how SCOTUS ruled that clinics predicated on not giving abortions are not required to advertise abortions to their clients. The earlier ruling was that they were required to give information on ... that phrase. Now, I wasn't aware of any such medical services. I wasn't aware that medical services had constitutionally protected rights. Human beings labeled "non-persons" have no constitutionally protected rights, but medical services do. Odd. Learn something new every day.

And What Did You Expect ...?
The LGBT community fought for years to become viewed as "normal" by moving their "civil unions" into "marriage" because "Anyone can see there is a fundamental difference between a civil union and a marriage." So they succeeded in forcing a definition change on us all to take marriage from its roots to this new thing. Of course, it had to happen ... now a UK couple have won their suit to be allowed to have a civil union instead of a marriage because, obviously, marriage is "patriarchal and sexist." What did you expect? The end of marriage as we know it? Well, yes ... yes I did. Thanks for the demonstration.

Responding Badly
So, of course, the outcry is against "the separation of families" occurring at the border thanks to the evil Donald Trumpster. Except that Trump has already ordered this reversed. And a federal judge has ordered the families be reunited within the next 30 days. And sweet old Ethel Kenedy, widow of Robert Kennedy, has jumped on the hunger strike bandwagon to call for the change ... which Trump has already started and the judge has further ordered and ...

I, personally, am confused. If fictitious Bill, a husband and father of two, is caught robbing a liquor store, for instance, do they not separate him from his family? Why is no one protesting this injustice? And is no one aware of the fact that less-than-honest people use children as cover to enter the country illegally while, perhaps, pimping them out for sex? How does the border patrol know which are families and which are endangered children? Do you know? I'm not defending the "zero-tolerance" policies in the news; I'm simply pointing out that the situation is not as simple as you think and we are, once again, responding badly to a bad situation.

(Side note: You are all aware, I suspect, of the picture on the cover of Time with the crying child and Donald Trump (superimposed). I don't know if you were aware that this child was never separated from her family. This is a case of pure, unadulterated media manipulation. A lot like this one.)

You Are What You Eat

"You are what you eat," we say. Eat bad stuff, and you will not be healthy. Eat good stuff and you'll be fine. We get that. Junk food produces junk bodies; health food produces healthy bodies. That's the idea. All well and good.

Why is it, then, that we fall so short on that? I mean, it's not really controversial, is it? And, yet, we all daily consume piles of junk food and wonder why we're not healthy.

We set ourselves in front of secular television and drink the koolaid. We plant ourselves on Facebook and Google for our primary news and wonder why we are not receiving good, godly information. We don't go to the Word as our source for principles for living, but to Twitter and our "sexular" society and cannot figure out why there is such a moral slide even in the church. Brothers and sisters, We do not well.

I recently read this quote:

I believe that one reason why the church of God at this present moment has so little influence over the world is because the world has so much influence over the church. -Charles Spurgeon

I think it is not only true and even obvious; I think it is mandatory. To the extent that we Christians have built our lives on the world -- its values and morals and principles and structures and methods and all -- it would be an absolute certainty that we would model the world rather than vice versa. Let's face it, if "you are what you eat", we are imbibing the world and are looking just like it.

Don't believe me? Try some tests. Look at the majority of Christians who no longer believe that Paul forbade female leadership in the church (2 Tim 2:12-14). Try asking Christian women what they think about 1 Cor 14:34-35. (Note: If you point your mouse cursor at that text there, it should show you the actual verses.) How many will say, "Well, yep, I guess that's what we should do."? How many Christians do you know today that decry the "evil patriarchal system" that is biblical (1 Cor 11:3)? How many are incensed by the instructions on wives submitting (Eph 5:22-24; 1 Peter 3:1-4)? Why are these things so? Is it because it's not biblically apparent? Or is it because it violates the philosophies and principles of the day?

But, of course, there is, in a sense, no real point in me writing this. I can't fix this. I can't fix you. All I can do is work on me. What am I "eating"? Is mine a diet of worldly views and precepts, or am I informing my mind and heart with God's Word and godly input and actions? Am I being conformed to the world or being transformed in my thinking (Rom 12:2)? You'll have to figure that out for yourself. I'm simply here recommending you examine your diet.

A Question

This is one of my question posts. I have a question, a query, a quandry. Maybe you can help. I will start out by saying that if you don't think that God's Word is true, valid, reliable, authoritative -- all that stuff -- then don't bother. If God's Word is not God's Word, then the simple answer is, "You can ignore that" and we're done. I can't. So for the rest of you, I read this passage the other day and wonder how it is really supposed to work.

First, a little background. We've all heard of late about the whole #MeToo movement where women claim sexual harassment and guys burn to the ground. While we all agree that sexual harassment is wrong (Well, at least, we should all agree), there are still questions about what constitutes "harassment" and "abuse" because we've gotten to the point that "He made me feel uncomfortable" or "He didn't listen to my views because I'm a girl" constitute harassment. But, all of this is not my point. Among those kicked to the curb over the past year for transgressions against women, there have been more than one or two prominent Christian leaders. Paige Patterson was hauled out and executed without a trial over the claim that he had covered up a rape. A couple other pastors were shot down in flames because one person or another claimed sexual harassment. That's because we live in a world, sharply tuned after too many years of Catholic priests molesting kids, with a zero-tolerance policy for anything currently unacceptable. And sexual harassment is currently (and rightly) unacceptable.

Then I come across this.

Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. (1 Tim 5:19)

Perhaps you can immediately see my question. How is this supposed to work? Most of these recent casualties in the church from #MeToo had no "evidence", let alone "two or three witnesses." So how does this work? From my view we can 1) ignore the text and shoot down whatever pastor/elder we want if it's something bad like "sexual harassment" or 2) follow the instructions and not bring charges against a pastor/elder without a minimum of two witnesses (which, in the case of sexual harassment, would be almost never) or 3) come up with some other course of action. I suppose if, for instance, a pastor/elder receives multiple accusations of sexual harassment, it would count as "two or three witnesses". Is that good enough ... from both the sense of the text that seems to protect pastor/elders against false or frivolous accusations and the concern of having a sexually harassing pastor/elder?

How do we manage this?

Note: It would seem patently obvious from this text that the way we do not manage this is the current method of hearing the accusation and burning the accused at the stake before the sun goes down. Right?