Going to Church

More than 30 years ago I worked with a guy in the Air Force who was a fellow believer. I found out he and his family attended the Methodist church near his home. "How long have you been Methodists?" I asked. "Oh, we're not," he answered. It turned out that he had an unusual approach to church. Being in the Air Force, we all knew that we were ultimately transients. The longer we were in, the more we would move. And those of us who were Christians would have to find new churches wherever we went. Well, this guy had his own method. He would, by choice, attend the church nearest his home that he could attend. He figured his aim in going to church was to minister rather than be ministered to. He figured that more neighbors would be in that church than one farther away. He figured it would be easier to invite an unchurched neighbor to that church than one farther away. Church, to him, was ministry.

Sure, there are nuances. I specified, for instance, the nearest church "that he could attend." The closest church to one place I moved to was the Church of Light and Love which touted itself as a "Christian church" but operated on the premise that "if God is love, then love is God and we'll love ... in the modern, secular, 'let's have a lot of sex together' way." Not one to attend. Not a Christian church. That is, some are too far out to attend. So there were some additional concerns, but the principle remains. We like to attend where we are comfortable and fed, but that's not the purpose of the church. It's not even the aim of the Christian life. The Christian life is a crucified life (Gal 2:20) and the aim of the church is the building up of the body of Christ (Eph 4:12). There is an interesting verse in the passage in Ephesians where Paul is speaking to this directly. While explaining the purpose of the church, he says, "Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into Him who is the head, into Christ" (Eph 4:15). Notice the direction. We are to grow up into Christ how? Not "Others speaking to us in love," but us speaking truth in love. As we speak the truth, with love as our aim (1 Tim 1:5), we grow up into Him. That is to be our purpose, of course, and it is accomplished by speaking, rather than being spoken to, by ministering rather than being ministered to.

My friend way back then did not see this as a command, a divine instruction for all believers. He didn't think that all godly people ought to attend the nearest church. He did it because he thought he ought to. I came away considering the principle. Are we in it to minister or to be ministered to? Are we part of a church so we can be fed, or so we can feed others? Which is more biblical? I have retained the unshakeable notion that we are to be ministers more than "the ministered to" whether it's by attending the closest or by ministering wherever we attend. I'm pretty sure our American "consumer church" lifestyle is not what the Savior had in mind.

More

Paul commanded Timothy "first of all" in the process of fighting the good fight (1 Tim 1:18) to pray (1 Tim 2:1-2). To pray a lot. To pray in many ways. To pray for everyone and especially for those in authority. Why? Today a lot of people are skeptical. Pray? In crisis or in calamity people will say, "Our prayers are with them" and others will complain. "What good is prayer?" As it turns out, prayer is amazingly effective. Prayer can do ... more.

According to Scripture, God is able to do more than you ask (Eph 3:20). "Oh, I don't know," some might say, "I can ask a lot." Okay, but, in fact, that Scripture says that God can do far more than you ask. "Really?" you question. "I mean, I have some pretty big requests." Maybe, but that text actually says He is able to do "far more abundantly than all" you ask. The terms are superlatives. He is able to do more, far more, abundantly more, beyond all we ask. Still, the skeptic answers, "I don't know. I have a pretty vivid imagination." Fine, let's go there. He "is able to do far more abundantly beyond all that we ask or think." If you can dream it, He can exceed it. The God to whom we pray is able to exceed our wildest dreams. Why pray? Because that's the God to whom we pray.

Then, having answered every one of our objections as to His capability, Scripture takes it one step further. We are to pray for everyone because He can answer, but He does so "according to the power at work within us." Yes, He is "out there." Yes, He is Transcendent. So, sure, it sometimes feels like it's "pie in the sky," religious talk. It's not. It's here and now. It's real and actual and in place. God has the ability to exceed your wildest imagination when you ask, and He does it by using power already working in you. Present. Imminent. People can dismiss the power of prayer all they want. They can tell you that praying for people in trouble, in need, in authority is all nonsense. God thinks otherwise. God can do exceedingly more than we can ask or even imagine. We should pray ... especially for His glory (Eph 3:21).

News Weakly - 9/17/22

Another Fine Example
The headline read "Watering while Black: anatomy of a pastor’s Alabama arrest. Well, sort of. A neighbor told police a suspicious person was in a neighbor's yard, but it was just one of the neighbors watering plants while the other one was away. The man arrested was a black pastor. And the "arrest" was more of a "questioned and detained in place" until he was released. Sure, problematic, but no one was charged and no one was booked. Now, of course, the pastor is suing the officers and the town. Because that's what good Christians do; they sue for every last dime they can get. Just like Jesus. Oh ... wait.

What's Good for the Gander ...
Hillary Clinton appeared on CNN to explain why the DOJ should certainly pursue Donald Trump over improper handling of government documents. "He's not president." True, but she never was and didn't face the DOJ over her email scandal. Hunter Biden was never president and gets a pass on his apparently illegal activities abroad. Will they be willing to apply the same standard to DOJ investigations of their actions?

Domestic Threat
Kamala Harris warned about "very dangerous" domestic threats in the U.S. such as those who think the 2020 election was stolen as well as the activist court. Mind you. The Supreme Court doing their job is a fundamental component in the Constitution -- at the core of this nation. Why isn't demeaning and attacking the Supreme Court just as much an assault on this nation as any protest at the Capitol building?

Welcome to Our Lobby
The president is giving more of your tax dollars to biomanufacturing to make our lives better with bioscience. He's not doing it by congressional means as the Constitution provides. He's doing it by divine mandate executive order. I wonder how much the lobbyist(s) paid.

More What?
Eric Trump said, "There's no one who's done more for Christianity than Donald Trump. No one." I, of course, am confused. I'm thinking ... oh, I don't know ... like Jesus Christ for starters, followed immediately by John, Peter, Paul, and the rest of the Apostles. I'm thinking of the Church Fathers and the greats throughout church history. I'm thinking of all those who actually undergird and live it in public, those who have not brought shame to the name of Christ. I'm thinking ... the boy is confused.

Light in Darkness
Perhaps not my usual "News Weakly" fare, but I think you would be encouraged to read about the funeral (and life) of Eliza Fletcher, the young teacher kidnapped and murdered in Memphis.

Dream Big
The Washington Examiner is reporting that Lindsey Graham intends to propose a national abortion ban. Graham is from South Carolina which just failed to pass a "near-total abortion ban" along with other states who are blocked by vote or court from doing the same. I would argue that America is too far down the hole to recover by democratic vote. The American public will no longer tolerate protecting innocent human beings; that's too much to ask. And there is no point to a "Everyone must come to Christ in faith" law.

Believe the Science
In what appears to be an ongoing category of News Weakly, COVID cases, they tell me, are way down. So are monkeypox cases. So in the case of a pandemic, the best thing to do is to prevent the circumstances in which someone might contract the virus ... or don't. Let's look at it another way. They didn't want to stigmatize men who had sex with men, so they did nothing for prevention of monkeypox. Apparently they didn't mind at all stigmatizing work and social interaction for COVID. Let's look at it another way. Where's the science? Because I think you and I have been bamboozled here.

Crazy Politician
That Mike Pence ... what a guy. He suggested that safeguarding innocent children "is profoundly more important than any short-term politics." That's no way to get elected. It's true, but it isn't "politically correct" (in the most literal use of the phrase). Either we believe in the sanctity of human life or we do not. Politics is not the question.

With Friends Like This ...
Thanks to the Fed raising the interest rates, mortgage rates have exceeded 6% this week for the first time since the market busting turn of 2008. Or, to put it another way, it will be much harder for lower to middle-class people to buy a house. Another fine effort on the part of our government to lighten our money woes. Please ... stop helping. We can't afford your help.

The Father of Lies
The vote on the falsely named Respect for Marriage Act has been delayed in the Senate because they can't find 10 Republicans to obliterate the meaning of marriage like that. I'd argue that real "marriage equality legislation" would say "same-sex marriage is not equal to marriage," but no one is asking me.

News You Can Beelieve
In politics, a report is out that Biden has seen the outpouring of love for the Queen Elizabeth II and is considering dying to boost his approval ratings. On the immigration debacle, a Martha's Vineyard resident called police to report an hispanic in the area not operating a leaf blower. Meanwhile, the Obamas are taking it in stride, building new cages to hold arriving migrants.

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

Which Are You?

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus gave what we call "the Beatitudes." "Beatitude" refers to that which is "beatific" -- that which is blissfully happy. "Beatitude" refers to supreme blessedness. So Jesus laid out those who are supremely blessed -- the poor in spirit, those who mourn, the gentle, those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, the merciful, the pure in heart, peacemakers, the persecuted ... wait ... go back ... peacemakers?

