Bad Bereans

I may be way off, but I think I've put my finger on a serious issue. If you've been watching much you might have noticed that the church in America is in decline. Oh, sure, numbers are down, but that's not the decline I'm talking about. More and more are marked by compromise. "Yes, sure, that's what God's Word says, but we think it's wrong. We need to adjust, to go along to get along." So they give in on women as pastors or marriage as between a man and a woman and for life or the like. Look at all the scandals in churches, big and small, where pastors and other church leadership are accused and "convicted" of sexual abuse. And you wonder, "Why didn't anyone catch it? Why didn't anyone pick up on it before?" Think of the softness of modern Christian theology in America. "Sure, the bible says God is Sovereign, but we know that He's a gentleman and won't interfere where He's not wanted." Really? Is that what you read in your bibles? "It's not God's will that people should suffer." Weird. My bible says exactly the opposite. "Oh, come on. What's with that 'wives submit' stuff? That's outdated. That's wrong." The bible is outdated and wrong? And I think I see part of the problem.

Almost every church I've attended or visited in the last 30 years has given up teaching the Word. Oh, no, not as bad as all that. I've been under lots of good pastors preaching Scripture from the pulpit. I've been in lots of good churches where they declare the value of God's Word. No, it's not on the face; it's behind the scenes. It's in the adult classes and the home bible studies. They call them "bible studies," but they are, in fact, more like "book clubs." They read good books about the Good Book ... hopefully. We've become "humble." "Oh, I'm not really qualified to teach the Word. Why should I with all these good teachers out there who are? No, I'm no teacher. I'm a facilitator." We give lipservice to the Word and then back off, bow out, let someone else take over. We don't dig into it for ourselves let alone to pass on to fellow believers. We husbands aren't too keen on cleansing our wives with "the washing of water with the Word" (Eph 5:26). Sure, sure, we consider ourselves "Christ followers" and Jesus said, "Your Word is truth" (John 17:17). Perhaps we're just not as interested in the pursuit of truth as Jesus was.

Fundamentally, American Christianity has largely arrived, at best, at a "once removed" condition. We still value the Word, but at a distance, so to speak. "You learn it, you teach it, and we'll listen." "It's good stuff, but we need more. More up to date. More relevant. More applicable. More 'today'." The claim that Scripture makes about Scripture flies in the face of our ambivalence.

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. (2 Tim 3:16-17)

"All Scripture," not just the parts we like. "Breathed out by God." Not merely "inspired." "Profitable." Very much so. It tells us what we should know, where we go wrong, how to correct it, and where to continue to walk. Note the breadth of this claim. It will make the man of God "complete, equipped for every good work." No lack. No insufficiency. We don't really believe that the Holy Spirit will lead us into the truth. God's Word claims that God's Word is sufficient. It's what we need. It does the necessary task. It is authoritative. It is primary. And we've relegated it to second place. Maybe third. Or somewhere else down the line. Like a good advisor to our already capable understanding ... from science and experience and culture and society and politics and all. "No, no, God, that's okay. We've got this. We don't need to dig into Your Word. We have some really good books on it." It should be no wonder that the American Christian church is a mile wide and an inch deep. Face it; we're not very good Bereans (Acts 17:11).

Oversimplification

We have made huge advances in our times. Advances in science, in technology, in transportation and space exploration, in medicine and education. Having worked in the arena of medical science for some years, I have been fascinated by the huge leaps as well as the uncovering of a vast unknown. David wrote, "I am fearfully and wonderfully made; wonderful are Your works, and my soul knows it very well" (Psa 139:14), and he was right. From the previously unknown connection between gut health and brain function to the still undiscovered operations of memory and other brain functions up to the most recent concerns about the human immune system, we are a complicated and wonderful creation.

Since we know all this, and since it carries on into so much of life, why is it that we've become so oversimplified? Think about it. Racism was a complex concept explaining how some people come to regard their own race as superior to others, sometimes taking that perception to extremes. Now it is "white people," "white people only," and "all white people." With tendrils in so many other things. If you believe in the Bill of Rights, you're a racist. It is the cause for white supremacy, sure, but it's also the reason a black person might disagree with the current theory, becoming the impossible "black racist." It is the cause of capitalism and Christianity. It is the reason for all sorts of woes. Racism is blamed for deadly riots and poverty and hate (both ways). It is the reason that abortion is higher in black communities and the reason that some people oppose abortion. It is the reason why there are fewer blacks in high ranking business positions and why there are more blacks than whites in some professional sports. It has freed so many people from personal responsibility and accused so many others of hate who never gave a hint of it. Racism is one of the single most pervasive causes of evil in the world today. Simple.

Think about it. Think of the "phobes." If you have a reason to believe that fundamentalist Islamic followers represent a serious threat to America, you are an "Islamophobe." If you see in Scripture that homosexual behavior is classified as a sexual sin, you are a "homophobe." If you believe that males are males and females are females like science says they are, you are a "transphobe." (And, oh, by the way, that suffix, "phobe," is supposed to mean "fear," but we've translated that into "hate" and that without cause.) Thus, instead of having reasons to believe what you believe regarding one of these or another, your ideas are dismissed out of hand without consideration because you are a "phobe" -- a hater -- with incoherent bigotry not worthy of being heard. Simple.

I'm sure you can come up with your own examples in racism, "phobias," and even other areas. Sexism, the political labels of "Left" and "rightwing," "socialism," "Christian," and more are all oversimplifications of complex issues. They deny individuality within their area of influence and they expand that area of influence beyond any rational connection. They control (read "silence") discussion with sharp labels that seem to bear meaning without any actual support. No one is safe. Christians who deem it necessary to follow what the Bible says are labeled "evil" if they don't believe what is considered "proper." Supreme Court Justices who see their job as interpreting the Constitution and comparing a case to it are labeled as evil if they don't rule how some wanted them to rule. Reasoning has no part in it. We're oversimplifying ourselves to death, and that might end up a literal concept in too many cases when the precursor of discussion and dialog are disallowed.

Like the Back of My Hand

What is it with hands? We seem to have a host of phrases that deal with hands that, often, seem to make no sense ... even though we all know what we mean by them.

We know what it means to do some work "by hand." That's easy. It's not by machine. Okay. Good. And we like to keep some things "on hand." Near. In easy reach so to speak. Some of these make reasonable sense because they actually have to do with hands. On the other hand ...

You might experience something "first hand," meaning "in person." What does "hand" have to do with it? Why do we buy "second hand" items? What is the "second hand"? I've heard it said, "I know this like the back of my hand." How well do you know the back of your hand? Would you be able to pick yours out in a photo lineup? I understand that government might be "heavy-handed" and even "underhanded," but the former is clearer to me than the latter. Under what? What does someone have in their hand that would cause you to force it? I know to "wash your hands" of a problem is actually biblical (coming from Pilate washing his hands when he ordered Jesus's crucifixion), but how would you "lend a hand" without, you know, dismembering yourself? Ships will order "all hands on deck." Why just their hands, and why should they put them on the deck? If it's possible to be in "safe hands" is it possible to be in "dangerous hands"? Maybe, but I've never heard that one. I spoke to someone just the other day who told me, "We're shorthanded today." What a strange word picture that conjures up, right? Jesus Himself said, "Do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing" (Matt 6:3). I'd think that would be pretty easy since my left hand doesn't know anything at all. If I wanted a tool, I might ask, "Would you hand me a wrench?" but I'd never say, "Would you mouth me a wrench?" if I hoped they'd use their teeth, right? Of course it would be hands. You can have nothing in your hands, your hands full, your hands tied, and in no case are you actually stating any of those as actual fact. If you get something from someone else, it's a "hand-me-down" which is as much a poorly constructed sentence as a strange idiom. Who are you handing down?

It seems to me this is all getting out of hand. Which is strange because, at no time as far as I can tell, was any of it actually in my hand. Still, you know exactly what I meant. It's all very handsome, which originally meant "easy to handle" or "ready at hand" and now means nothing at all like it. Which only goes to show that communication is tenuous at best, isn't it?

Marriage Advice

Her husband died several years ago and she was considering remarrying. Her kids were grown, but his were still at home. She wanted advice. "How do I navigate this blended family thing?" The temptation is to come up with a 12-step plan or something, some pithy approach with practical instructions. But it's not that simple, you understand. Every person in this equation is different. Every condition is variable. There is gender and age, attachments and distances, perceptions and preferences, personality and personal motivations, a list that just keeps coming. All influenced by each other. It's not that easy. There are so many varieties and variables that it would, in fact, seem impossible.

