Xenophobia

It used to be that any science fiction aficionado knew exactly what "xenophobia" meant. You see, the prefix, xeno, refers to that which is alien and, of course, we all know what a phobia is. And what's not to be afraid of? Aliens from outer space are scary. They may be your friend or they may be your enemy, but you won't know which it is until they try to kill you. And besides, they're so ... different.

In truth, xenophobia is not actually the fear of beings from other planets. It is more accurately the fear of anything foreign or strange. It usually manifests itself in the form of hatred for that which is foreign or strange. And while we like to think of ourselves as open-minded, welcoming, and even brave, the truth is that all humans suffer to some degree or another from this malady. We all have some sense of fear for that which is different.

You can see this easily in the very common fear of change. We get used to something and we like it that way and now you're asking for it to be different? No! We don't want it to change! Why? Because it's foreign or strange. Not actually rational, just ... xenophobia.

Xenophobia is the primary reason for racism wherever you find it. There is "us" and there is "not us" and the "us" part is known and comfortable and the "not us" is not. The fact that the difference between "us" and "them" is likely minuscule is irrelevant. They're different. This occurs in racial differences, in economic differences, in religious differences, in geographic differences, in any differences you might consider. We will gravitate toward the "us" and tend away from the "not us".

For some this fear and loathing is minor and for others it is all-consuming. This is determined somewhat by the person and personality, but it is largely determined by the size of the difference. Little differences will cause little response. Major differences ... well, you get it.

This is one of the primary reasons why there is such a big human problem ... with God. The Bible describes Him repeatedly (even repeatedly in the same sentence) as HOLY. I put that in all caps because that seems to be what the Bible is implying. And when the Bible references the "holy", it isn't merely "not sin". It is other. It is separate. It is foreign and strange. And God is, in the Isaiah 6 format, "Strange, strange, strange." This kind of strange produces the xenophobia that sci-fi fans dream about. Whether or not God is good, He is so different as to be a threat. It is the fear of the unknown (because the finite cannot fully grasp the infinite) coupled with the intrinsic fear of that which is different. God tells us, "My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways" (Isa 55:8) and an astute observer would be tempted to suggest that maybe God ought to keep that to Himself because He's only making things worse.

If xenophobia is the fear of that which is different, God is sufficiently different to provide ample fear and hatred of that which is foreign and strange because He is all of that. Sure, people love darkness rather than light because it exposes their evil (John 3:19-20), so, coupled with our xenophobia and our sin, you have to see that it is nothing but expected that "The mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God" (Rom 8:7). It is, in fact, a certainty. We are born xenophobes.

Thanks be to God that He can and has overcome this inborn "fear of other" in those whom He chooses. Xenophobia is normal. We can only hope that He will make us more exceptional than normal.

Why Do Some Believe and Others Don't?

Ligonier.org is doing a series on Predestination. Fine. In the latest installment, they ask the question, "Why Do Some Believe and Some Don't?" A decent article about what it means to believe, where faith comes from, that sort of thing. They didn't actually mention Jesus's answer for some reason.

In John 10 Jesus was having conversations with the Jews. There we read this:

So the Jews gathered around Him and said to Him, "How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly." Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father's name bear witness about Me, but you do not believe because you are not among My sheep. My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me" (John 10:24-27).

Remember the question: Why do some believe and some don't? The question is quite pertinent. Why did you believe and your next-door neighbor not? Why did your mother believe and your grandfather didn't? What makes the difference? Well, Jesus answers that question and He does it without any mincing of words. It is crystal clear.

The Jews wanted to know if He was the Messiah. "Tell us plainly." As if He hadn't. Okay, fine. Jesus answered (rightly), "I told you, and you do not believe." The problem, you see, was not a failure of the message. It wasn't that the messenger had failed to provide sufficient information or sufficient proof or sufficient argumentation. It wasn't unclear. The difference between "believe" and "not believe", then, is not in the message or the messenger. Look, Jesus proved it with miracles. It doesn't get any clearer than that.