"Blessed are the peacemakers," Jesus said, "for they shall be called sons of God" (Matt 5:9). That's interesting. Being called "sons of God" is a supreme blessing. And not everyone gets it. If you are not a peacemaker, don't count on it. Not everyone gets called a son of God. So it would be important to know just what is this thing called "peacemaker"?

In classical Greek it referred to an ambassador sent on a mission to make peace. The text in Matthew suggests someone who is a "peace-worker" -- someone who works at making peace. In Jesus's terms, it would include both working at peace between people who are in conflict with each other -- either two other people or the peacemaker and someone else who is conflict with them -- as well as people who are in conflict with God -- making peace person to person and peace between a person and God.

So, it begs the question. Peacemakers are those who actively pursue peace; peace between people and peace with God. A ministry of reconciliation, if you will. Would you classify yourself as someone who does that, or are you more of the type that likes to stir the pot, poke the bear, ruffle feathers, disturb the waters? (We sure have a lot of metaphors for making trouble, don't we?) Are you one aiming to be included in being called "sons of God" or not? Are you a troublemaker or a peacemaker? I guess that would all depend on whether or not you want to be one of those who are supremely blessed.

Two Unbelievable Things

Romans 1-3 is an explanation about why God is angry at all humans for "ungodliness" -- broken relationship with God -- and "unrighteousness" -- broken relationships with people. For most of three chapters he lays out the case against us, and it is not good. At the last part of the third chapter he turns to the solution -- justified by faith apart from works -- and explains in the 4th chapter how it has always been so, all the way back to Abraham and beyond. We are declared righteous by redemption in Christ (Rom 3:24). It's the only way. So in chapter 5 he explains some of the benefits.

Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand; and we exult in hope of the glory of God. And not only this, but we also exult in our tribulations, knowing that tribulation brings about perseverance; and perseverance, proven character; and proven character, hope; and hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us. (Rom 5:1-5)

"Therefore," meaning, because we are saved by faith apart from works. Therefore, what? Those who have been justified by faith have peace with God. Now, that may not sound very big to you, but I suspect that's because you, like most of us, tend to think that we're pretty deserving. We're pretty special. God ought to be at peace with us. If so, you missed the point. God is not at peace with humans; He is angry. Justifiably so. If we understood how far gone we were -- how much of an enemy of God (Rom 5:10) we were -- "peace with God" would come across as astounding. Beyond that, unless you're one of those rare (read "nonexistent") folks who has arrived at sinless perfection, "peace with God" given our constant, ongoing sin problem, should be even more amazing. Not small. Not "nice." More like "unbelievable!!" But true. We have, he says, peace with God. We have, he says, access to His "unmerited favor" -- His grace. We "exult in the hope of His glory." We, who were enemies of God.

Most people think of the next thing as more unbelievable. "Not only this," Paul writes and explains that not only can we exult in the hope of the glory of God, we can exult in tribulation! "Yes! Yippee!! Oh, wait. What?" He explains why. Suffering produces the ability to keep going -- perseverance. Perseverance produces a character that has been tested, proven, honed. And tribulation-honed, enduring, proven character produces hope. It is a sure hope, not a wish, because of the love God has poured out -- dumped on us -- through the Holy Spirit. Sure, it seems weird, but it is not only true, it is practical. He isn't saying merely "God will get you through tough times." No. He is saying that and "God will use them for your benefit, your perfecting." Suffering for your benefit. That's what he says.

If you understand our original standing with God -- a death sentence -- then this justification by faith has utterly amazing ramifications -- two unbelievable outcomes. Without having earned it, you have peace with God. Without having earned it, you have God's favor. In fact, even though you will continue to violate godliness and righteousness in this life, you retain both peace and grace with God. And in this life, as you face absolutely certain troubles, none of them are sufficient to harm you. Instead, they are used by God to improve you, to shape you, to give you character and hope. A sure hope. Two utterly unbelievable things that we can believe and count on and enjoy. Who said doctrine wasn't practical?

Come, Let Us Reason Together

In Christendom there have always been voices that argued, "Everyone gets saved in the end." It's called "Universalism" and, as it turns out, it is not not biblical. That is, while a lot of people have pet doctrines devised primarily from personal preferences, this one can be traced to the Bible. But ... is it true?

One of the most puzzling texts that we find on this is in Paul's first letter to Timothy.

For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe. (1 Tim 4:10)

Now, remember, we want to be true to the text, not simply our traditions. So what do we make of the phrase that says that God "is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe"? Well, the obvious first choice is "If He is the Savior of all people, then all people are saved. End of story." But most believers will balk at that, primarily from the rest of Scripture that includes a lot about eternal torment. Jesus spoke more about that than He did about heaven. It is throughout the New Testament, literally from Matthew through Revelation. If all of that is wrong, then we have a real problem. But what about the text? Isn't that what it says? I would argue, "Not quite." If Paul intended to convey that God is the Savior of all men, then what does the next phrase mean? In what sense is it "especially of those who believe"? If we're all saved, how is "those who believe" in any sense special? That doesn't make sense.

So, those who hold to the whole of Scripture will argue, "No, it can't mean Universalism because the rest of Scripture is quite clear that not all are saved. Jesus was exceptionally clear on that (Matt 7:13-14)." These, then, most commonly add a word to the text (or, rather, to the intent) -- "potentially." Paul is saying here that God is the potential Savior of all men, but the actual Savior of those who believe. You see, then, how they incorporated that "especially of those who believe" into their argument. It is special for those who believe because they are actually saved. I'd say a solid majority see it this way. My only problem is, if Paul intended to say that God was the potential Savior of all men but didn't actually save all men, then the first phrase is meaningless ... at best. To the majority (those who do not believe), He isn't the Savior at all. Like the ponzi schemer who tells you, "Invest with me and I will make you rich" and, in the end, makes no one rich because he meant "potentially." I have a problem with that. Maybe that is the explanation, but I have a problem with it.

There is another possibility. Consider. Just two chapters before Paul used the same word. "Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control" (1 Tim 2:15). Now, clearly, Paul is not talking about a different means of salvation for women and men. "Men are saved by faith, but women become right with God by means of having babies." Nonsense. That's why the NASB translates it "women will be preserved through the bearing of children." "Saved" doesn't always mean "saved from sin," "saved from God's wrath," that kind of "saved." It can mean "saved" in any sense. So what if Paul is saying, "God is the Savior of all men" in the sense that God saves all men in a general sense? God gives all of us life, all of us breath, allows all of us to live. "In Him we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28). That kind of "save." Preserved. Continue to live. In this case, that "especially" takes on a different meaning. God preserves the life of all mankind, but saves eternally believers. He saves all in the physical, temporal sense, but saves believers both in the physical and eternal, spiritual sense.

I think that makes the most sense. I think that takes the text itself -- both phrases -- and makes sense. I think that takes all the Scriptures into account and comes to a coherent conclusion. It doesn't nullify Jesus's warnings about eternal torment, for instance, but it still makes this "saved" special for believers. But, hey, that's just me. You may come to a different conclusion. Just make sure it is coherent.

Uncommon Ground

Dan managed to get a word in edgewise recently because he didn't come in as "Dan" or identify himself as Dan. So I allowed the comment, responded, and realized, in his response, who it was. Rather than delete the discussion, I left it and moved on. The question Dan was addressing was whether or not it is possible for people of good faith to disagree. The "disagree" in view here, was, of course, Scripture. His position is that he disagrees with my interpretation. My position is that he disagrees with my position. Oh, not my position on the Scripture at hand; my position on Scripture itself.

I take the outrageous view that all Scripture is breathed out by God. Since God is omnipotent, omniscient, and always right, I would then hold that Scripture is always right, even up to this day. I take the stupendous leap of concluding that Scripture is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. You can quote me on that. Okay, you can quote Scripture on that (2 Tim 3:16-17). So I make this huge jump to conclude that Scripture is useful for telling us what is true, telling us where we are wrong, telling us how to correct that, and telling us how to continue in the right way. Further, I conclude that Scripture is adequate, complete, enough; it is good enough to equip those who wish to follow God for every good work.