It occurred to me that there was an answer. It just wouldn't be ... satisfying. The single answer was simple: "love." "Oh, great," I can hear some groaning, "all we need is love, right?" Too vague. Too simple. Inadequate. And I'd agree if we were talking about today's modern version. Warm feelings. Affection. "Feel good toward everyone" is just not very helpful advice. Except that's not the love I'm talking about. This love is more ... biblical. This love does nothing from selfishness or empty conceit; it regards others as more important than me (Php 2:3). This love looks out first for the interest of others (Php 2:4). This love gives up self and seeks only the best for those it touches. It doesn't seek its own, is not easily provoked, does not keep accounts of wrongs (1 Cor 13:5). It is, above all, patient and kind (1 Cor 13:4). This love endures (1 Cor 13:7). Sure, it is actually a death to self, and that's really what makes it work, but it's not like the one who loves loses because it is premised on the fact that you are loved perfectly and completely already by God (Rom 5:8). That simply makes you an open conduit to flood those around you with His love because, after all, you already have what you need.

Simple answer, sure, but not simply accomplished. It is, however, the answer to most interpersonal conflicts and questions. It is commanded. And it is well supplied. "In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins" (1 John 4:10). In fact, we love because He first loved us (1 John 4:19). Sure, it's a simple answer. Die to self and give all. But it is amazingly effective. And it is clearly something not accomplished by human effort.

News Weakly - 8/20/22

Saving the World One Poor Person at a Time
In order to stop the decline in the price of gas, the BLM is pausing oil and gas leasing on 2.2 million acres of public land because environmental groups say they've failed to consider "climate impacts." The Sierra Club and the like hope to save the planet, but they plan to do it at your expense. Massachusetts is on board as well. They just passed a "major climage and clean-energy bill" that will block access to the cheapest ways to cook and heat homes or buy the most economical transportation. You economically challenged people, suck it up. This will save the world even if it destroys yours.

Questionable Motives
Salman Rushdie, the one who wrote Satanic Verses which earned him a fatwa, a Muslim death sentence, was stabbed at a lecture in Chautauqua, New York, by Hadi Matar, a 24-year-old Muslim from New Jersey. The authorities don't know his motive ... because they can't say the obvious. Don't want to be Islamophobic, you know. If it's not a white guy killing a person of color, they just can't be sure. Iran, on the other hand, has no problem laying blame. They celebrated the attack and made it clear it was Rushdie's fault.

Fight for your Rights
Six fraternities at USC have cut ties with USC. Why? Because the university is trying to curb their right ... to party. The school is trying to "prevent sexual assault and drug abuse" and, as everyone knows, fraternities are all about sexual assault and drug abuse, and you've got to fight for your right to party.

Leave That To The Experts
We decry it when the Left ignores their own "sins" and rants about the right. Now we have folks on the right ramping up threats against the FBI for serving a search warrant on former president Trump. This is more than embarrassing. It's wrong. Calls for civil war and armed rebellion? It's crazy. When the non-existent "insurrection" took place that fateful January 6th, it was deemed a "threat to democracy." Nonsense. But the current atmosphere of the extreme "Trump Love" types (that is, some of those who love Trump to the radical extreme) is indeed dangerous to democracy and is actually a call for insurrection. It has to stop. That kind of double standard ("It's wrong for you to to break the law with your so-called 'search warrant', but we're justified in breaking the law in our outrage") should be the sole domain of the Left who seems to have mastered it. Leave that to the experts.

Let's Play "Racial Discrimination"
They couldn't pull off reparations for black people, so the Minneapolis school district figured out how to make teachers pay for "the effects of past discrimination." In a blast of "fairness" where the primary mode of determining who to lay off will be "white or not," they will lay off white teachers first and give preferential hiring treatment to people of color. Because choosing who to hire and fire on the basis of race is a prime example of racism, and now we will get to see it as policy.

Spending to Cut Costs?
Well, he signed it, didn't he? That oxymoronic "Inflation Reduction Act." You know, where they spend 3/4 of a trillion dollars to ... reduce inflation. Oh, don't worry. They're just going to tax the rich -- a 15% minimum corporate tax rate. Mind you, it is you who will pay for that. More inflation. Another $370 billion for climate change, because climate change is clearly driving up inflation right now. A few will likely benefit from limits on Medicare drug prices. Of course, that group makes up the smallest portion (17%) of the population, but, hey, who's counting? Anything Big Government can do to dip into your wallet and call it "Inflation Reduction" has to be good, right? They will expect thank-you notes from all of you. (Did you know that this "climate change fighting bill" gives a boost to oil and gas companies?)

Just ... Stop
Similar to a story last week, a school identified as "Christian" in Florida is asking students guilty of sexual immorality to leave the school. They have a list of sexual sins that "are sinful in the sight of God" (complete with Bible references), but, oddly enough, they aren't sasying that students who murder, steal, dishonor parents, or fail to love God with their whole heart need to leave, too. Strange standards, only made worse by the name -- "Grace Christian School." False advertising -- twice -- if you ask me.

Helpful insights from the Bee
Some helpful tidbits from the Babylon Bee this week. Merrick Garland explained why the raid on Melania's closet was justified as he appeared wearing a stunning evening gown and matching sun hat. From Massachusetts, Boston Children's Hospital made history by throwing a child who claimed to be a bird off the roof as "species-affirming care." And why not? One piece offers 10 things you can do with $150K instead of paying a college to brainwash your kid. Something to think about. One savvy Trump voter is waiting to see if he gets raided by the FBI or gunned down by the IRS while the word is out that Liz Cheney won't return for season 2 of the wildly popular January 6 Hearings. We'll see.

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

A Little Bit of Heaven

We all know the prayer. It begins, "Our Father who is in heaven, hallowed be Your name. Your kingdom come. Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven" (Matt 6:9-10). So ... just how is the Father's will done in heaven? Well, that's not too hard to guess. It is done completely, consistently, without question or refusal. It is done correctly. It is done from, through, and to the Father. Easy. And that, dear readers, is what Jesus told His disciples to pray. "Let that be done here, too."

So, look, here's what I'm thinking. If heaven includes "Your will be done" and that is our daily prayer, why not get to work on it? Why not begin to experience a little bit of heaven here? Why not make it your aim to do His will in all cases, completely, consistently, without question or refusal? Why not seek to do it correctly, by His power, and for His glory? Sure, we may not know all that that entails. But there is a very large amount laid out for us in His Word. Why not start with that? "Oh, this says I should ____, so I will." If we love God and believe He knows best, I'd think it would just be a natural thing to do.

Pointing Fingers

There have been discussions about the nature of sins. Are some sins worse than others? Should we point them out or leave them be? Is it judgmental to see a sin in Scripture and recognize it in someone? Easy stuff, really. Yes, Scripture indicates that some sins are worse than others. (For instance, Jesus said, "And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You will be brought down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I tell you that it will be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom than for you" (Matt 11:23-24). The sins of Sodom were bad, but the sins of Capernaum were worse. So, while all sin earns death (Rom 6:31), the anguish of that death varies. On the other hand, Christ redeemed us from our sin, so while all sin earns death to varying degree, those who trust Christ for their salvation have all sin forgiven. Some worse than others? Yes ... and no. Should we point them out? Jesus said, "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother" (Matt 18:15). So, yes, it is important to seek to restore a fellow believer who sins. (See also Gal 6:1.) But "righteous indignation" carries no concern for the sinner, so that's right out. So it is not judgmental to see sin, but the aim is repentance and the danger is failing to judge ... yourself (Matt 7:3-5).

Here's the problem. The world (currently) likes to tell us to not be judgmental and to just nod and smile, nay, embrace the sin. Today if you call out the select sins the world is currently in love with, you aren't merely "judgmental"; you're a hater. So we're not supposed to notice ... except that Christ did (see, for instance, Matt 11:20-23). And we're supposed to be followers of Christ. Turning a blind eye to sin -- let alone calling sin "good" -- is outside of our operating guidelines. Calling sin "sin" may put us on the "wrong side of history," but it puts on the right side of our Savior's example and instructions. To fail to see sin and call it such is to fail to follow Christ. On the other hand, Jesus was quite clear. Look to yourself. And we are pitifully bad at that.

It is said that when you point a finger at someone, three are pointing back at you. You get the idea. We point at people and their homosexual activity and decry it as sin without checking our own sexual immorality in our minds or our porn use or our sexually immoral liaisons, as if "my sin isn't as bad as theirs." We decry the drug users while we ignore our drug of choice -- Internet or TV or political conflict or ... a whole host of "narcotics" that occupy our hearts. We rail against false teachers while we turn a blind eye to our refusal to sacrificially love our wives, submit to our husbands, pray without ceasing, give thanks in everything ... you know, clear and obvious commands that we can recognize and even quote but simply choose to ignore. We point out their sin accurately if not lovingly but we blatantly ignore our own. Too many fingers pointing back. Our own fingers. Brothers and sisters, before you go listing up the sins of others around you, inside and outside the faith, "first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye" (Matt 7:5). It is my suspicion that this will be a full time job. Well, okay, for me. You're probably much more righteous than I.

The Goofy Gophers

I grew up with Warner Brothers cartoon characters like Bugs Bunny and the Road Runner. All good stuff. My favorites, however, were somewhat obscure. They did perhaps 6 episodes with these characters. They were called the "goofy gophers." Their primary characteristic was their extreme politeness to each other. "You first." "Oh, no, I insist, you first." Always cheerful; always kind to each other. I think that these two are the caricature of marriage.