Nor was it a failure on the other end. "Well," some might say, "if we could just see an actual difference between 'believe' and 'not believe', then we could believe." Jesus says that's not the issue. "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me." That is, there is never a case of "I believed, but it made no difference." As a coworker once suggested, "I tried that, but it didn't work." Jesus said that doesn't happen. His true sheep 1) hear His voice (without exception), 2) He knows them (in an experiential, personal way), and 3) they follow Him -- not possibly or potentially or sometimes, but certainly.

So it's not the message nor is it a matter of questionable outcome. The message is fine and the outcome works always. What, then, does Jesus say determines if someone believes or not?

"You do not believe because you are not among My sheep."

Now, that's easy to miss, but stop and look long enough and I think you'll see that it isn't actually mistakable. He did not say, "You are not among My sheep because you do not believe" as we might think. No one would have any issue with that. That wouldn't be any revelation. But that's not what He said. He said the reverse. He said that a failure to believe is a direct result of not being among His sheep.

Now, it's easy to think of His "sheep" as those who are "in the flock" because, after all, isn't that how our language works? But Jesus said, "I have other sheep that are not of this fold" (John 10:16). So in Jesus's vernacular, "My sheep" would include all who are part of the present flock and all who will be part of the flock at some time future.

Why do some believe and some do not? Jesus said that the efficient cause (He said "because") is "among My sheep". If you are, you will believe. If you are not, you will not. He did not say it was due to poor expression of the Gospel, hardness of heart, improper witnessing techniques, a poor apologetic, a bad testimony ... any of a lot of reasons we typically assign to the question.

Now, here's the real question. Since Jesus is abundantly clear here, are you going to believe Him ... or are you going to believe someone else?

An "Honor" Killing

Feel the outrage. In Pakistan a pregnant woman was stoned to death by her family. The Yahoo news story starts out

A pregnant woman was stoned to death Tuesday by her own family outside a courthouse in the Pakistani city of Lahore for marrying the man she loved.

This will not be pretty. Well, maybe. I'm never quite sure whether it's politically correct to condemn Islamic practices. But I would think it wouldn't be pretty. I would think that this would cause outrage around the world. Especially here in the U.S. Because as everyone knows, it is a God-given right to marry the one you love. Even atheists know that. No one gets to tell you who to marry. Indeed, you'll hear that from Christians as well. It is an outrage. God wants us to marry who we love. (Never mind the problems that principle causes when "the one we love" happens to be the same gender.)

Interesting thing, though. For Christians you won't find that in the Bible. What you'll find is either silence (we don't know how most couples were joined in Scripture) or an arranged marriage. When there are exceptions, they are ... exceptional. Jacob, for instance, left home. He fell in love with Rachel and worked 7 years to marry her, but her father substituted Leah, her sister. Because in the Bible marriages were arranged and parents had the final say. So Jacob worked another 7 years for Rachel and we get our love story, but it's still filled with "arranged". In fact, while Isaac didn't select a wife for Jacob, he did instruct him to choose one from Laban's family (Gen 28:1-2). Not exactly the "marry the one you love" approach.

Take the biggest marriage in all of Scripture as an example. Revelation in multiple places describes the Bride of Christ, the Church (Rev 19:7; 21:9; 22:17). That's certainly the biggest marriage -- the marriage of Christ. Guess what? It is an arranged marriage. Jesus said, "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and whoever comes to Me I will never cast out" (John 6:37). So the Bride of Christ consists of those whom the Father gives, not the ones whom the Son loves.

Now, of course, the Son loves the Bride, and this points to what we do find in Scripture regarding love and marriage. We do find the command that husbands must love their wives (Eph 5:25; Col 3:19) and wives are to love their husbands (Titus 2:3-4). Interesting, though, that this love doesn't precede marriage. Interesting, also, that love is commanded. If love is something you "fall into", in what sense can it be commanded?