Now, clearly, I'm making this stuff out of thin air. Okay, no, that's silly. My mistake isn't fantasy. My mistake is taking it as it is written. My mistake isn't in my understanding of what it says. My mistake is in believing it. Because, you see, the enlightened person (and that isn't a jab at Dan -- that's a jab at all who are the sons of the so-called "Enlightenment" when they tossed Scripture out on its ear and substituted Man's thinking as God) will tell you that Scripture is sort of God's Word. "Sort of" at best. Maybe it contains God's Word. It certainly is not God's Word in a definitive or authoritative sense. It is absolutely not possible that it is God's Word without error. Oh, no. You can't read, for instance, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" and conclude that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. That's just sheer nonsense. Science tells us otherwise. Men like Darwin made it clear. All of history was wrong -- from Moses to Christ to today -- because the universe made the universe and that "God created" stuff was mere myth, a story to illustrate the truth without actually being true. Clear as day. (I wonder why all those people prior to the 19th century didn't see it? Clearly a colossal failure on the part of the Holy Spirit (John 16:13).)

Dan objects to my interpretation of Scripture not simply because I get the meaning wrong. He objects because of this fundamental premise that the Bible is Scripture and all Scripture is breathed out by God and is, therefore, truth (John 17:17). Scripture says it. Jesus said it. Paul said it. The church has held it as true for its entire history. The text of Scripture and the context of Scripture, both internally and externally, holds this to be true. And those who cannot allow God to speak for Himself in the pages of His Word will not tolerate those who do.

Is it possible for people of good faith to disagree? Sure ... as long as we are starting on the same page, beginning with the same basis. Because "good faith" means you're operating with honest intent, but debating the meaning of Scripture without a common agreement of what Scripture is does not allow honest intent. I'm seeking to explain God's Word, and those with a different basic position on Scripture as not God's Word do not have an honest intention. They intend to take down that notion of God's Word as true, authoritative, and sufficient. The notion that we can read and understand and hear God in the pages of the Bible. It is not a "good faith" argument when we come from uncommon ground.
________
In case it is not clear, this post is NOT about Dan Trabue. Dan was the trigger, but not the point. I mean no ill will toward the person and am only talking about the idea that we cannot wholly trust the Bible as God's Word. In this entry, Dan's name was simply a face to give to an entire set of thinking that denies Scripture as God's Word while claiming to believe the Bible. Don't come away thinking Dan is a bad guy. Practice 1 Timothy 2:1.

God Does Not Exist

I was sorry to hear about Britney Spears. Her choices in life have given her a hard life. Lots of unfairness, too. So she declared, "God would not [have allowed] that to happen to me if God existed. I don't believe in God anymore because of the way my children and my family have treated me." I'm saddened but not surprised that another voice has been added to the clamor that claims that the only way God can exist is if He conforms to my perspectives and preferences. Or, to put it more correctly, once again "they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator" (Rom 1:25) ... to their own detriment.

The truth is God does not exist. Well, let's be clear ... not that God. There is no God who bends to the will of His creation, who subordinates His omnipotence to their willingness, who rejects His omniscience and embraces their ignorance, who submits His sovereignty to their rebellion, who replaces His genuine love with their self-serving version. The God who fails or makes mistakes does not exist. Britney (et al.) is right; that God does not exist.

If the biblical God exists, He knows better than His creation does. His creation is not holy, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, perfect, even good. His creation does not define love. His creation does not hold all things together. All things are not by, through, and for His creation. He does not need His creation. Instead, He is always right, always good, always just, always perfect. No sins. No errors. No failures. Even when we intend evil, He intends good (Gen 50:20). So I have to ask (of myself as well as anyone else), "Who are you, O man, who answers back to God?" (Rom 9:20).

Christ came to resolve a serious problem. As sinners -- each and every one of us -- we were under the righteous wrath of God without any means of solving that problem. So, "while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly" (Rom 5:6). At the right time. Not too soon; not too late. "While we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son" (Rom 5:10). It is only here, at His feet, bowing to our Lord, that we can find hope and salvation. And we do. It is not obtained by demanding that God meet our specifications. That's simply idolatry ... and all of us are prone to that error to some degree or another. Simply repentance and faith will do.

Yes, We Forgot

Twenty-one years ago on this day a group of dedicated, evil men flew multiple airplanes into multiple buildings killing thousands of Americans. Nineteen terrorists and some 3,000 other people lost their lives. Anyone who was watching it happen back then will never forget those scenes -- never forget the shock, the horror, the tragedy. Most of us also remember the aftermath, the setting down of all sorts of trivial pursuits to pull together and recover. Like so many soldiers in foxholes, there was a push for many to revisit God. We were joined together by a calamity. And that's all behind us now.

On that terrible day, 19 men hijacked 4 airliners to fly them into 4 targets. Two hit the Twin Towers in New York, one hit the Pentagon, and courageous passengers took down the 4th. I remember the talking heads warning that some 50,000 people might be at work in the World Trade Center at that hour. I knew that each one of those airliners could carry over 120 people each. Who knew how many could have been killed at the Pentagon? Who knew how many more could have died if that 4th plane hadn't gone down? The numbers were staggering. And then ... they weren't. In the North Tower, 1400 people died, and more than 600 died in the South Tower. Many escaped running down stairs, but, for "reasons unknown," there just weren't nearly as many at work that morning than could have been. On the aircraft with potentially more than 500 deaths, only 265 were killed. There were some 125 people killed at the Pentagon. Others -- bystanders, emergency workers, etc. -- died, but as horrible as those numbers were, they were not nearly as bad as the potential numbers.

No, we haven't forgotten the day. There are still tributes, reminders, etc. Of course, no one under the age of 21 remembers it ... because they didn't see it, but a good part of us still do. It's not the day we've forgotten. We've forgotten the unity we experienced with shared tragedy. We've forgotten that we are one people underneath it all. We've forgotten the mercy that God showed by providentially keeping so many from traveling or working that day. Mostly we've forgotten -- us believers -- that God is the God who causes well-being and brings calamity (Isa 45:7). We've forgotten that the Lord gives and the Lord takes away and, in all cases, deserves our worship (Job 1:21). We've forgotten to pray ceaselessly and give thanks in everything (1 Thess 5:17-18). Let the world forget; let us not forget that God is in control.

News Weakly - 9/10/22

Excluded
Jason Aldean is a country music singer. His wife commented on Instagram that she was grateful that her parents didn't change her gender when she was going through her tomboy phase. That's it. The end of Jason's world. Because of his wife's "transphobic" remark his PR firm dropped him. Mind you, she gave no indication she was opposed to adults transitioning (like I would), but that's what we've come to. If you aren't wholly on board so to speak, you're nothing but a hater.

It begs the question. Why is it that all modern calls for "diversity, equity, and inclusion" seem to include the principles of uniformity of thought, unequal treatment for those who don't conform, and exclusion of those who disagree?

Behind the Times
Okay, I may be a little behind the times, but I'm guessing that if I am, some of you may be, too, so I'm sharing this now that I've found it. Apparently the National Archives has added "harmful language alerts" to America's founding documents. The documents with "harmful language" include the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. The "harmful language alert" is intended to warn readers on one hand and to stand as proof on the other that America has always been racist. "But we love America ..." Yeah, right. You keep using that word; I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Relentless Pursuit
Okay, let's look at the truth. The story is from Ireland, not here. The teacher who refused to use preferred pronouns was not arrested for refusing to use preferred pronouns. He was arrested for contempt of court because he went on the school grounds when he was suspended. Okay? Let's keep the facts straight. Not for his Christian beliefs, but for his violating court orders. Clear? Court orders that were made because he refused to violate his Christian beliefs. That such an order was made is a violation of the First Amendment is irrelevant because this is Ireland, and they don't have a First Amendment. He was suspended for holding to his beliefs, but not arrested for them. Still, don't be so sure it can't happen in this country. That "preferred pronouns" precipitated legal action tells you it's not a small thing and is not outside of the realm of possibility here, too.

Believe the Science?
I read about this a long time ago, early on in the COVID fiasco. Now the media is picking it up. Our bodies learn to fight off diseases by producing antigens. Then they remember what they did. If that disease mutates, the body is slow to respond to the new one because it thinks it already knows how to fight it. It's called in medicine "the original antigenic sin." So here's the question. If COVID is mutating and we keep giving people boosters to fight the original COVID, does that end up harming people because their bodies won't learn to fight off the mutations? Lots of data is looking that way. Meanwhile, the UK is reporting that COVID prevention may be causing more deaths than COVID did. As has been the case since the original pandemic of 2020, our response is, "Let's not think about it."