Think about it. The command to wives is clear and unequivocal. "Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord" (Eph 5:22). Dance around that all you want, but if you're going to be true to the text and the context, it is some serious submission. I mean, "as to the Lord"? That's serious. On the other hand, husbands have their own particular instruction. "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her" (Eph 5:25). "Love your wives." Oh, that's not too bad. Hang on. "As Christ loved." Well, okay, that raises the bar. "As Christ loved the church." And how did He do that? He "gave Himself up for her." Gave self up. Picture that. He didn't ask, "What are my preferences?" He didn't wonder, "Hey, what about Me?" He didn't demand that she submit or that He get what He wanted. He gave self up. For her.

In Philippians Pauls writes,

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though He was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. (Php 2:5-8)

Let's see. What did He start with? "In the form of God." Now that's the top, isn't it? Did He hang on to "What would I enjoy?" No. He "emptied Himself" and He took on "the form of a servant" and humbled Himself to death. By choice. That is not possibly "What about Me?" That is "gave Himself up for her" to the extreme. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her. Even to death. Even against all the things you think you'd like better than that.

And we end up here at the "goofy gophers." She is saying, "I delight in submitting to my Lord, so I will submit to my husband as to the Lord. I'll do whatever it is he commands because I am trusting God." And he is saying, "I find my joy in obeying my God, so I will surrender my own personal wishes and desires in order to give her anything and everything I am and have for her very best." Finding great joy in seeking eagerly to give to the other the very best at all times. "After you!" "Oh, no, I insist. You go first." As a way of life. I like it. I don't see it much because we believers are rarely eager to obey to that extent, but, hey, I can dream, can't I?

The Sims

Perhaps you've heard of this apparently extremely popular game. The Sims is more of a gaming franchise than a single game. It falls in the gaming category of "life simulation" (thus, "The Sims"). First released in 2000, the latest release was in 2014 with multiple spinoffs and other expansion packs. It's a "sandbox game" meaning that it has no real end or "win" method. You just meander about and do what you want. Its purpose is to simply let the player make virtual people and play in virtual worlds to experience virtual life.

The Sims is a prime example of our love affair with the not real. We have games that simulate reality which are not real. We have "reality TV" which is not real. We have "social media" that allows us to simulate personal contact without actual personal contact. We have pornography that allows us to simulate intimacy without having to actually be connected to anyone at all. We have the news media that gives us the sense that we're informed about what's going on although we can never be sure that they're telling us what's going on. Quite a few have jumped into virtual church where we "attend" on Sunday in front of our screens and watch, never even approaching edifying believers or the fellowship of the saints. We have virtual shopping, virtual sex, virtual friendships, virtual fun, virtual vacations, virtual doctors ... the list just goes on and on. And we're fine with it. While we understand that "virtual" means "approaching but not quite real," we think we get to experience real life in our virtual worlds. By once removing the actual contact, we can enjoy what God says as sin because, after all, it's not real.

In 1998 President Bill Clinton was being questioned over about to Congress. His reply was famous. "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." It was a nice dodge, but we seem to have just absorbed it and moved on. We don't want to define "is." We're good with "virtual." Virtual reality, virtual spirituality, virtual friendships, virtual dating, virtual sex, virtual money, virtual church, virtual fun ... we just keep going. And we lose sight that "virtual" is not real. At the same time, "virtual sin" is still sin because "That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man. "For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness. All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man" (Mark 7:20-23). And we're getting immunized to it.

Hate Speech

I have a friend who identifies as charismatic. Maybe pentecostal. I told him of several abuses. Some have assigned "prophecy" to the same category as God's Word offering both a corrective to Scripture as well as commands to individuals "because it's God's Word." Some have declared that if you don't speak in tongues, you aren't saved. A large number of them are perfectly happy to have masses speaking in tongues in church without an interpreter in direct contradiction to Scripture (1 Cor 14:27). And so on. When I asked about the abuses of the gifts in the theology of that group of people, he was dumbfounded. "We don't do that." Now, I know those things do happen and happen openly, but he agreed that those were abuses and argued that they shouldn't be associated with his beliefs and practices. I was wrongly connecting him with the abuses of others in his group.

It's not uncommon. In fact, it appears to be the norm. I'm white, so I must be racist. I'm a male, so I must be sexist. I'm a Christian, so I must be a right-wing loon. I'm a Republican, so I must be a Trump lover. I'm conservative, so I must want a civil war because they served Trump with a search warrant. All glaringly false. But my objections are overruled because, well, I am all of those first statements and we all know that the conclusions inevitably follow. It doesn't work in reverse, though, does it? Aren't all liberals socialists, maybe even communists, hoping to jail all the conservatives and lock up the Christians? Aren't they all TINOs -- "theists in name only"? If they do claim to have a faith, it's only so that people won't recognize that they are practical atheists. They all want to mind-control your kids, all want to groom your children for the LGBTQ, all want to take away your gun rights and your free speech and ... you get the sense of it. And the correct answer is accurately a resounding, "No!" That particular group of people I described are a minority. A loud minority, perhaps, but no less a minority than the other side I described above in the previous group.

I will set the record straight. I was born a white person, but I got in trouble in high school because my best friends were black and hispanic. I'm not racist. I am a male, but I absolutely deny that men are more important or valuable than women. I'm a Christian, but my only "right leanings" there are in the direction of what God's Word says. I'm a Republican, but fellow Republicans near and far have repudiated me for warning against Trump and for refusing to vote for him on multiple occasions. (Oddly enough, one of those who likes to lump me with Trump lovers actually lauded one of my pieces in opposition to Trump but still lumps me with Trump lovers.) I'm conservative but have no issue with legal search warrants being served on anyone. In fact, according to those Internet tests, I fall mostly in the category of "centrist" rather than liberal or conservative in matters of morality, social values, and even economics.

I am actually not concerned about being misidentified based on my demographics. Setting the record straight won't fix the problem. Telling the truth here won't change minds. There are individuals in all categories and generalizations of those individuals is always in danger of being completely off base. But, hey, let's not allow the truth of individuality get in the way of our prejudice and stereotyping. Wait ... what is it that so many on the left call prejudice and stereotyping? Oh, yeah, "hate."

Target-Rich Environment

In the Garden of Eden God created. His ultimate creation was Man and then Woman (Gen 1:26-27) and, at the same time, marriage -- the union of a man and a woman for the purposes of mutual support (Gen 2:18) and for procreation (Gen 1:28) for life (Matt 19:6). And it was very good (Gen 1:31). Is it any surprise, then, that the next scene after Creation was an attack by Satan on God's creation? The serpent didn't go to the beasts or to Adam. He went to Eve (Gen 3:1). He didn't go for Eve; he went to undercut God (Gen 3:1-5). Mess up the structure (1 Cor 11:3), mess up the relationship, mess up the world. The result was a rift between God and His creation (Gen 3:8-10) and the curse guaranteed marital strife (Gen 3:16) and a conflict with God (Gen 3:24) for the rest of this human existence.

It seems as if this has always been Satan's battle plan. Figure out what God is doing and fight it. God made humans in His image; take down humans. God made humans for fellowship; cause a rift with humans. God made a covenant with Abraham (Gen 15); tempt Abraham (Gen 16). God had a special relationship with Moses; destroy Moses (Num 20:10-12). Job was blameless (Job 1:1); take down Job (Job 1:7-12, etc.). And so it goes. Satan has had a target-rich environment by simply noticing all the things that are important to God and targeting them. So God loved the world this way; He sent His only Son to die for us so that whoever believed would have eternal life. Today, of course, we know better. Jesus died, maybe, but not "for us." People sin, perhaps, but no payment for sin is required. God might be our maker (lowercase "m" on purpose), but He's not our boss. That would be us. God makes marriage and gender, sexual limitations and behavioral rules, promises and preparations, and Satan works hard to target these things and take them down, even among the so-called "believers." God has made it clear ... and Satan isn't blind.

Look around. In our current culture all the points where strife is occurring appears to be specifically on the topics that God is most invested. They've pushed God out of His rightful place in the public square. Jesus claimed to be "the Truth" (John 14:6) and that God's Word was truth (John 17:17), but they've discharged the concept of truth in favor of what one person referred to as "truthiness." Objective truth does not exist, and, poof!, God, His Son, and His Word are gone. They've dismantled the value of humans, dismembered the definition of marriage, deconstructed the entire concept of gender. They've called good evil and evil good. Kill an innocent human being and call it "reproductive choice." They deny the Cross and laugh at the Atonement which, according to Scripture, is the perfect demonstration of God's love (Rom 5:8-10). And on it goes. While Satan isn't blind, the ones who are blind are the ones who fight alongside the god of this world to take down God's structures, directions, plans, and promises. To be fair, that includes each one of us to some degree or another. We buy the lies of God's enemy -- "Did God say ...?" -- and work at undercutting His clear instructions. Because we live in a target-rich environment where the target is God and the opponent is Satan and humans are among his favorite recruits, his best tools. After all, if you can use one of God's best creations against God, how much better can it get? Don't be that tool (Rom 12:2). I'm not suggesting you correct everyone else. I'm asking you to look to yourself.