Something else is missing in Scripture. You will not find a dating structure. Now, this would make sense because, after all, most marriages were arranged in the Bible. But it should serve to point out that dating was not God's best choice for obtaining a mate.

What do I conclude from all this? As it turns out, not as much as you might think. Is dating evil? No. I would suggest that today's version, where guys and girls are jumping from person to person in an effort to find "the one" by sampling many and seeking self-gratification is a foolish approach. I would suggest that a deep and constant involvement of parents is extremely important. And I would definitely oppose the "dating as a missionary" concept or, worse, the idea of seeking to marry "the one I love" in direct opposition to biblical instructions like "Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers" (2 Cor 6:14). I would warn people who are attempting to date or court that sex is reserved for marriage, that love is commanded for the married, and that commitment and shared purpose are more important than romance. And, to be honest, I would love to see loving Christian parents arranging wise unions for their obedient, loved children. Yeah, I can dream, can't I? I suppose, then, that my point is to warn Christians not to find a "right to marry the one I love" where it can't be found. It is outrageous that a family killed their pregnant daughter for marrying the man she loved, but it's not outrageous because she loved him. It is an outrage against the Most High to murder two humans in the name of "honor".

Let's Get Small

Steve Martin, the comedian, did an album back in 1977 entitled Let's Get Small. Now, I have to tell you, I've never heard the song (or the album). I think he's talking about drug-induced hallucination, but I can't be sure of that, either. What I do like is the idea.

John the Baptist said of Jesus, "He must increase, but I must decrease" (John 3:30). He was, of course, talking about how his own notoriety and influence would diminish and Christ's would increase, but that concept is true every day in the life of the Christian -- He must increase; I must decrease. To be precise, He must arrive at the fullness of His actual glory and we must arrive at our actual depravity in our perceptions.

This isn't an easy endeavor. The sin nature inherent in all of us aims precisely at the opposite. "I will be like the Most High." We work tirelessly to bring God down to our level and elevate ourselves to His. We're not as bad as all that and He's not as great as all that. So we find a prevalent notion that people are basically good when the Bible says, "There is none who does good; no, not one" (Rom 3:12). We are quite sure we are intrinsically valuable where Scripture assures us, "All have turned aside; together they have become worthless" (Rom 3:12). And we really love the notion that God loves everyone unconditionally, but we have to hold that warm affirmation of our loveableness in the face of God's Word¹, not because of it. We humans live in a constant state of self-aggrandizement, specifically in exaggerating our own importance in terms of God.

As any bully could tell you, the other half of this effort would be the other half. If you are small and want to feel larger, you do it two ways. You elevate others' perception of you and you diminish others' perceptions of others. So you try to look big and you try to make the big ones look small. So while we work hard at dismissing the biblical explanations about the depravity of Man, we are equally hard at work diminishing the biblical explanations of the grandeur of God. The most common method, of course, is what the Bible refers to as "idolatry". Simply substitute for God something that is less than God and -- poof! -- you have a smaller God. Adam and Eve did it when they ate of the tree and made themselves gods. Aaron did it with the gold of Israel when he made the calf. Humans have been doing it since creation.

For although they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks to Him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 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. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because 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 1:21-25).

So we have Jehovah's Witnesses who claim that Jesus was not God (and all the theological destruction that causes) and Open Theism that claims that God is not Omniscient (with the ripple effects of such a denial) and "Progressive Christianity" that dismisses biblical standards (God's standards) in favor of "inclusiveness" and "knowing God" in favor of "questioning". We -- even self-professed Christians -- turn John's statement on its head: "He must decrease, but we must increase."