Counting the Cost
The governor of California signed the bill that would raise fast-food minimum wage to $22/hr by 2023. Fast-food restaurants are trying to stop it. Greedy? Not really. Something like 82% of McDonald's stores are owned by small business types -- franchisees. (McD's is aiming for 95%.) The other big fast-food chains have similar numbers. California is not sticking it to the corporations; they're sticking it to the small business owners. Factor in the additional cost of additional raises (How many shift managers will continue to work when their workers now make the same as they do, for instance?) and the cost of doing business goes up. Someone has to pay for it. Some will come out of the small business owners' pockets -- perhaps enough to drive them out -- and the rest will come out of the consumers' pockets, driving up prices everywhere and making $22/hr no longer a living wage ... in a state with perhaps he highest cost of living. Californians thank California.

Because They Care
As of this last Friday, teachers in Seattle have kept students out of classrooms for 3 days while they continue their strike. "We won't allow your children an education until we can coerce the government to give us what we want." Because they care ... oh, about what they want, not about your kids' education.

In Memoriam
Queen Elizabeth II died this week. She was 96. She was a grand woman who, they tell me, was a believer. After all these years as queen, she's now with the King.

Beeware, All Who Enter
With California's new "electric-only vehicles" rule coming and their power grid failing, Newsom is assuring his people that they'll have enough power ... if enough of them move to Florida. Switching to the Trump headlines, did you hear that the FBI is dropping the investigation into his nuclear documents? Turns out all he had was printouts of Hillary's emails. And in shocking ... simply shocking news, Stacey Abrams is claiming that the 2022 midterm elections have already been stolen. Dirty, rotten, anti-democracy Republicans.

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

Why We Pray

Yes, I know. "Hey, didn't you just write this one?" The title, yes. The content, sort of. The message, no. In 1 Timothy Paul tells Timothy to "fight the good fight" (1 Tim 1:18). How? Step One: Pray (1 Tim 2:1-2). Paul said to pray "on behalf of all men," but, specifically, "for kings and all who are in authority." Why are we to pray that way? "So that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity" (1 Tim 2:2). We live in troubling times that demand we do this now. But we need to keep the ultimate aim in view.

"Ultimate aim?" you ask. Yes. Paul goes on to say,

This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. (1 Tim 2:3-4)

Now, let's keep this straight. We are to pray "on behalf of all men" and especially for "all who are in authority" so we may "lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity." Why? Why is that important? What's the aim? Here's why we should pray and why we should pray to obtain tranquil and quiet lives. So that all men may be saved. The Gospel. Evangelism. Salvation for many.

Perhaps when that sinks in you begin to see the message and magnitude. We aren't praying for our own self-interests. We aren't praying so that those in authority will make good decisions. We aren't praying to make our world a better place. We pray so that souls may be saved. That is the ultimate aim. Because, you see, good laws and good decisions don't make good people. Good voting and good elections don't make a good nation. The only thing that makes a nation great or people good is changed hearts and changed lives. That is accomplished by coming to the knowledge of the truth. That is accomplished by being saved. And all of that is predicated on "one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all" (1 Tim 2:5-6).

We are commanded to pray for all people. We are commanded especially to pray for those in charge. (Note it doesn't say, "If they lean Left, because those who lean Right are okay.") We are commanded to pray this way so we can lead tranquil and quiet lives in all godliness and dignity so that people will be saved and come to the knowledge of truth. People are much more influenced by our godliness and dignity than our moral outrage and political activism. This kind of praying -- fighting the good fight -- has a much bigger purpose than "comfortable living." It is, however, the only viable solution to troubled times.

Just Thinking Out Loud

There is no lack of voices that keep telling us that we need to change our beliefs to correspond to modern views. You know, all that "wrong side of history" stuff. "We've progressed," they tell us. "All that 'bible' stuff is outdated and you probably don't understand it anyway." So there are calls to revise our theology and get in line.

The word, "theology," is literally "the study of God," where "theos" refers to God and "logos" refers to "study." We're told to change ours. So here's my question, my musing. If we're supposed to change our theology to align with our societal views, who is the "theos" in that term? Isn't it "societal views" and not ... you know ... God? Or, more precisely, aren't they telling us to replace God with their ideas as god?

Makes sense (Rom 1:21-23, 25; Rom 8:7; Eph 2:1-3; 1 Cor 2:14; 2 Cor 4:4).

How Real is the Threat?

According to President Biden (who is just being the voice of others), there is a threat to this nation today from the inside. What threat? Conservatives. Oh, not all conservatives, to be sure. Any that lean left far enough are fine. No it's those conservatives that, you know, actually believe in conserving principles. Why are they a threat? They "are determined to take this country backwards. Backwards to an America where there is no right to choose, no right to privacy. No right to contraception, no right to marry who you love." Well, now, loss of free choice, of privacy, of access to contraception, of the right to marry whom you love ... that's all bad stuff. So I look around at the conservatives I know or know of and ... huh ... I don't find anyone looking to do that. In fact, I don't find any of those to be principles that used to exist, are now in danger, and ought to be preserved. Strange. (I note that Biden clarified his comments from the speech by saying that those who fail to condemn violence are the problem. Like the folks that called the riots of 2020 "mostly peaceful"?)

Of course, you and I understand that that was all "shorthand." Biden wasn't saying that conservatives actually want that. He was actually being pointed. What is the real threat of genuine conservatives? Well, it apparently actually boils down to two key points. Conservatives are a threat to abortion and same-sex marriage. See? Now we're talking. Yes, conservatives will gladly declare that saving the lives of innocent human beings and defending the traditional, longstanding definition of marriage are indeed two principles worth conserving. At least, to conservatives. For the rest, the thing we need is the right to choose to kill if it gives us what we want and the right to do it privately. No one minds if the means of preventing pregnancy doesn't kill anyone, but if it does, we need the right to do so. And, look, currently no one has the "right to marry who you love." On one hand, you still can't marry two people (or more), marry a relative, marry your pet. We rightly have limits on who people can marry. On the other hand, if marriage actually is the union of a man and a woman for purposes of reproduction and mutual support for life as it always has, then "marry who you love" has always been limited to "man and woman." If the definition carried throughout the ages is actually the correct definition, no one has been prevented from marrying because they are the same sex. That's not marriage. Ultimately, of course, the effect of this "marry the one you love" theme has, as it turns out, devalued marriage. According to government figures in 1931 marriage rates hit their lowest at 8.6 per 1,000 people. There were some high points in the 70's and 80's, but rates started dropping in the 90's and have dropped ever since. In 2018 (the last available record in this report), it hit the lowest -- 6.5. And later reports continue the trend. Among the LGBT crowd, less than 35% have taken advantage of the "marry who you love" option, but the major impact has been that more heterosexual marriages (especially among those of the generation that have grown up with "LGBT" theory) have become what has been termed "monogamish" (a term coined by homosexual couples) -- be faithful as long as they are around; don't bother if they're not. "What difference is it to you if we change your definition?" was always the question they threw at us. Not to me, but to a good part of society, they have managed to redefine marriage into oblivion. And conservatives think marriage -- real marriage -- is worth defending.

Clearly the president (and those who agree) misrepresented the threat. If genuine conservatives have their way, one choice -- killing innocent human beings -- is at risk. One privacy -- the right to kill in private -- is threatened. One contraception -- the contraception that prevents birth by killing an innocent human being -- is in question. And "the right to marry who you love" would not be threatened at all as long as we understand what the phrase means. But none of this matters. In the current societal climate, truth is not at issue. They can't handle the truth. No, "what I want" is their guide. Given the fact that the president of the United States and all who agree with him consider those who disagree on abortion and same-sex mirage a threat, how long will it be before this attitude becomes a very real threat to those who disagree with them? Some who hold such a view have already lost jobs, status, etc. In some countries it is already a hate crime. For Christians, especially, I don't think it's a foolish question (1 Tim 3:12).

Last Days Madness

In Paul's second letter to Timothy, he warns about the "last days" (2 Tim 3:1) when ... well ... let's just say that things are going to go very bad. He lists it as "times of difficulty" (2 Tim 3:1) and gives 6 verses (in our Bibles) of description about what these times of difficulty will look like. Paul warns Timothy, "All who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted" (2 Tim 3:12) by evil people and impostors. "But as for you," Paul then says,

continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. (2 Tim 3:14-15)

Catch that, then. "Times are going to go bad," he warned. "People will be evil. You will be persecuted by evil people. But you ... continue in what you have learned and believed." What was that? "The sacred writings." These "sacred writings" are "able to make you wise."

We generally quote the next two verses completely out of context. We leave them standing on their own. I think this context adds support. You know the next two.

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)

I harp on that all the time. Many self-professed Christians disagree. Paul said it was essential and sufficient, but I'm warned not to rely too heavily on those Scriptures. Peter said that Paul's writings were Scripture (2 Peter 3:14-16), but I'm told not to rely too heavily on those Scriptures. Jesus said God's Word is truth (John 17:17), but I'm told not to rely too heavily on those Scriptures.