News Weakly - 8/13/22

It's Things Like That ...
I'm at a loss to understand this. Bible Baptist Academy in Louisiana has kicked out 5-year-old Zoey who lost her father in a 2020 industrial accident because her aunt and her aunt's same-sex partner adopted her. The school claimed they were "committed to instructing and living in accordance with the teachings of Scripture," but I'm not sure how being related to someone who is not "in accordance with the teachings of Scripture" makes the girl not right either.

That's Entertainment ... Not
Lady Gaga opted to exceed her singing duties to call for the right to kill babies and violate the sanctity of marriage in her Chromatica Ball concert stop in Washington, D.C. She was "using her voice for the greater good" because what could be greater than terminating lives and redefining marriage? "I pray that this country will speak up and we will not stop until it's right!" she said, but I'm pretty sure God isn't listening (John 9:31).

Fighting Climate Change
Out of an abundance of deep and abiding concern for the welfare of workers, New York City has come up with a congestion plan. Let's just charge people so much that they can't afford to drive there. That ought to do it. Thank you, big government. "If we can just prevent people from driving anywhere, we can stop congestion and save the planet." Nice.

Looking Out For Your Money
The "Inflation Reduction Act" has passed the Senate (thanks to Kamala Harris's tie-breaking vote) and now the government plans to take more of your money and spend more on climate change to ... reduce inflation? "It is what we say it is and you can't say anything about it." One thing they'll be spending on is more IRS agents "willing to use deadly force." Sounds like a plan ... nay, a necessity.

Changing Strategy
They keep telling us that this COVID crisis isn't over. Just last month my county was in a "high transmission" status. So, to further combat this ongoing problem, the CDC has changed strategies. Masks and distancing are no longer mandated for schools or other institutions. Schools no longer have to screen the healthy. The focus is only on the highly vulnerable. You know, like what would have seemed to make sense from the beginning.

It Is To Laugh
John Mackey, CEO of Whole Foods, is worried that "socialists are taking over." They're in the schools, the corporations, the military, and moving forward. Constitutional liberties, he says, are under threat. The loudest voices, of course, will encourage us to laugh at such conspiracy nonsense ... since if we don't we might see the truth.

Bee Informed
In the news were things like the "Inflation Reduction Act," IRS ramping up, and the raid on Trump's home. The Bee went with it. So Joe Biden will veto the Inflation Reduction Act after he has already claimed there was no inflation. Gamers look forward to the release of the first-person shooter game, Call of Duty: IRS Auditor, while the Bee speculates that by 2026 the unemployment rate will be 0 since we'll all be working for the IRS auditing each other. And, in an exposé, the story is out about how Trump saved his cache of classified documents from the FBI by labeling them "Epstein's Client List." They never even looked there.

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

Swift to Hear

We all have voices in our heads. No, not crazy voices. (Well, not all.) But we all listen to stuff in our heads that tells us about lots of things. They tell us about our world around us and they tell us about ourselves. Some time ago psychologists referred to them as "tapes" that we play back to ourselves. Obviously "tapes" are now outdated, but the concept is still with us. We all have things in our head that we tell ourselves about our world, our selves, other people, just about anything. The problem is that when it's in your head, it's less likely to be evaluated. It's like we're going with "Well, it's in there, so it must be true." So we hear something from a favorite source and we incorporate it into our thinking and no longer evaluate it. We hear something from a friend (or an enemy) and we take it to heart and no longer evaluate it. Often it goes in unfiltered; we just take it as it is without initial fact-checking, so to speak. And we tell it back to ourselves and believe it because, well, it's in our heads.

I'm sure from out there (as opposed to in my head) you can see the problem. We know that Satan is the father of lies (John 8:44). He is the god of this world that has blinded unbelievers (2 Cor 4:4) ... who make up the majority of the human race, not a minority (Matt 7:13). We know that the mind set on the flesh is hostile to God (Rom 8:7) and that even for believers the heart is deceitful (Jer 17:9). We know all this, but we still listen to these "recordings" without examination. The truth is, all of us have been lied to and all of us tell ourselves lies and believe them. "I'm too bad to be forgiven" or "I know God says I'm forgiven but I don't think I can be" or "No one loves me" or "Not even God can love me." Maybe your "recordings" go a different direction. "I don't need forgiveness" or "I'm good enough" or "Everyone loves me" all the way to "God is lucky to have me." Whatever the gamut of the lies we tell ourselves, we all do it and we all believe them and we do it without examination.

This puts us in a precarious position. God says "X" and we say "Not X" and try to tell others, in essence, that either God is wrong or their interpretation of what God said was wrong rather than suspecting that we might be wrong. We buy the lie that we can't be forgiven or we don't need to be forgiven. We buy the fabrication that sin is beyond help or not that bad. We embrace the falsehood that God can't love us or that God cannot not love us. And these are just examples sprinkled in among all the other lies we've absorbed from politics, economics, culture, social media, the news media ... you get the idea.

We need to be swift to hear (James 1:19), but who we listen to is important. We've stacked a host of liars on the top of our list and, since we see them as confederates, we listen. The top of that list may be "my experience" or "my evaluation" or "my favorite news source" or the like. We forget that there's a worm in everything -- that the world follows the prince of the power of the air (Eph 2:2) -- and that the voice of God is typically a still, small voice. Jesus said, "Men love the darkness, for their deeds are evil" (John 3:19). Don't be that guy.

Politically Incorrect

We all know that there are things we can say and there are things we can't. Well, let's be more precise. If "say" is a reflection of ideas, there are things we can think and there are things we cannot. More, in this current cancel culture climate (That's called "alliteration.") there can be serious consequences. The other day in a team meeting a football coach read what was on a player's iPad out loud before he realized that the player had put down some "outlawed" words, so the coach resigned, not for having the thoughts, but for speaking someone else's incorrect thought out loud. Under no circumstances can we even edge into things like that.

One of the worst offenders in today's environment is ... the Bible. Think about it. First there is "In the beginning God created ..." (Gen 1:1). That's bad. We know better. Evolution is true and God didn't create anything. Atheist Richard Dawkins argued that teaching children that God exists is as bad as child abuse. And America loves freedom, so suggesting we humans are under a Creator is definitely PI. But that's just the beginning. Saying that God made Eve as a help meet for Adam just won't do. It's sexist. Suggesting that women's pain in childbirth and resisting submission to husbands is a curse from sin is misogynistic. Laws about the proper treatment of slaves or selling daughters into marriage shouldn't even be mentioned. Laws about death penalties for adultery or, worse, homosexual behavior are horrifying. The headship of males in families is awful. The denigration of women (like "wives submit to your husbands" and "I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man" and so on) is prevalent and wrong, wrong, wrong. The use of pronouns and masculine terms (like "man" for "mankind," referring to God as "Father," or using "Son" for Jesus rather than "child of God") need to be changed to suit the times. There are already "gender-accurate" translations available. And then there's that whole "crucifixion" thing where God sent His Son to die. Isn't that child abuse? And these are just a few quick examples.

The world is hostile to God (Rom 8:7) and offended by the cross (1 Cor 1:23). Spiritual things are essentially meaningless to them (1 Cor 2:14). In their spiritual blindness (2 Cor 4:3-4), they cannot see nor do they want the truth (John 3:20). In this environment it should be no surprise that people assault God's Word. But, please note. While it may be "politically incorrect," that doesn't make it false. If God's Word is true (and it is (John 17:17)), then let God be true though every man a liar (Rom 3:4). And don't let pressure from those "following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air" (Eph 2:2) dissuade you from the truth. Instead, be transformed by the renewing of your mind (Rom 12:2).

Prayer Warrior

In Paul's first letter to Timothy he tells Timothy that he was supposed to "stay on in Ephesus to instruct certain people not to spread false teachings" (1 Tim 1:3). He charges him, then, to "fight the good fight" (1 Tim 1:18). Chapter 2 begins with, "First of all, then ..." and gives some instructions about methods in which to fight this good fight. First: "I urge that requests, prayers, intercessions, and thanks be offered on behalf of all people, even for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life in all godliness and dignity" (1 Tim 2:1-2). Interesting, isn't it? He doesn't tell him to start a campaign or begin knocking heads or to do a whole lot at all. Instead, Paul urges Timothy to pray and to urge others to pray ... "first of all."

In the prayers, Paul calls for "requests, prayers, intercessions, and thanks." "Requests" refers to petitions made for specific needs. "Prayers" refers to requests made specifically to God, especially for God's glory. "Intercessions" are prayers on behalf of other people and situations. We get all those, even if we never specifically categorized them. It's interesting, though, that he includes "thanks." He wrote to the Thessalonians, "In everything give thanks, for this is God's will for you in Christ Jesus" (1 Thess 5:18). In everything. So, yes, give thanks. Give thanks a lot. If nothing else, because it's God's will for you in Christ.