Well, look, I understand that it's not popular. I get that it's not comfortable. It may not feel like the right thing to do. We are assured that we must not reference ourselves as "worms" (Job 25:6; Psa 22:6) or "worthless" (Rom 3:12). Finding our true value in Christ alone isn't ... safe. Or so it seems. But is it real? The Bible seems to say that our popular, comfortable, safe consensus on the subject is wrong. He must increase; we must decrease². He must become large. Let's get small. At least, that's where I want to go. Anyone with me?
________
¹ Consider this. God may love everyone to some degree or another, but not without conditions. For instance, not everyone will be saved (Matt 25:46). God's love doesn't save us; faith (a condition) does (Rom 5:1). All things work together for good to those who love God (Rom 8:28), not everyone. God does not choose to save everyone (Eph 1:4-5). Indeed, the Bible itself explains that God hates some people (e.g., Psa 11:5; Prov 6:16-19; Rom 9:13). And when Jesus prayed, He prayed for His disciples and explicitly not for the world (John 17:9). God does not condition His love for us on us, but His love is not without conditions nor is it equally applied to all.

² I believe, in fact, that this principle is a helpful tool for detecting false teaching. "Does it elevate Man or diminish God?" When either condition is met, it is a warning flag.

What You Need

In their great wisdom, the Rolling Stones sang, "You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes well you just might find you get what you need." Now, of course, Mick Jagger wasn't actually offering the wisdom of the ages there, but if you twist it just enough, you might find that it's in there.

When we face hard times, one of the very popular verses believers might try to hand us is "And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose" (Rom 8:28). Really good stuff. What we don't generally hear in these circumstances are the next verses.

For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified. What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us? (Rom 8:29-31).

Isn't that interesting? Whatever Paul just said, his conclusion is "What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us?" His conclusion is, "We can't lose." What did Paul see in what he said that led him to that conclusion?

Well, of course, it is true that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God. And that is a "We can't lose" concept. But how can't we lose? It's found in the promise that follows. There is a certainty about "those whom He foreknew". The "good" that God causes all things to work together for is this promise. We are "predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son."

So you have to ask yourself, "Is that good to me?" If being conformed to the image of His Son is a good thing to you, here's what else you can be assured of. It will happen. Have you ever wondered, "Why did God allow that to happen to me?" or something like it? There's your answer. "Being conformed to the image of His Son." And that's a good thing. If you see it as a good thing, then you should be able to rest knowing that God is for you and no one and nothing can be against you. We can't lose. You may not always be able to get what you want, but God will see to it that you always get what He needs for you to get.

If being conformed to the image of His Son is a not a good thing to you, then perhaps you don't love God. Perhaps you aren't among the justified. If that's the case, then perhaps you need to take a good hard look at yourself and see about correcting that.

Memorial Day, 2014

Memorial Day is not just a day to honor veterans. It's not even a day to celebrate those who sacrificed for this country. Memorial Day is specifically set aside to honor those who paid the ultimate price while serving in the Armed Forces. Here are a few of their stories.

Private First Class Joe Mann was serving in Holland in 1944. His platoon was surrounded and cut off by enemy forces. Pfc. Mann crept to within rocked-launcher range of an enemy artillery position and destroyed the 88 mm gun and an ammunition dump. Wounded multiple times himself, he remained in position with his M-1 killing off remaining enemy troops. Afterward, despite four injuries, Pfc. Mann insisted on standing guard in a forward location. That morning the enemy counter-attacked. Mann saw a hand grenade land nearby. Unable to raise his arms due to injuries, he yelled, "Grenade!" and threw his body on the grenade. He died from his wounds, but saved and inspired his comrades.

First Lieutenant Harry Martin served with the 5th Marine Division in Iwo Jima in March, 1945. He defied hostile fire to rescue several of his men trapped in positions overrun by the enemy. He was wounded severely twice, but located his men and directed them to safety, staying to defend their retreat. When the enemy took up an abandoned machine gun pit, he charged and killed its occupants. With the few remaining men with him, he led a charge into the hostile position, scattering them and dying from a grenade. Because of his bravery and sacrifice, Lt. Martin permanently disrupted a Japanese attack and saved multiple lives.