They tell me it's a matter of interpretation and theirs is right and mine is not. They tell me our Scriptures are not "God's Word," but some man-made thing that may contain "God's Word." Clearly Paul disagreed. Seems obvious to me that Jesus disagreed. And Paul here suggests that the way we believers are going to survive the "last days" that Paul is warning about (which, by the way, sounds like something out of today's news media) is to continue in ... the sacred writings. So, who am I going to believe? Those who are emulating what Paul is warning about in the last days or the Scriptures that we are told are sufficient?

Labor Day, 2022

It's Labor Day, the day we celebrate ... labor. Well, in principle. The truth is we aren't particularly fond of labor in many cases. I know a lot of people -- especially men -- who really don't like to have to work. And for reasons I don't quite understand, we don't celebrate "Leisure Day." Go figure.

Americans, they tell me, work an average of 34.4 hours per week. On the other hand, the U.S. leads in the least number of annual vacations. And we lead with the highest Gross Domestic Product. We may have slacked off a bit, but we're still a nation of hard-working people.

So there is this odd collision of facts. We don't like work ... but we work hard. Why? Theories, I'm sure, abound, but I think it's simply design. When God made Adam, His first act was to assign him ... work (Gen 2:15, 19). Now, one of the consequences of sin was that work became "hard labor" (Gen 3:17), but work is still beneficial. It gives us a sense of purpose, a sense of fulfillment, a sense of accomplishment. It's not all bad. For the Puritans, it was more. They understood hard work to be morally valuable. They even had the concept of "vocation." Notice the prefix to that word. They understood their jobs to be their "calling." They believed they were called to work (Eph 2:10) and that their work was designed to bless others. Whether one was a minister or a shoemaker, work was a ministry to those around.

"Work, work, work" was Governor Lepetoman's (Blazing Saddles) joke, but it was intended as a blessing from God as a means for us to bless others. A younger generation appears to see it as a curse, but God intended it for good. As such, labor ought to be celebrated. To the extent that we agree with God, perhaps we will celebrate workers while we enjoy our leisure today.

Fearless

We live in troubling times. We have a media machine that likes to feed us with constant fear and we have a government that likes to feed us with constant fear and we are consumers, so we tend to have constant fear to some level or another. There are the lower ends who acknowledge it but press on and the upper ends who wear masks while driving alone in a car or hiking a mountain trail. There are threats on all sides, from school shootings and kidnappings of women and children to hate ... from all sides. Political, sexual, religious, economic, racial ... I don't think I have room to complete that list. Too many in our society don't even have a sense of right or wrong. They would as likely shoot you over a cold order of french fries as give you a dime (which won't help much these days with inflation anyway). The reasons to be afraid are many and everywhere -- manifold and manifest.

We all develop coping methods. Some use drugs or alcohol. Some acquire blinders. Some focus on one particular line of things to fear and indulge it fully; even participate. Me? I use a scarcely-used method. It is explained in a pithy little refrigerator-magnet statement my wife put up. It says, simply, "Fearless because He is faithful." David wrote the famous 23rd Psalm. Most of us know it in King James. "Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for Thou art with me; Thy rod and Thy staff they comfort me" (Psa 23:4). Now, "rod" and "staff" are not generally thought of as "pleasant." They tell me that one ("staff") is used to pull a sheep to safety and one ("rod") is used for disciplining sheep. One is used in external danger and the other for dangers the sheep causes. So it is not necessarily the tools that comfort David, the sheep. It is the Presence that uses them. Even in the valley of the shadow of death -- even in evil times -- we have no reason to fear our circumstances. At least, not as long as we are sheep of the Shepherd.

We live in evil times. I suspect humans have always lived in evil times to some degree or other. Ours just looks bad these days because we've become immunized to it and then labeled it "normal." But we don't have to fear. We can be fearless, not because times aren't that bad or we are that good or capable, but because He is faithful.

News Weakly - 9/3/22

Arizona/Nevada Boon
California has had their final hearing. Cars sold after 2035 will have to be electric. Beyond that, 35% of cars sold in the state as of 2026 will be fossil-fuel free. (How do they enforce that? "I'm sorry, Mr. Jones, we just sold our 65% of gas cars. You'll have to buy electric or nothing.") You know the outcome, right? There is no law against buying cars outside of California. Arizona and Nevada are looking forward to the increased car sales. Since the average cost to buy and run an electric car in the U.S. is $10,360 over against a gas car at $8,691, a good portion of middle to lower income people are trying to figure out how they'll pay for their expensive housing and overpriced auto.

Practically Principled
Last year some House Republicans introduced the Life at Conception Act to the House, a bill that would give equal protection for humans in all stages of life. It hasn't gone any further than introduction. Now, however, the LA Times is reporting that it's coming back to bite some Republican candidates. They've had to "recalibrate their antiabortion stance" because America wants to kill babies and they might not get elected this November if they don't agree. In Arizona GOP Senate nominee Blake Masters has scrubbed off all his pro-life rhetoric from his website because being pro-life doesn't help you win elections. It's practical, perhaps, but it's practically murder just the same. That is, being practical doesn't make it any less murder, and if getting elected is more important than retaining fundamental principles of protecting the innocent, then perhaps the Republicans deserve to go down with the Democrats. Dropping principles because they're impractical only makes politicians practically principled.

America Has Changed
Renowned guru and font of wisdom, Ozzy Osbourne, has declared he is moving to the UK because "America has changed." Too many murders. "I'm fed up with people getting killed every day." As we all know, people don't get killed in the UK. Good move, Ozzie. But Ozzie is right. America has changed. We are a culture of death -- in entertainment, in the demand for the deaths of innocent human beings, in the willingness and even eagerness to kill for stupid things like cold french fries, etc. If we can't physically kill, we will do it in other ways like the "cancel culture" or "doxing" or "swatting." You know ... creative killing. And if you are opposed to all this killing, you are on the wrong side of history ... as long as "where we are" is the "right side of history."

Disappointed
On the series, The Expanse, while they stared into the impossible in space, the Christian character was asked, "Do you think God wants us to be here?" I thought she gave the best possible answer. "I'm pretty sure the Scriptures are silent on this." So you can understand my disappointment to read that the National Association of Evangelicals issued a report on what we should be doing about global climate change. I'm pretty sure the Scriptures are silent on global climate change. Sure, our job is supposed to be to "tend the garden" -- to take care of creation -- but it has always been and, beyond that, I'm not at all sure what that has to do with either "global climate change" or "evangelical" -- the Gospel -- except to further dilute the issues.

Then there is Matt Chandler, a pastor in Texas, asked to step down because of "inappropriate texts" to a woman not his wife, thoroughly disqualifying him from biblical pastorship ("one woman man"). (I am heartened that the elders at that church acted swiftly and decisively. Rare these days.) We see another pastor fail; the world sees Christianity and her Savior falter. I am disappointed. (Is that what would be called "understatement"?)

False Identity
If "I identify" is the rule of truth, why did British YouTuber Oli London have to apologize for identifying as transracial? He was assigned "white" at birth but considered himself Korean and had multiple surgeries to look like BTS star Park Ji-min and now realized it was "wrong." What's the difference?

Fast and Expensive Food
Without regard for inflation and the pain it causes those with the lowest wages, California has passed its "FAST Act," a law that allows workers and unions to set wages up to $22/hr on fast-food chains. No other types were included. McDonald's is warning that it will increase the cost of eating at their restaurants by 20%. Sounds good ... to avoid eating fast food in California. And, oh, by the way, fast-food workers, you know that as your wages increase, the prices get passed on to consumers ... which includes you. How long before $22/hr is not a living wage anymore? I'm guessing "tomorrow" in California. (Does anyone remember "dollar menus"?) And now lower income Californians are going to have to figure out how to afford their overly priced cars, houses, and fast food.

Don't Say Gay
A report from the New England Journal of Medicine reports that, of all monkeypox cases, "98% of the persons with infection were gay or bisexual men" and 95% of transmission can be traced to sexual close contact. Now, we don't want to stigmatize sexual relations, but God did say that same-sex sex is "unnatural" (Rom 1:26-27) and there would be physical consequences. So, if we can just start immunizing 3-year-olds, we should be able to nip this in the bud.

Who's to Blame?
A giant sunspot has developed on the surface of the Sun pointing toward Earth. It has developed a delta-class magnetic field with enough energy to release X-class solar flares. Greta Thunberg blames global climate change. Biden blames Trump and his supporters.