I found it interesting that Paul didn't urge Timothy to get involved in social justice or politics or something. Make better laws. Get better government. Urge people to be nicer, kinder, gentler. Instead, Paul urged Timothy to have people pray "for kings and all who are in authority." Funny thing, isn't it? We don't seem to think that way these days. We're in political parties fighting political battles against liberal politicians ... instead of praying for them. Praying for them. We seem to have forgotten Who is in charge and think it's our job to fix this broken world. Prayer and not politics for governments and authorities will be better for allowing us a peaceful and quiet life in godliness and dignity than a good Christian political movement. Didn't see that coming.

We are also urged to stop false teachers and fight the good fight. We are also urged to fight that fight not with politics and campaigns, but with prayer. We are commanded to pray for those in authority. Because "Such prayer for all is good and welcomed before God our Savior" (1 Tim 2:3). Which should be our primary concern as followers of our Lord Jesus Christ.

The Quality of Faith

Most of us, from time to time, question our own faith. "Do I have enough faith? Do I believe strong enough to be saved? Is my faith sufficient for God to accept it?" And it's not a stupid question. Remember when Jesus visited His hometown? They said, "Isn't this the carpenter's son?" (Matt 13:55-56), and the Scripture says, "And He did not do many mighty works there, because of their unbelief" (Matt 13:58). So unbelief, by whatever means, seems to limit access to Christ. Then, what quality of faith do we need to expect anything from Him?

Remember the father who asked Jesus to save his child? His son was demon-possessed and he brought the boy to the disciples for help, but they couldn't. So they brought him to Jesus and the father said, "If you can do anything, have compassion on us and help us" (Mark 9:22). Jesus answered, "'If you can'! All things are possible for one who believes." To which the desperate father cried, "I believe; help my unbelief!" (Mark 9:23-24). Not much faith. He had questions. He had doubts. He recognized in himself his lack of faith. It was there, but weak. And it was sufficient (Mark 9:25-27). In Matthew's account, Jesus afterward told His disciples, "Truly, I say to you, if you have faith like a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move, and nothing will be impossible for you" (Matt 17:20). Faith, the allegorical size of a mustard seed -- a questioning but existing faith -- this is sufficient.

How sufficient? What can you expect from a little faith? In Genesis we read about Abram's promise from God. In Genesis 12 God promised to give the land of Canaan to Abram's offspring (Gen 12:7). And he went out and lied about his wife so they wouldn't kill him (Gen 12:10-20). In chapter 15 God made a covenant with Abram. "Your reward shall be very great," God told him (Gen 15:1). "Yea, right," Abram answered. Well, sort of. "I am childless" (Gen 15:2-3). And God said, "One who will come forth from your own body, he shall be your heir" (Gen 15:4). God went on to promise him offspring like the stars of the heavens (Gen 15:5). The text says, "Then he believed in the LORD; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness" (Gen 15:6). Now, that is an effective faith. That is the kind of faith that gets things done. Paul references it in Romans as an example for us all (Rom 4:1-5). How much faith did Abram have? He lied twice about his wife being his sister. He slept with his wife's maid to "help God out." He questioned God. He laughed at God (Gen 17:17). And, still, Scripture calls him "the friend of God" (James 2:23) and Hebrews lists him prominently in the "Halls of Faith" (Heb 11:8-10). Paul uses him as his prime proof of "saved by faith apart from works." A little faith. A shaky faith. A questioning faith. But it was sufficient to be reckoned by God as righteousness. A small faith can produce the ultimate -- your salvation.

Faith is clearly necessary for salvation. A lack of faith can limit our access to God's riches in some ways. But, in the end, it takes precious little faith to do great things including being declared righteous by God. Trust that. It's enough.

What Makes a False Teacher?

Paul calls Timothy his "true child in the faith" (1 Tim 1:2). Apparently Paul led Timothy to Christ. Then he took him around with him for some 20 years and taught him. Now, that would be some seminary, wouldn't it? Eventually, Paul took Timothy to Ephesus while he went on to Macedonia with instructions to "remain on at Ephesus so that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines" (1 Tim 1:3). Quite an assignment for the young pastor. Handle the local false teachers.

What makes a false teacher? I don't mean what makes their teaching false; I mean how does one become a false teacher? Paul told Timothy, "The goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith" (1 Tim 1:5). (Which might very well be a surprise to more than a few. The goal is love? Yes.). Then he tells Timothy "Some men, straying from these things, have turned aside ..." (1 Tim 1:6-7). Apparently, the way people arrive at "false teacher" is to stray from this instruction, aimed at love and centered on a pure heart, a good conscience, and a sincere faith. So Paul commands Timothy to "fight the good fight" (1 Tim 1:18) by "keeping faith and a good conscience" (1 Tim 1:19). Good teachers, then, aim at love and false teachers aim at ... something else. False teachers are promised (1 John 2:18-19) and prevalent. Their goal is not love, but personal gain. They want to be teachers without regard to the truth of what they're teaching (1 Tim 1:7). They want to be in power without regard to a good conscience or a sincere faith (1 Tim 1:9-11). They don't care about the gospel; they care about themselves and their own gain.

Which brings us back to Timothy's task: teach them not to teach strange doctrines. Because, you see, strange doctrines occur when the gospel is neglected, love is not the aim, and a good conscience and sincere faith is not a consideration. False teaching comes about when it is based on speculation rather than under God's administration (1 Tim 1:4). And, note, that any one of us could neglect love as the primary focus, so keep an eye on yourself. Instruct yourself not to "teach strange doctrines", too.

You Make Me Feel ...

I know a guy who is really mad at God. He has looked around at other believers and found that they appear to have a genuine relationship with God. They know God loves them. They know He is part of their life. He doesn't. He doesn't sense it. He doesn't get a warm feeling from God. So he's ... miffed. My friend is probably not rare. I'd suspect there are more than a few that feel that way to some degree or another.

It's a puzzling dilemma. We believers have God's Word that guarantees us that "God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" (Rom 5:8). How could He say it any more clearly? "While we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son" (Rom 5:10). One of our best known verses says, "God loved the world in this way; He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life" (John 3:16). "Does God love me?" Every last believer can say with absolute, complete, total certainty, "Yes! Beyond all doubt!" And, yet, more than a few struggle with it. Why? Because ... we don't feel it. So why is it that we think we can determine "truth" by "feeling it"?

We have a common expression. "You make me feel ..." We might say it a variety of ways. "You make me so mad!" "You make me happy." But what we are saying is that another person is making us ... feel. And that's not -- quite -- accurate. No one reaches into the emotional centers of your being and makes you feel. So how does it work? How do you know, for instance, that your parents or your spouse or a close friend loves you? Because you feel it? Maybe, but it's not because they make you feel it. It's because you are aware of the things they do, the things they say, the nuances and overt actions and all that summed together and it speaks "love" to you. You can see it, so you can feel it. If that's so, why doesn't that carry over to our relationship with God? He sent His Son. He pours out blessings on us. He gives grace -- favor we never earned. He gives us mercy -- protection from the punishment we have certainly earned. He gives us gifts, adopts us into His family, takes our sin and substitutes Christ's righteousness, meets our every need, sustains us day by day ... on and on and on. But we can't see it. No one does more for us that screams "I love you!" and still we question, "Does God really love me?" It isn't a shortcoming on God's part, you see. It's that we don't recognize it, so we don't feel it. The problem isn't on His end; it's on ours.

News Weakly - 8/6/22

Vaguely Disturbing
The story from CBS opens with this: "The House voted Friday to ban semiautomatic assault weapons, as negotiations over police funding legislation continue." "Semiautomatic assault weapons," as it turns out, is a confusing term because "assault weapon" by some definitions necessarily includes "automatic." Herein is my problem. Loosely defining "assault weapon," just like in the 1964 Civil Rights Act that didn't clearly define "sex," can end up morphing into all weapons and we end up wondering why knives, baseball bats, and SUVs aren't banned, too. Oh, and Bibles. People definitely use those to assault people.

Lust in Power
Last week we puzzled over the declaration of emergency in San Francisco over monkeypox. This week, of course, we get the answer (like we didn't know). Despite concerns over monkeypox, they're going ahead with their famous fetish festival. COVID meant isolation; monkeypox means indulge that which is the primary speader. Unlike Hong Kong where they had an annual food expo ... but banned eating anything due to COVID. Clearly our COVID measures were more about what those in power wanted rather than safety since those in power now want to indulge the madness despite the danger.

So far there are about 6,600 people in the U.S. with monkeypox. It now qualifies as a public health emergency. Mind you, it is milder than smallpox, easily preventable. Mind you 99% of all cases are from male-to-male sexual contact. Mind you, if people would stop the behavior that spreads it, it would go away. But, no. Now it's a national emergency. But no one is going to even suggest restricting their sexual contact, at least temporarily, because ... well ... because. That's how stupid we've become.

Turnabout is Fair Play
Just a bizarre story. A man shot a woman in the neck. The bullet passed through her, ricocheted, and came back to kill the shooter. I suppose literal turnabout is fair play.