Private Joe Martinez was on Attu in the Aleutians in May of 1943. The Army had been trying to take a key mountain pass but failed repeatedly. Finally, a reinforced attack was launched, but faltered in the face of severe hostile fire. Pvt. Martinez stood and resumed the advance alone. As he urged others to follow, he attacked enemy positions with his BAR and grenades, clearing out a spot 150 feet below the pass. Knowing the enemy held flanking and entrenched positions around the pass, Pvt. Martinez pressed on with his BAR until he encountered the final trench where he died eliminating the last of the enemy. His sacrifice produced the end of the Japanese defense of the island.

Last year President Obama posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor to Captain Emil J. Kapaun. Capt. Kapaun was a chaplain serving in Korea. In the Battle of Unsan his battalion was surrounded by Chinese forces. Kapaun ignored the enemy fire to go from foxhole to foxhole and encourage his men. He would recover wounded men and drag them to safety or dig shallow trenches to protect them. He could have left but stayed behind to care for the wounded and was captured by the Chinese on Nov. 2, 1950. He refused to take breaks from carrying stretchers of wounded and encouraged others to do their part. In the prison camp, he risked his life sneaking round the camp to care for the sick or provide foraged food or encourage his fellow soldiers. Despite repeated punishments, he continued to serve his fellow prisoners, even conducting a sunrise Easter service in 1951. The harsh conditions and treatment took its toll on Capt. Kaupan. As he was being carried to the hospital, dying, he asked God to forgive his captors. Capt. Kapaun died in that prison camp in May of 1951, but his constant courage and service saved multiple lives and aided to sustain their faith in God and country.

Jesus told us, "Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends" (John 15:13). In our Memorial Day celebration we have the opportunity to honor that love.

Skipping Church

Charles Spurgeon gave a parable about a king who gave feasts to his people. After some time, the attendance dwindled. He investigated and found that the servants thought the people wouldn't be able to handle the sumptuous food, so they were substituting the slop the people were used to. So they quit coming.

Hebrews speaks of two kinds of food -- milk and meat.

For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food. For everyone who partakes only of milk is not accustomed to the word of righteousness, for he is an infant. But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil (Heb 5:12-14).

Milk is the pablum, the soft-serve, the easy-to-swallow stuff you get at the beginning. It's fine for starters, but "by this time you ought to be teachers" instead of needing "the elementary principles", the milk and not solid food. Is it possible that more and more people are leaving off church attendance because all they can get is baby food and not meat? Are we lacking the depth Christ intended when He commanded, "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you" (Matt 28:19-20)? Are we attempting to satisfy the masses with slop and pablum that they can get anywhere when we're equipped to serve the most sumptuous meals ever?

Generic Accusations

Have you ever noticed how easy it is to bully? No, not at school. Well, that's easy, too, but I'm not talking about school kids. I'm talking about adults. Here's the most common approach. Make up a generic accusation and yell it ... really loud. You don't have to have proof. It doesn't have to be true. It just needs to sound bad. The worse, the better. Hold up an accusing finger and wail about how someone is ... and use this generic accusation.

Sure, you've seen this, right? From the far right you'll hear, "Obama is anti-American!!" There, see? It's generic. What "anti-American" means isn't relevant¹. What proof is offered is beside the point (because, after all, without a definition to start with, proving it would be silly). But it sure is bad for an American president to be anti-American, so ... it's bad! A generic accusation we all think we understand but don't have any actual definition or proof for.

Of course, the far right is not alone in this. Indeed, compared to the left, they're mere amateurs. How many times have we heard that those who disagree with Obama's policies are racists? No one, apparently, disagrees with his policies because they disagree with his policies. Generic accusation. No proof, but it sure sounds bad. If you're a conservative, you're "anti-woman". If you believe that unborn children shouldn't be murdered, you're "anti-woman" and "anti-choice". If you believe that marriage is the union of a man and a woman you're anti-gay. What? How does that even work? Doesn't matter. They said it; it must be true. They said it repeatedly and loudly, so it is a certainty. Oh, you believe that the Bible teaches that homosexual behavior is a sin? Well, now, prepare for a shopping list of generic accusations. You're a hater, a bigot, anti-gay, narrow-minded, homophobic (Does anyone actually know what that means?), intolerant, judgmental ... sorry, have to breathe at some point in here.