The Danger of Conservatives
Biden said, "MAGA forces are determined to take this country backwards. Backwards to an America where there is no right to choose, no right to privacy. No right to contraception, no right to marry who you love." Unfortunately, too many Americans will look at that and nod, as if it's true. Please note. Nowhere in the world do you have an unlimited right to choose. America does not hold to unlimited privacy. Contraception has never been an issue. And you still can't marry who you love. (Ask the guy who loves his mother or the girl that loves pizza.) Bold, blasting, blatant lies aimed at making you NOT think. That's how some intend to "heal the soul of America." I'm not a "MAGA" person, and the president is making me feel unwelcome in America.

Spelling Bee: B-E-E
Would you be surprised to learn, given the unreliability of the California electric grid, that Newsom has announced that all cars must be wind-up by 2035? Which may be one of the many reasons that California's chief export is residents. You probably would not be surprised at the latest study that says that more women are waiting to have children until after they're out of college, employed, settled down, infertile, and dead. The Bee did a story on Todd, a chump who worked his way through college and paid off all his own loans. Loser. I mentioned the story above about Ozzy Osbourne planning to move away because America is so bad. He says he's moving back to Ghrizzah Hurgle Kroocy Breedle Boop. I'm sorry, Ozzie, I didn't catch that.

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

Rules for Living in This House

Timothy was a young man that Paul led to Christ (1 Tim 1:18) and then discipled for two decades. Imagine growing up in that seminary. After Paul's first imprisonment in Rome, the two traveled back to Ephesus where Paul left Timothy to clean up some problems in the church there while Paul went on to Macedonia (1 Tim 1:3). Paul's first letter to Timothy was written from Macedonia. At the end of chapter 3, Paul explains the basic reason he wrote the letter.

I am writing these things to you, hoping to come to you before long; but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth. (1 Tim 3:14-15)

Paul planned to return, but if he didn't (and, by the way, history does not record that he did), he was writing down instructions on "how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God." That's good; that's important. Why? He says why. The household of God is "the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth."

Think of that. The "church" refers to the "ekklēsia," literally the "called out ones." It's not that corner building; it's all believers. It refers to those whom Jesus said had been granted by the Father (John 6:65). They were the sheep who heard His voice and believe (John 10:26-28). This body of "called out ones" have the singular task of supporting, buttressing, holding up the truth. Singular in the sense that no one else is doing it. It is our assignment. We are to know it, hear it, preach it, defend it, and live it for all to see.

What truth? In the next verse, Paul references "the mystery of godliness" and recites what is clearly one of the early church hymns (1 Tim 3:16). What is this hymn about? What is the mystery of godliness? Well, godliness refers to how it is we come to and live in a right relationship with God. That, he says, is a great mystery. Why? Because the hymn is all about Christ. He came in flesh, lived a sinless life, was observed by angels and proclaimed among the nations, was believed on and was taken up in glory. Birth to death, resurrection, and ascension. Unique. And sufficient. It is in Christ that we have this "godliness." It is in Christ that we are made holy and, as such, live changed lives from changed hearts that live and express and defend the truth. The reality is it's all about Christ, "the Word" (John 1:1), beginning to end. That, Paul said, is how we are to conduct ourselves in the household of God.

Reformation

You've heard the phrase. "The wrong side of history." It seems to be used solely to refer to "the side we're on now as opposed to earlier times." It seems to come from a premise that "progress" is always good, that time always makes things better. It leans into the "new and improved" as if that's a certainty. Little hint: it's not.

From the Wycliffes and the Huses on, a movement started that came to full light with Martin Luther's 95 Theses and rolled across Europe in full regalia. The Reformation was a movement within the existing Roman Catholic church (and beyond) that looked at the Scriptures and determined, "We're not doing this right." So they sought to "reform" the Church. Mind you, it wasn't in the sense of chastising a bad child. It was in the sense of "form again" -- to return to the original form. "What was Christianity at its core? Let's do that." The Reformers believed they were on the "wrong side of history" because they had progressed ... progressed away from biblical Christianity.

I would argue that America needs to reform. No, not be punished (although I wouldn't put it out of the realm of possibilities from God's mind), but to turn back again to roots. Pilgrims came to America to pursue Christian living without fear and to bring Christ to the natives. The Union was formed on the basis of Christian beliefs and values. America became great because it was morally upright. John Adams wrote, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." Patrick Henry wrote, "It is when people forget God that tyrants forge their chains." When this nation began as a nation, the federal government was not allowed to have a religious test for office (Article VI, First Amendment), but the states were. Eight states had religious qualifications for public office originally written in their constitutions. Religion was not the enemy of the people or its government. In the beginning, it was essential.

We're long past that now. It has moved from essential to banned. We have ignored the Founding Fathers and history itself and jettisoned Christianity as mainstream, affording it a meager existence as long as it sits quietly in its corner. I think we need a reformation. No, not a return to requiring religion as a test of office. Not institutionalizing the faith. We need to return to a people whose hearts were open to God and His Word. I think we are on the wrong side of history now, and it can't go well for us. Clearly the Founding Fathers didn't think so. "If America ever ceases to be good, she will cease to be great." I suspect that is becoming our legacy.

Another Gospel

The longstanding, traditional understanding of Scripture is that the Gospel refers to a particular thing. It is the root of Christianity (as in "real Christianity" vs fake). All religions have means by which you can end up in a better life, and all religions predicate that on your efforts ... except Christianity. Christianity alone begins with "you can't." The Gospel, then, is how it can come to be because you can't bring it about. So the story is that God sent His Son to ransom sinners -- pay their debt -- and be a "propitiation" -- to assuage the rage of a righteously angry God. And Jesus succeeded. Whoever believes in Christ has currently eternal life. Good news.

There are voices out there, however, who would like to correct that longstanding, traditional understanding of Scripture. They do so under the guise of "Scripture" (Acts 20:29-30; 2 Peter 3:16). They use it, but they like to twist it, and then they have to discard some because it won't "twist" far enough. So, even though the concept of death for sin is clear from Old to New Testament, they discard it in favor of another gospel. This gospel is the Social Justice good news. This good news is better than some old "saved from sin" stuff. This good news will give the poor and marginalized a better life. How do we get there? Well, Scripture, of course. Jesus said, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He has anointed Me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent Me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor" (Luke 4:18-19). So the "good news" is "to the poor" and "the captives" and "the blind" and "those who are oppressed." Not sinners. Certainly not salvation from sin. Absolutely not paying for sin. A better life now.

We know this because Jesus told them "Blessed are the poor," so He came for those with humble means. Or did He? In Matthew's version Jesus said, "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 5:3). In Luke's version He said, "Blessed are the poor, for yours is the kingdom of God" (Luke 6:20). Now, it's not unusual for one writer to record something the other did not; that's no contradiction. But in this case we do have a problem. On one hand, either Luke meant the same thing as Matthew and the "poor" in Luke are the "poor in spirit" in Matthew. If, on the other hand, we're talking about "the poor" in Luke as "those without means to live" (as opposed to those with poor spirits), then what we must conclude is 1) two different categories of people will receive the kingdom of God and 2) poor people (people without means) are blessed for being poor because they will receive the kingdom. If that's the case, it would be cruel to change their condition. If you change their condition, you would be depriving them of the kingdom of God. And that makes no sense in anyone's book.

Here's the thing. These false teachers want you to believe that Christians who believe that Christ died to save us do not care about the poor, the captives, the blind, the oppressed. This simply isn't true, or certainly ought not be. There are plenty of genuine Christians who are working diligently in those areas and it is to the embarrassment of others that they aren't doing so more. But all those things are genuine concerns of genuine Christians according to Scripture. On the other hand, these false teachers do eliminate salvation from sin as a possibility and consider their "gospel" a better one. They face a difficult problem. Leaving off the massive amount of Scripture from Paul's letters and the rest (as I said, they have to discard a lot of Scripture to hold their views), we can look to Jesus alone to see these folks are mistaken. Jesus said He had "come to seek and to save that which was lost" (Luke 19:10). They deny that by changing "lost" to "marginalized." Jesus said He would "lay down My life for the sheep" (John 10:15) and defined His sheep as those who believe and follow Him (John 10:26-27). They say He did no such thing. Jesus said He came "to give His life a ransom for many" (Matt 20:28). They categorically deny that He paid any such price. And perhaps the most difficult thing Jesus said was that He "accomplished the work which You have given Me to do" (John 17:4). If His job was to bring relief to all those people, He failed miserably. Did He feed some? Sure. Like the 5,000. One meal. In fact, He claimed, "You will always have the poor with you" (John 12:8). He claimed the job wouldn't be finished. He healed a lot, but not all. I'm not aware of Him freeing any captives from jails (although if the Gospel is salvation from the captivity of Satan, He did quite a bit of that). Jesus did some of that list from Luke, but not all, yet He claimed He had accomplished the work God had sent Him to do and He claimed "It is finished."