Injustice Department
Pro-abortionists are afraid of doctors and patients being prosecuted for killing babies. Hasn't happened, but that's their fear. On the other hand, the Justice Department is suing Idaho for banning most abortion in their state as allowed by the 10th Amendment. The "justice system" continues to block abortion laws for a right not found in the Constitution in defiance of the Constitution. What else can we expect from a "justice system" that denies justice?

Assault Weapons
More violence. In the Mirage in Las Vegas, a gun shot three people, killing one. In Gallup, New Mexico, an SUV drove through a parade. Several people including two police officers were injured. When will we ban these dangerous assault weapons that seem to be on a tirade? (And, on a side note, why was the guy behind the wheel of the SUV a "person" rather than the expected "white supremacist"? Because pictures show he was not white. But let's just keep that quiet, right?)

Wait ...
Hang on. We have too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which will kill us all, but breweries are encountering a shortage of CO₂?

It Is What It Shall Bee
In the wake of the Brittney Griner verdict, the Bee headline raved, "Brittney Griner Rewarded With 9 Years Of Not Hearing The U.S. National Anthem." Following the government's lead, a wife proposed a "Household Debt Reduction Act" where she spends thousands of dollars at Target. True story: singer Demi Lovato says she's using "she/her" pronouns again. The Bee suggests it might be because she discovered her car had a flat tire. Then there is the helpful "complete list of problems solved by government spending. You can see that one for yourself.

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

Planning to Fail

It only makes sense. We believe we are right. I mean, why would we think what we think if we didn't think we were right? So we proceed on that premise and argue for our positions because, after all, we're right. The only problem is they also believe they're right and will fight for their positions. And since these positions in the conflict are in opposition, both cannot be right. But that's only a little problem since most of us ignore it and go on with the assumption that our side is right.

Biblically speaking, this isn't a rational position for us to take. Biblically speaking, we ought to anticipate that we're wrong. At least some of the time. Our position shouldn't be "I'm right all the time" but, rather, "I'm pretty sure I'm wrong somewhere. Where might that be?" Why do I make such a bizarre claim? Because of Scripture's dim view of our natural abilities. Way back in Noah's day God said, "The intent of man's heart is evil from his youth" (Gen 8:21). That's not an endorsement. Jeremiah said, "The heart is more deceitful than all else And is desperately sick; Who can understand it?" (Jer 17:9). That's not a positive statement. Paul said that due to Man's sin condition, "they became futile in their speculations" (Rom 1:21). Believing they were wise, "they became fools" (Rom 1:22). He said natural man lacks the capability to understand the things of the Spirit of God (1 Cor 2:14). Not looking good for humans. But then it gets worse. Not only does our sin condition give us diminished capacity, we have further effects from Satan. "The god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving" (2 Cor 4:4). We are, mentally speaking, in real trouble.

We need help. Paul told believers "Be transformed by the renewing of your mind" (Rom 12:2). That's because sin has caused us to be blind to our error. It's not hopeless, but it is a problem. We are not reliable thinkers. We need a reliable truth source. What is that reliable source? Jesus said He was Truth (John 14:6) He said God's Word is truth (John 17:17). The Bible says that Scripture is "profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness" and sufficient to equip God's people "for every good work" (2 Tim 3:16). We need to expect to be wrong. We need to anticipate that some of what we believe is in error. We need to plan to fail in our understanding and thinking and learn to lay it alongside God's Word to figure out what is and isn't true. If you find that Scripture always agrees with your thinking, you can be fairly certain that you're not reading Scripture for what it says because we all need renewing of the mind and there are no exceptions.

Expert

An expert is a person who has a comprehensive and authoritative knowledge of or skill in a particular area. That's what the dictionary tells me. So how do we determine who is an expert? Psychology Today isn't helpful. "Bottom line: We cannot know for sure. There are no iron-clad criteria." Well, now, that's nice. We're looking for those with comprehensive and authoritative knowledge but can't really know whose knowledge we can classify as either comprehensive or authoritative. So what do we do? We look at various factors. Are they respected by their peers? Are they reliable? Do they have a good record of successful performance? And, as you can tell, Psychology Today is right; it's all pretty subjective.

So why is it that they keep telling us we need to believe the experts? And the experts we're supposed to believe happen to be the ones that agree with them. Could it be that they determine "expert" based on who agrees with them? Could it be that "authoritative" and "respected" and "reliable" are simply "Whatever I think it is"? We know that happens sometimes. I knew a climate scientist back in 2005 (remember, when Gore was making the rounds) who said that if the climate did warm, it could be a good thing because lands that are currently unusable could become farmable. They fired him. It is routine on university campuses to eliminate professors and such if they teach against the current mantra. No question of whether or not they're right; it's just not accepted, so they're not "experts." It isn't that unusual for us to reject as authoritative that with which we disagree simply because we disagree.

"The heart is deceitful and desperately wicked" (Jer 17:9). That's what the Bible says. "The mind set on the flesh is hostile to God" (Rom 8:7). That's God's position. "A Natural Man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised" (1 Cor 2:14). That's the biblical evaluation of natural human capability. These (and so much more) do not align with popular culture including popular-culture-saturated Christianity. So they will reject them as unreliable and tell me to get with the program and believe the experts ... who disagree with God's Word, our true (John 17:17) and authoritative (2 Tim 3:16-17) source. That would be an "expert" by Another Standard. The point is not to jettison experts. The point is to be sure your "experts" meet a valid standard.

Not a Little Something

All world religions aim to make their disciples good enough to get to heaven. All, that is, but one. While behavior determines ultimate destiny in all other religions, something else is at work in Christianity. All other worldviews count on you to do the right thing; Christianity doesn't. That's because a fundamental premise of Christianity is that you, on your own, are entirely incapable. And that's not hyperbole.

Jesus said it. "I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing" (John 15:5). Look at that. He didn't say, "You're limited in what you can do." He didn't say, "There's not a lot you can do." He said, "Apart from Me you can do nothing." That's not a little something. Now, maybe we could mitigate that. That's not what He meant. That kind of thing. But Paul said of God in his speech to the Athenians "in Him we live and move and exist" (Acts 17:29). Or, in the negative, "Without whom we do not live, move, or exist." He told the Colossians, "He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together" (Col 1:17). Nothing exists without Him. He told the Romans, "From Him and through Him and to Him are all things" (Rom 11:36). He is the source, the conduit, and the endpoint of everything. "Apart from Me you can do nothing" was not hyperbole. It was simple fact.

Whether we are rank heathens or dedicated believers, we're generally pretty sure we're doing okay. We're not bad people. We're pretty good. Comparing ourselves among ourselves, we can always find people worse than we are and we're not so bad. Christ classified that as "nothing." Our only hope is in Him. Our only option to get beyond "nothing" is to remain in Him. Without Him we're not a little something; we're nothing.

I Like This Group

Let's see if I can write something that won't outrage Dan. (Yes, I'm exaggerating. He's not actually outraged over everything I write.) There is a Christian music group that I find myself liking more and more. You may have heard of them. They are a band from Canada called Downhere. The lead singer and guitarist gained some notariety a couple years ago for doing the singing for the 2018 movie, Bohemian Rhapsody, the story of Freddie Mercury. Rami Malek played Freddie Mercury (and won an Oscar for it), but Marc Martel was his singing voice because of his remarkable similarity to Mercury's voice. They write most of their own stuff and I've been impressed with their lyrics.

The first song I heard from them was My Last Amen. It's about this strange sensation we Christians can experience where, in the midst of the real world, we get a sense of another, better place. The second verse says

I could swear I have two hearts
One to stay, one to depart
This sad, tragic kingdom

And it burns me down to the core
Because I know
there's so much more
It's just a pale reflection

So they long for that vague but better place where finally they will encounter perfection -- the last prayer is answered and "Amen" -- let it be so -- will be so for eternity. Like Paul's "For me to live is Christ and to die is gain" (Php 1:21). I love that.

But they seem to keep hitting the right lyrical note, as it were. Their How Many Kings? asks what human king would do for his people what God has done for us? In Let Me Rediscover You they long to constantly reconnect with God. Here I Am urges us to always be ready to hear His voice and answer, "Here I am," ready to serve because He enables us to do so. You're Not Alone reminds us that God will never leave us nor forsake us -- we're never alone.

One of my favorite singers years ago was Steve Taylor. He said the tough things. He took on politicians who pandered to the Christians without being Christian (It's a Personal Thing) and Christians who demand you be "just like us" (I Want To Be A Clone). He addressed those who find sin perfectly suitable (Whatever Happened to Sin?) and modern culture (Meltdown at Madam Tussaud's). He even pointed fingers at himself in Cash Cow while pointing out the error of Prosperity theology. He had the courage to sing the truth, sing it well, and pull no punches. Downhere does the same with Something Heavenly when they sing, "I'm so far from what I wanna be. Oh I really am my own worst enemy." And in The Problem. They ask what grand conspiracy is causing the problems in this world and conclude, "The problem with this world ... is me."