Generic accusations are really useful. You don't need to prove your accusation. It just has to sound bad. So when the news media or your favorite politician (I'm using the term as if it's real, like "unicorn" or ...) accuses the opposition of "partisan politics", which we all know is bad, then it is true and those rotten "other guys" are rotten. How are they playing "partisan politics"? No one is really clear. "You mean, they don't disagree on the basis of principle²?" No, can't be. Didn't we just say it was partisan politics? Sheesh! Pay attention!

They're really useful, I say, because they are helpful in bypassing any genuine discussion in favor of rudely labeling the opposition with an emotionally-charged albeit unsupported name. It is, as such, a really cool form of bullying, considered effective and acceptable in today's political or other societal conflicts. Bunch of losers, that's what they are. I just wish these anti-Christian commies would all be quiet.
________
¹ As it turns out, what is usually meant by "anti-American" is "He/She doesn't agree with my version of what's good for America. I think that what he/she wants to do will be bad for America." Of course, they'll never start with that, but that's where it usually ends up. They don't typically mean what you might think -- the person in question is actually consciously opposed to America.

² Just to be clear, "partisan politics" is defined as taking positions or making decisions based on one’s own political party, not on the basis of any sense of values, ideals, or principles. It is a replacement of values, ideals, or principles with the party's version. Partisan politics, then, would be when a member of a political party opposes the positions of the other party simply because the other party holds them.

Accusing God

You remember the story of Job, right? He was a "blameless and upright" man (Job 1:1). Now that's some statement coming by the inspiration of God. This genuine "good guy" is faced with a couple of stunning tragedies where Satan tries to prove to God that Job is not faithful enough to stick with God under trial. He loses his children, his property, and his health. Still he says, "Though He slay me, I will hope in Him" (Job 13:15). Eventually, though, Job succumbs to the faulty assaults from "friends" who assure him that God only does this kind of thing to really bad people. Eventually Job declares, "Let the Almighty answer me!" (Job 31:35). And God does. Chapters 38 through 41 contain one of the most grueling exams ever offered. God essentially says, "Oh, you want to question Me? Let me ask you a few questions." And He proceeds to lay out clearly and indisputably Who is in charge.

Halfway through, Job sees his error and tries to catch a break. "Behold, I am of small account; what shall I answer you? I lay my hand on my mouth. I have spoken once, and I will not answer; twice, but I will proceed no further" (Job 40:4-5). Umm, yeah, okay ... but God is not done yet. "Dress for action like a man; I will question you, and you make it known to Me" (Job 40:7). Then God says something that apparently not too many today have heard.

"Will you even put Me in the wrong? Will you condemn Me that you may be in the right?" (Job 40:8).

Oh, man, that is way too close to our current culture, isn't it? Okay, not close; dead on.

Here's the current view among both skeptics and "believers": "I think God needs to change." Maybe it's His view on homosexual behavior. Maybe it's His view on love, sex, marriage, or divorce. Maybe it's this "exclusivity" thing. Certainly the whole "Hell" concept has to go. No one likes that. And we know that God was wrong in the past. I mean, look at the Old Testament! There was a death penalty for homosexual behavior, adultery, even misbehaving children. On the other hand, slavery is not condemned and patriarchy is defended. God's treatment of women was less than stellar. And that's without even considering the obvious stuff about killing men, women and children (and their sheep) or forbidding the mixing of crops or threads or rules about cutting your hair. Obviously His rules on sex outside marriage or even "'til death do us part" unions are long past their time. I mean, come on! How much can we take? God has made mistakes in the past and He's still doing it today and we need to fix it!