One of the common complaints against a Gospel that offers salvation from sin is that it isn't for everybody. Jesus Himself said, "The gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few" (Matt 7:13-14). So if it affects "few," how is that "good news"? To which I ask, "Jesus affected fewer than that. How is that better 'good news'?" No, this "Social Justice" gospel is a sham built on a scattering of Scripture that gets twisted by leaving out the rest of Scripture. True Christianity demands that we serve one another and if we aren't, we, not the Gospel, are at fault. But true Christianity also offers a payment for a condition that demands death (Rom 6:23) by a redemption price paid by Christ (Rom 3:24) who appeased an angry God (Rom 3:25) and demonstrated God's love for us (Rom 5:8). It is received not by our efforts but by faith (Rom 3:28). It's the message Jesus brought and it's the message that the rest of Scripture offers and it's far better news than "You can have a better lot in life right now." It is, then, an authentic gospel, not "another gospel" (Gal 1:6-9). The reason that the longstanding, traditional understanding of the Gospel is what it is is not "tradition," but text. Read it.

Mixing Terms

The fight is on. Most of the Democrats and even some of the Republicans are pushing against the Supreme Court's ruling that abortion is not a constitutional right and the states can decide. Courts are shooting down states who have decided but "improperly" (read "not in the way we deem suitable"). There are suggestions that this topic might sway the previously sure thing that this midterm election would see a new shift to the GOP for Congress and beyond. It's a big deal ... which is somewhat surprising since apparently very, very few know what we're talking about.

"What? Yes, we do. Abortion. The termination of a pregnancy. We know." Well, if that's the abortion we're arguing over, then allow me to let you in on a secret. In no state in the Union is abortion banned. Not one. "Oh, we're quite sure it is." And you would be quite wrong. The unspecific term we use -- "abortion" -- includes miscarriage. (The medical term is "spontaneous abortion.") No state outlaws miscarriage. Further, if the life of a mother is actually in danger, every state allows doctors to save her life over the unborn. A popular canard is "ectopic pregnancy." An ectopic pregnancy occurs when an egg implants and grows outside of the uterus. The fertilized egg cannot survive in this environment. Most ectopic pregnancies result in miscarriage and the woman never knows she was pregnant. If not, there is no medical procedure available that will save the life of that child. They will not survive. Period. So this procedure is not banned in any state nor is it an abortion -- the termination of a normal pregnancy. From the other direction, almost all states (and all nations) prior to the recent SCOTUS ruling allowed limited elective abortion, ending often at 15 weeks on up to 24 weeks. Very few allowed unlimited abortion.

From 1973 until June, 2022, abortions were available but restricted. No one called that a "ban on abortion." Now some states have kept the same restrictions and some have shortened the time and it's called a ban. Some have restricted it to zero time but still allow life-saving efforts on behalf of the mother and it's called a ban. Clearly what is in view here is not "choice." Let me say this clearly. Women never had free choice. California and Maryland are both considering lengthening the time -- post-partum -- but no state allows women to choose to end the life of their child whenever they want. This is not about choice; it is about morality. All the other trappings -- "male control," "sexism," "it's not a baby," "choice," and on and on -- ignore the facts by mixing terms and adding coercive labels -- "white supremacist," "male control," "anti-choice," "ban on abortion," etc. -- and calling it "truth."

Why We Pray

I've been asked fairly often why we pray. Mostly by Christians, in fact. The thinking is something like, "If God is sovereign and omniscient, what's the point?" I don't think it's necessarily a skeptical or belligerent question, either. Seems reasonable. Like Mary's "How will this be, since I am a virgin?" question (Luke 1:34). It isn't a dodge or an attempt to rebel. It's an attempt to understand. So let's see if we can.

First and foremost -- the easiest answer -- is "Because He said to." Simple obedience. Jesus urged perseverance in prayer (Luke 18:1-8). Paul said to "pray without ceasing" (1 Thess 5:17). He told the Colossians to "continue steadfastly in prayer" (Col 4:2) and told Timothy that the first step in fighting the good fight (1 Tim 1:18) was "that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people" (1 Tim 2:1). It is all over Scripture, and it is a command. Pray! So ... pray.

While it is true that prayer does not change God's mind (Num 23:19; Mal 3:6), prayer does change things. He didn't exactly explain the mechanism(s), but Jesus said prayers will be answered (e.g., John 16:23-24; Mark 11:22-24; John 15:7; etc.). Scripture indicates that God uses our prayers as an impetus to accomplish His will (1 John 5:14-15). James said, "The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much" (James 5:16). We pray because we are commanded to pray and we pray because God says prayer is effective.

As if that's not enough, there is one more critical and, perhaps, most important reason for us to pray. Prayer is our communication with God. With prayer we open our hearts to Him. In prayer we pour out our deepest concerns (Php 4:6). In a sense it is just like any human connection; they are always better if there is communication. But one thing that this communication produces simply by existing is something we may not be conscious of. It makes us dependent. It prevents self-reliance. It is a tacit admission that "I am not sufficient." It puts us clearly in His hands knowing that we have no other options but to trust Him. And, given His faithfulness, there can be no better place to be. Another good reason to pray.

My Goal is God, Himself

I put this up every single day on my blog. It's over there on the sidebar in the section labeled "Thoughts." It is my suspicion that we have a tendency to come to ignore things that occur every single day, and this particular concept has been growing in importance and intensity in my thinking, so I'm borrowing it from the sidebar there and placing it right here for you to review.

My goal is God, Himself.
Not joy or peace or even blessing,
but Himself, my God.
'Tis His to lead me there --
not mine, but His.
By any road, dear Lord,
at any cost. - Francis Brook

We (Christians) need this mindset. Too many of us are "foxhole Christians" bartering with God. "If You will do this for me, I'll follow You." And when He doesn't, we're mad. An illness, the death of a loved one, a stubbed toe, any "setback" can trigger us. We think, albeit not likely consciously, of God as our "butler" -- our "genie" -- whose job it is to make us comfortable and happy. As long as He does that, we'll follow.

In Lamentations where the prophet Jeremiah bemoaned the tragedy of the enslavement of his people, he complained about God (Lam 3:1-20). Long and loud. "My endurance has perished," he says. "So has my hope from the LORD" (Lam 3:18). But hope hasn't perished. "But this I call to mind, and therefore I have hope" (Lam 3:21). Where, in all this suffering, does he find hope?

The steadfast love of the LORD never ceases; His mercies never come to an end; they are new every morning; great is Your faithfulness. "The LORD is my portion," says my soul, "therefore I will hope in Him." (Lam 3:22-24)

That is what Francis Brook said above. That is the critical key. If we seek pleasure or comfort or painlessness or other things from God, we will lose hope. If God is our portion, our point, our aim, our singular joy, then we cannot lose hope. Because we cannot lose Him. The daily process of cutting off our commitment to self-indulgent pleasures in place of God-indulgent confidence is hard, but it is necessary. It goes against normal human thinking, but it is approved by the Maker of the human. When He becomes my highest joy -- He alone -- then nothing else can shake us. And the route He takes to get us there is not a problem. "By any road, dear Lord, at any cost." Is God enough for you?

News Weakly - 8/27/22

Ridiculing the Ridiculous
Argos, a company in the UK, has been forced to drop a term in their ads because it is sexist. They advertised that they had "two-man delivery" to bring you their products and, clearly, that's sexist. "Don't you hire women??" Of course, they do, and, of course, "two-man" can simply use "man" in the sense of "human beings," but this will never do. They cannot be that sloppy. Let me correct the phrase for their ad. They should offer "two-human-beings-with-sufficient-age-and-sufficient-strength-to-do-the-job delivery." See? Much better. Another fine example of our anti-male, anti-racist, anti-sexist, anti-whatever-I-don't-like, judgmental stupidity.

The Problem of "Mass"
A 29-year-old Walmart shopper was carrying a loaded handgun in his waistband when it started to slip and fall. He grabbed it and it accidentally discharged -- once -- wounding the shopper and three other people. This is what is classified as a "mass shooting" because 4 people were injured in this accident. This is why we need to be more careful with terminology. On the other hand, a Maryland man was charged with a mass stabbing that left two people dead and two hospitalized. I'm waiting for Congress to take up knife control legislation. Maybe assault knives? Anything?