Started by a couple of pastor's kids in a Bible college, Downhere derived its name from their mission. "Our name Downhere implies that we're going to be real people on and off the stage – not hiding in the pastor's study before and after the concert," they explain. "We want to hang out with people, shoot hoops with people, pray with people ... and we consider all of that an act of worship." I like that. And I appreciate their ministry.

The Reality of Denying Reality

Humans have been trying to build a "theory of everything," a theory that explains what we know. In the 18th century the big thing was "modernism." Modernism was the idea that we cannot know things in themselves and that objects of knowledge must conform to our faculties of representation. Modernism preferred science to faith and argued against God, immortality, even origins. We would discover everything by means of science and technology. By the mid 20th century, the Modernism experiment was a bust. Science had failed to provide all the answers. It was time for something more. Enter Postmodernism.

It is, in fact, not possible to define Postmodernism. That's simply because the premise of Postmodernism is an absolute faith in relativism. There is no "metanarrative." A metanarrative is a statement about the truth of everything. Postmodernism argued, instead, for deconstruction. We can't really know anything. So words, for instance, mean what you want them to mean à la Humpty Dumpty. And words are simply symbols for ideas, so ideas mean just what you want them to mean. Thus, if Postmodernism is the deconstruction of meaning, defining Postmodernism beyond "the deconstruction of meaning" becomes pointless and any attempt to dispute or defend the concept is self-defeating since it can only mean what you want it to mean.

Of course, you might see the problem. This absolutely ludicrous philosophy that cannot by definition make a truth claim is now the truth upon which all our modern nonsensical "truths" are built. Love is sex. Marriage is some sort of joining -- undefined. Male and female are social constructs. Racism is no longer built on the dictionary definition, but has rebuilt the dictionary to mean something else. Disagreement is hate. Most recently, recession is rebuilding the economy. And on and on. But, most pointedly, since all words and ideas mean whatever you want, it is perfectly suitable to argue the opposite if that's what you want it to mean in your case. So double standards abound because that's how it works. In a postmodern world, for instance, you can redefine "Judicial Branch" to mean "Confirm our Positions Branch" and call it good and right. You get the idea.

The problem, then, is that we can no longer communicate. We can no longer have dialog. We can no longer discuss ideas. "Truth" is a spectrum of possibilities ultimately undefined ... except we are pretty sure that ours is the correct definition. Built on a contradiction -- "The truth is you cannot make a truth statement" -- we eliminate the possibility of truth and then assert our own version and call it truth ... which we just said isn't real. Welcome to the reality that is modern America.

Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. (Rom 1:22-23)

I, For One, Am Glad

Paul described our original problem this way.

They exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. (Rom 1:25)

We are the creature. And we tend to make ourselves the standard by which all things, including God, are judged. So when things don't go our way, we question God's integrity. When things don't happen in the way we think they should, we question God's power. We bad things happen, we question God's love. And when God says things in His Word that we find doubtful, it is His Word we question, not our own perceptions. We, in essence, serve the creature rather than the Creator. Even we who seek to love and obey Him.

We think that God should be just like us. He should see things our way, feel our way, do things our way. God, however, was not unclear. "You thought that I was one like yourself," He said (Psa 50:21). That was a mistake for Israel. It is our own mistake. He is not like us. We have similarities, points of contact, things in common, but He is not like us. He defines love (1 John 4:8) while we can barely do it, let alone define it. Only God is good (Luke 18:19) and we are not (Rom 3:12). "The heart of man plans his way, but the LORD establishes his steps" (Prov 16:9). And, still, we think He's just like us and, in fact, ought to conform to our ideas, expectations, and values.

I, for one, am glad He does not. I'm glad He is omnipotent where I am weak, wise where I am foolish, omniscient where I am ignorant. I'm delighted that He is Sovereign when I have so little control. I am delighted that He knows me inside and out (Psa 139:14-17) despite the fact that I know Him so poorly. I count on His strength, expect nothing but the best from His wisdom, and rest completely on His Sovereignty. I am very satisfied that He is God and not like me. I just need to do the lifelong work of correcting my own misguided understanding on the matter.

News Weakly - 7/30/22

Banning Parents
In an ongoing effort to be sure that parents are deeply involved in their children's lives and education, a Maryland school district has prohibited the staff from telling parents about their students' transgender identity. And elsewhere. In other news, the same district has banned all that "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" nonsense as well. (Hey, haven't I heard teachers complaining that parents aren't involved enough?)

Unclear on the Concept
GOP lawmaker Glenn Thompson of Pennsylvania is getting flak because he voted against the "Disrespect Marriage" Act and three days later attended his son's "gay mirage." Hypocrite! Loser! Are people really that dense? It is one thing to oppose the redefinition of marriage. It is another thing to love your children. Most parents, if their child were to marry someone of whom they didn't approve, would attend the wedding and wish them well. That's hypocrisy? I oppose the principle of transgender, but that doesn't mean I have to be unkind or hateful toward people I encounter who consider themselves such. Are people really that unclear on the concept? Or do they not like the clear evidence that someone may have principles without being hateful?

Double Standards
If you're someone that, say, believes that the 2020 election was rigged, the Democrats would prefer you had no voice. Certainly no public voice. Remember? They tried to set up a "misinformation" control point just for that purpose. Then Hulu announced that, in keeping with its policy of not allowing ads on controversial topics, they wouldn't be allowing ads on abortion or guns. And the Dems went wild. Because of the Democrats' outrage, Hulu has changed to allow the ads that the Dems consider essential to their "core campaign talking points." Hulu must run the ads the Dems consider important but must NOT run those that are deemed offensive ... to their goals.

Conveniently Absent
An enlightening article from The Guardian finally explains why anyone could possibly be anti-abortion. It's because they're too stupid to know that their reasons are a lie and the real reason is that they're opposed to sexual promiscuity. I thought it was really odd because this physicist who wrote the article never once mentioned the biggest reason -- that it is wrong to kill an innocent human being. So does that mean that we're too stupid or he is?

Canceled
Justice Clarence Thomas isn't a popular judge these days because, well, he's against killing innocent human beings, and that will never do. For the past 11 years Thomas has given seminars at George Washington University Law School. That ends this fall. Students said he was "actively making life unsafe for thousands of students on our campus" and petitioned to have him silenced. They win. America loses.

You're Entitled to the Rights We Allow You
Students at Seattle Pacific University have decided to sue over LGBTQ exclusion. The private, Free Methodist Church university has attempted to maintain their alliance with, you know, the church, but the students demand that they stop it. So, students who choose to go to a self-proclaimed religious university with a prior understanding of the rules get to dictate to the school what their policies will be? How about "Just don't go there"? Not a chance. This is America; you will not be allowed your religious freedoms here if we have any say.

Puzzling Problem
San Francisco has declared a health emergency over the rising numbers of monkeypox cases. I don't know what makes it a special problem in San Francisco.

Pay No Attention to That Man Behind the Microphone
Investopedia says the "rule of thumb is that two consecutive quarters of decline in a country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) constitute a recession." We have had just that. President Biden assures us we are not in a recession. Who are you going to believe? The economy or the president?

Everyone Knows That
Democrats have introduced a bill to put term limits on the Supreme Court. Why? Because of a "legitimacy crisis." Obviously, because 6 judges voted to remove Roe v Wade. Now the court is "illegitimate." To fix the "crisis," it is necessary to remove those judges with whom they disagree, because the only way for the Supreme Court to be legitimate is to have it be compliant to their positions.

Taking a Bee-ting
Joe Biden signed into law his "Economic Integrity Protection Act" better known as the "Don't Say Recesson" bill. They have to do something so people won't notice inflation, economic decline, reduced trade, drop in GDP, and climbing prices. The Bee has a handy infographic to help us understand if we are in a recession. And another for several other word refinements.

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

Got To Believe

There are some really important, albeit really unpopular, things we must believe.

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

No one does good, not even one. (Rom 3:12)

The intention of man's heart is evil from his youth. (Gen 8:21)

For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. (Rom 8:7)

Just a smattering of a continuous message broadcast in Scripture. Sin is a problem. A big problem. If you don't believe that -- if you don't recognize the very real condition you are in -- you will not accept a remedy and cannot survive.

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

If, while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by His life. (Rom 5:10)

If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. (Rom 10:9)

God loved the world in this way; He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. (John 3:16)

If you believe there is a serious sin problem, then you will be delighted to learn there is a serious sin remedy. God sent His Son to save us. God provided it in His Son's death on our behalf. All you have to do is believe. Believe it.

What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? (Rom 8:31)

For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Rom 8:38-39)

I will never, never leave you nor forsake you. (Heb 13:5).

The outcome is certain. Believe it. If you grant that we are sinners and you believe that God provided the answer in Christ's death and resurrection, taking on our sin and giving us new life, you can believe that nothing can separate us from the love of God. Believe it. Even if sometimes you don't feel it.

In His Presence

Psalm 16 is a Miktam of David. ("Oh, thanks, Stan, that clears things right up.") "Miktam" is a word of unclear meaning, but the opening line is not. "Preserve me, O God, for in You I take refuge" (Psa 16:1). I don't know if you grasp the magnitude of that statement. David doesn't say, "In Your taking good care of me I take refuge." He doesn't say that his refuge is in comfort or good circumstances. He says it is simply in God. He says, "I have set the LORD always before me; because He is at my right hand, I shall not be shaken" (Psa 16:8). God's presence, God's existence is enough.

David offers a rare point of view here. We are often quick to praise God for the pleasant things He supplies. We're happy to be grateful when we find comfort or protection. We'll thank Him for a meal, but will we do the same for lack of food? David finds his comfort in the mere presence of God. But he also tells why, an important secret, I think. "You make known to me the path of life; in Your presence there is fullness of joy; at Your right hand are pleasures forevermore" (Psa 16:11). Ah, now, see? "Pleasures forevermore." That's the kind of language we recognize. But where are those pleasures? "At Your right hand." Where is the fullness of joy? "In Your presence." You and I both know self-professed Christians who seem to think their task in life is to locate those people who are having fun and put an end to it. God, on the other hand, offers "fullness of joy" and "pleasures forevermore." Where? In His presence. Right where we need to be.

The Problem of Ideas

There is noise in the public arena either praising or, much, much more often, crucifying the concept of "Christian nationalism." Christian nationalism is the belief that one's nation should pass laws that reflect Christian values. Christian nationlism in America is the pursuit of keeping America a "Christian nation." Of course, the loudest part of the nation is violently opposed to God in the public square and just won't have it. They deem it radical, dangerous, and worse.

I'm not writing here about Christian nationalism -- for or against. What I'm looking at is the underlying problem. Americans today like to tell us that we can have our religion in private, but just don't force it down their throats. Of course, in all honesty, forcing Christianity down someone's throat is just plain stupid, but neither those who try it or those who complain seem to notice. So, no, it makes no ssense to force Christianity. It does make sense to encourage moral behavior and sometimes to pass laws that might concur with Christian values because the values are good for the people, but, in truth, morality and legality are not always in sync. We don't always need laws to enforce what's right. Further, the idea of a "Christian nation" is just plain silly. We are saved by faith, not by laws. And Christ died for people, not nations. And, ultimately, we will never have (this side of heaven) entire nations following Christ (the definition of "Christian") nor will anyone in the country be saved by obeying Christian laws. So, no, we don't want to force Christianity down people's throats. And as everyone sighs a sigh of relief, we run headlong into the problem. If not Christian values, whose?

Most of society concurs; Christians are not supposed to force their beliefs onto anyone else. Especially on government. It appears, however, that Christianity is the only one that is thusly limited. It's okay for pro-aborts to force their beliefs on the world or LGBTians to force their beliefs on the rest of us. We all need to bow to "woke" thinking and submit to atheist preferences. Even the "Left" religion is happy forcing their beliefs on the rest of us, by force of law if at all possible. Oh, mind you, I'm not complaining that they -- all of them -- do this. It's what you would expect from any firmly-held beliefs. What's odd, however, is this double standard of "You Christians are not allowed to influence the world around you with your beliefs" followed with "but we are and we will." At the bottom line, we all share a host of difficulties we must deal with. Crime, punishment, drugs, disease, poverty, racism, sexism, on and on ad infinitum. These aren't Christian problems; they're everyone problems. So we -- everyone -- have to deal with them. The question is, how? So we work out some sort of approach to a problem, but how do we do that? We do it from our underlying presuppositions. If, for instance, you believe that all people are basically good and criminals are just good people in bad circumstances, you will work to improve their circumstances to bring out their goodness. If you believe that people are basically evil, your approach will obviously be quite different. We all work from our basic assumptions. And, oh, yeah, aren't those the things that we just determined were not supposed to be forced on anyone? Oh, no, we didn't. We determined that Christian basic assumptions were not allowed, but anyone else can force theirs. So ... what if Christian beliefs are right?

There's the problem. We're not going to allow Christian beliefs in the public square. We are going to allow just about everything else. Just about. Whoever can bring the most weight to bear will be allowed to bludgeon the rest into basic assumptions. But surely you can see that forcing your beliefs on me is just as wrong as me forcing my beliefs on you. So why do you get the pass? What we should be looking at is which ones are right. And, of course, that won't be allowed (2 Cor 4:4).

Propitiation

... whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. (Rom 3:25-26)

An important text. You can see from the outset that it's the middle of a thought. You know, "all have sinned" and such, where we are "justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus" (Rom 3:23-24) ... which is the "whom" to whom that "whom" is referring at the beginning of the text above. It says that God displayed Jesus Christ publicly as "a propitiation." Now, just what is a "propitiation"? We have a related term -- propitious. It originally meant "favorably disposed toward someone." Propitiation is "atonement" with its root idea being to "appease." That is, the idea is to appease someone for an offense given. To take away wrath.

Well, now, that won't do, right? I mean God isn't a God of wrath, right? He's a God of love. He smiles down on us. We don't need some ancient version of an angry god. At least, that's what we tell ourselves. Scripture says something different. The text above is in the third chapter of Paul's letter to Rome. That letter set out in the first chapter to explain how "the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth" (Rom 1:18). He spent most of three chapters laying out our big, big problem of sin -- a problem for which God is rightly angry. So, when we get to verse 21 of the third chapter, we're left standing with a load of God's wrath over our shoulders and no way out.

This is when we arrive at "propitiation." No one is justified by the law, Paul says (Rom 3:20), but God's righteousness is manifested apart from the law (Rom 3:21). God's righteousness is manifested by justifying those who believe "through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" (Rom 3:24). How does God justly declare the unjust just? Because Jesus paid the price ("redemption"). In that, God's just wrath was propitiated. In Christ's shed blood (Rom 3:24) God was appeased. One of the most amazing parts of that reality is that God initiated it (Rom 3:25).

A lot of people get a little uptight about "propitiation." They don't want to think about an angry God. God, on the other hand, declares it. Demands it. And in that righteous anger we discover a truly remarkable gospel -- Good News. We discover a just God who justifies (Rom 3:26) people who were without hope. I need that propitiation.

Why Didn't God Just Prevent Evil?

Theodicy is the area of Apologetics defined as "the defense of God's goodness and omnipotence in view of the existence of evil." The defense has been ongoing for a long time in Christendom. We have works from Iranaeus (120-200 AD) and Augustine (354-430 AD), but it has been even longer than that. The very first challenge to God's goodness was in the Garden of Eden when the serpent asked, "Did God say ...?" Consider the problem. If the biblical God exists, He is omnipotent and omniscient and loving and morally perfect and would, therefore, have the power to eliminate all evil. Evil exists. Therefore, the biblical God does not exist.

Now, there are problems with this argument. For instance, if such a God does not exist, on what do we base our assessment of evil? That is, if "no God," then "no evil." Evil is just an opinion, a preference. What is our popular term today? A social construct. And -- poof! -- the problem goes away. But that's not a satisfactory answer for anyone. God had to have known that Adam and Eve would sin and had to have been able to prevent it, so why didn't God just prevent evil? The ultimate problem with that objection would be "What if that biblical God had a good reason for allowing evil in the world?" Is there an answer that will retain God's nature while allowing for evil? I think so. I even think it's biblical.

First, let's look at what we know. God created the world (Gen 1:1); Man sinned (Gen 3:1-7). Thus, God did not cause sin; He made a good world (Gen 1:31). Beyond that, we know that God cannot be tempted by evil and He Himself tempts no one (James 1:13). He made everything for its purpose, including the wicked for the day of trouble (Prov 16:4). He works all things according to His counsel (Eph 1:11) while taking no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezek 33:11). There are people destined to disobey the word (1 Peter 2:7-8) and people pre-designated for condemnation (Jude 1:4). And we know that God holds people responsible for their evil while using it for good (Gen 50:20). Ultimately, though, God gives His reason for allowing evil. It is His will to make known His power and wrath (Rom 9:22). If we deny any of this, we deny any reliable source of knowing anything else about God beyond our own meager feelings.

There is the other side to consider. Let's say that God did prevent all sin. In this case, we must first acknowledge that Man would have had no free will. If you cannot choose to sin, you have no free will. Maybe very limited free will at best. Beyond that, what would we know about justice if there would be no injustice? What would we know about grace or mercy if none would ever be applied? What would we know about love without hate as a contrast? What would we know about forgiveness if we were never forgiven? In fact, in so many aspects of God, we would be clueless. It would be an anemic view of God.

In Romans 1 Paul explains that the gospel reveals the righteousness of God. He takes three chapters to unpack the magnitude of the problem of sin and then goes on to uncover the heights of this salvation we've been given, this mercy and grace we've received, this love that we've been overwhelmed with. If we had not sinned, none of that would be possible. Conversely, having sinned and received all this, the response to God is much greater. Jesus said, "He who is forgiven little, loves little" (Luke 7:47). That would certainly stunt our love for Him and blind us to the vastness of His love for us. The presence of evil is a contrast that makes the glory of God shine. I think that's actually a good reason for Him to allow evil.