Surprise!
You can go to jail for abusing your children. You can lose your children if you neglect them. Everybody thought that the ultimate responsibility for a child rests with their parents. A judge in Maryland ruled that that was wrong. Parents have no right to know what their kids are doing at school. They do have the responsibility to take care of them, but not the right to know what they're doing. Certainly not if those kids are performing the most heroic thing a child today can do -- transitioning genders. Surprise, parents! You were mistaken. You get the responsibility, just not the authority. Good luck with that.

Yelp!
We have met the enemy, and the enemy ... is crisis pregnancy centers. At least, that's what Yelp thinks. That's what Popular Science thinks, too. If you are not going to kill that baby in a "crisis" (in quotes because the term in this case is so broad), then you are dangerous and people need to be warned. So they will flag these centers, warning that they "provide limited medical services" as if "killing your baby" is a "medical service." No one is flagging abortion clinics for providing limited help for expectant mothers who don't wish to kill their babies. Odd. (And as a sidenote, what does it tell you about the bias of Popular Science when they report something like this?)

Please ... Just Don't
William Barber and Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove are miffed over the opposition of some in the GOP to Biden's student loan debt relief. Why? They believe the hypocrisy of Christian nationalism is on display as the GOP ignores the Bible in its panic over student loans. Now, dismantling this nonsense is not my point, but, clearly, the GOP is not the party of "Christian nationalism." There are some Christian nationalists in the GOP, but surely not all Republicans are Christian, let alone Christian nationalists. Then, when I looked at how they "ignore the Bible," it got really painful. "The Bible says, 'Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors.' See?" Please, that just hurts to read. No one is getting their student loans forgiven for forgiving any debts. The "debts" in view in the text are not student loans, but moral obligations. "Jesus was referring to Leviticus 25." It is remarkably hypocritical to have those who patently discard the Bible attempting to lecture others who discard the Bible on what it means and what they should do. I'll take them seriously when they institute Old Testament civil laws and forgive the GOP as God forgives.

Ought Not Be Overwrought
The big story of the week -- or maybe just the loudest -- is Biden's plan to bail out $300 billion of student loans. A lot of Republicans aren't happy. Even some Democrats aren't happy. It wasn't democratic. It wasn't accomplished with the legislature. A single authority figure is taking $300 billion from taxpayers on his own word to pay off student loans. People want to know. "Why did I bother paying off mine when I could have gotten it free?" How is this not buying votes from a younger generation? Why do so many borrow so much for so little return? Why isn't AOC wearing a "Tax the Poor" dress in support? One meme I saw said, "My mortgage identifies as a student loan." Why not? Why isn't Pelosi leading the charge for Biden to forgive bar tabs? Why is this not an attack on democracy? Honestly, while I'm not happy about this new step, $300 billion is a drop in the bucket compared to the trillions the government is stealing from taxpayers. And the American public has ceased to recognize who is paying for all this (Hint: It's us.) and don't care much that it will increase your cost of living ... more ... so I don't see any point of getting myself overwrought on this.

Not Only From The Left
As if to illustrate my point, the publication has a story about a "far-right Christian group" warning that Christianity is a "serious threat" when practiced "as described in the Bible and modeled by the religion's namesake." That is Christians who follow Christ and the Bible are dangerous. Which is why it's important to note that not all the "far right" or even so-called "Christian" groups are Christians ... at all. And hatred for Christ's followers doesn't only come from the Left.

Not to Bee
I'm sorry, but the Bee actually got a bit ridiculous this week. Lots and lots of satire about student debt relief. Some was funny, but I just don't feel like laughing about it. Maybe Jesus did feed the 5,000 with Olive Garden's Never-Ending Breadsticks, but I didn't much care. Maybe the Pentagon really did mandate the Monkeypox vaccine only to the Navy, but I wasn't particularly amused. I expect it is undoubtedly true that none of those worried about overpopulation have volunteered to die first, but I can't seem to get exercised over it. Let's just let it go this week, okay?

Not The Good News We Were Hoping For

In June we saw what appeared to be a sea change, a radical shift in the culture. The Supreme Court threw out Roe v Wade, removing it from an unmerited "constitutional right" status and returning it to the choice of the people. The Constitution says nothing about it; let the states decide. Since then I think it has become clear that no such sea change has occurred. Many states had preexisting bans in place ready to fire up when just such an event occurred. Many of those states found their laws blocked by the courts. Others passed laws that enshrined abortion in their states. Currently only 10 states actually ban abortion. The rest spread their permissions from "before a heartbeat is detected" to "legal at any stage" (and a couple are aiming for "and beyond"). Beyond this, some of the upcoming election candidates are being selected specifically for their approval of abortion in reaction to the Supreme Court ruling. The land is currenly militarized on the topic. So much for profound transformation (the definition of "sea change").

Back in the 70's when Roe v Wade was decided, the question was about women's rights. The question was about "reproductive rights." In the last couple of decades, though, the debate has shifted. Ultrasound images and scientific examinations and new medical knowledge all pointed to this very important point -- we're not looking at a tissue blob; we're looking at a human being. Questions like "How soon can they feel pain?" and "How soon do they have a beating heart?" became part of the open dialog. It was absolutely evident that women had been lied to. It was not a question of "women's choice" or "reproductive choice" or "men trying to control women." It was the fundamental question of when it is morally right to kill an innocent human being.

You can see, now, what I mean. No sea change. No shift. The court moved the question from "constitutional" (where it never should have been) to "states rights" and states are making their choices. The federal government is working to codify abortion at the federal level. The people of this nation now know that we're talking about killing innocent human beings ... and the loudest voices don't care. Some openly admit that abortion kills a baby and boldly claim, "We can own that." Moral philosophers like Peter Singer argue that we should be able to kill children up to the age of 3. Others suggest it doesn't matter as long as they're not breathing yet; we can kill those. But most just ignore the facts, clear and present and undeniable, and lean back on the lie of "women's choice" without regard to the life in her and "reproductive choice" while ignoring the reproduction that has already occurred. The Supreme Court changed the constitutional standing of abortion in America, but they didn't change any hearts. And the loudest voices today still clamor for more blood. If you thought the SCOTUS ruling was a victory, you misunderstood the human heart. It was the right legal choice, but it doesn't fix humans. Only God can do that.
________
Postscript. I have a question. One of the key points on which states seeking to ban abortion are getting shot down is the "right to privacy." Mind you, the right to privacy is not in the Constitution or its amendments. It might be implied, at least to some extent, but it's not actually in there. Several states, however, do have it in their state constitutions. So in those states Planned Parenthood is going on a rampage to force abortion legalization based on the right to privacy. I don't understand. The right to privacy means that, as long as they do it in private, people should be allowed to terminate the lives of innocent human beings? You may scoff, but to what extent do we have a "right to privacy"? If I'm privately cooking meth in my house, how can law enforcement interfere? If Bob lives in a state where marijuana is outlawed and he's privately growing marijuana for personal use, on what basis can law enforcement intervene? When does a "right to privacy" trump laws like ... oh, I don't know ... killing innocent human beings? What does privacy have to do with it? I read Compelling Interest which gave the story of the whole Roe v Wade process and still don't understand how privacy guarantees the right to kill babies.

Why Faith?

We Christians have this thing called "the Gospel." It is, in fact, unique in the world of religions. Every other religion on the planet has some sort of "earn your way to heaven" except Christianity. That's because we start with "You can't" and go from there. So our Gospel includes this fundamental principle: we are saved by faith in Christ. Not by works. Not by our efforts. Not by birth. Not by becoming a better person. Not by following laws. Faith. Apart from works. And that is truly Gospel, truly good news.

But have you ever asked why? I mean, sure, it's because we can't do it on our own. We are sinners at the core and can't stop it. So that's one reason why. But the Bible actually says why faith alone apart from works, circumcision, or works of the law is required (Rom 4:1-15). It is faith alone for a reason. These other things don't suffice is, which is why it depends on faith, and that it is by faith "in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham" (Rom 4:16). The reason God designed our salvation to be based on faith is so that His grace is the answer. And when His grace is the answer, the certainty -- the guarantee -- is found in Him and not something we are or do.

We are saved by grace through faith so that God gets the glory. "If it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace" (Rom 11:6). If we did something to earn it, it would no longer be grace. If we were born into the right family or performed some ceremony (like circumcision) or obeyed the right rules, we would get the credit and it would not be grace. No, we don't have the ability to do any of those things, and that is certainly a primary reason that we are saved by faith -- there is no other option. But first and foremost, our salvation on the basis of faith is to demonstrate God's glory in God's grace. And that's a very good thing.