And I can hear God echoing through time, "Will you even put Me in the wrong? Will you condemn Me that you may be in the right?" And I can imagine Paul chiming in as well. "Who are you, O man, to answer back to God?" (Rom 9:20).

We live in perilous times when people who call themselves followers of Christ and believers in God are perfectly happy claiming that God is wrong simply because He disagrees with and condemns their decisions or lifestyle choices. We boldly and brazenly flaunt our sin in His face and demand He come around to our way of thinking, condemning Him so that we can be right. Ask Job. It's not a safe tactic. Not even for a moment.

Because of Sovereignty

Anyone who has read my stuff for very long would have to know that I am a fan of the doctrine of God's Sovereignty. Okay, that would be an understatement. For instance, I write it with a capital "S" because it's big ... really big.

If you've read much of my stuff on God's Sovereignty, however, you'll also likely find that the concept is somewhat ... controversial. Here's the problem. "If God is as Sovereign as you say He is ..." (which I would correct to "the Bible says He is") "... then where is Human Free Will, Man's culpability? Why evangelize, pray, do anything that God wants? If God accomplishes everything, then Man is not culpable and we don't have to do anything." That kind of thing.

Here's the deal. While it is perfectly acceptable to think logically down various paths suggested by biblical statements, it is dangerous to go down logical paths that contradict Scripture. You can imply what you want on a biblical topic, but don't cross biblical lines in doing it. So if the Bible says, "God works all things after the counsel of His will", you might be tempted to object, "Well, then Man cannot be held culpable!" But the Bible is equally clear that Man is responsible for his own actions. So you may think you've followed a line of reasoning properly, but when it crosses a biblically explicit concept, you've gone too far.

Where does that leave me? It leaves me with a biblical concept that God is absolutely Sovereign and Man is responsible for his actions and choices. It leaves me with "I know that You can do all things; no purpose of Yours can be thwarted" (Job 42:2) and "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom 3:23). I'm stuck with "The LORD has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble" (Prov 16:4) and "The soul who sins shall die" (Ezek 18:20). I cannot get around "He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world" (Eph 1:4) or "Choose this day whom you will serve" (Josh 24:15). Or, reversing the order, I am required to hold both "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" and "It is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure" (Phil 2:12-13). Someone once asked Charles Spurgeon how he reconciles the doctrines of God's Sovereignty and Man's Responsibility. He said, "I don't; I never reconcile friends." Conclude what you want; just be sure not to conclude what contradicts Scripture. Both human responsibility and divine Sovereignty are clearly in Scripture.

"So what?" someone may ask. "Why make such a big deal about it? I mean, if we can't figure it out and we're not clear on it and we can't agree on it, why make a big deal about it?"

Reasonable question, I think. I make a big deal about it first because God's Word does. Various lists include large numbers of references to God and His Sovereignty. The concept is routinely mingled with Man's responsibility. For example, we read in Genesis 50 that the sin of Joseph's brothers was both God's plan and theirs. "As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today" (Gen 50:20). Judas Iscariot betrayed Christ by God's foreordination and was culpable for his action (Luke 22:22). The Bible, God-breathed, considers it important, so I will, too.

More practically, God's Sovereignty has large pragmatic implications. First, right doctrine determines right thinking, and right thinking determines right actions. Orthodoxy determines orthopraxy. If God's Word assures us without any possibility of confusion that God is absolutely Sovereign, in order to arrive at right actions, we will need to hold this right doctrine. Second, a correct view of God's Sovereignty will tend to impact all of your thinking. It makes for a humble person who realizes that God (not me) is in charge of everything and a courageous person who realizes that He wants us to act based on His Sovereignty. It makes for a grateful person who understands that all we have is from God's hand. And it makes for stability. Knowing that nothing occurs outside His will -- that all that occurs does so according to His plan -- we can proceed with joy in trial, comfort in loss, and contentment in increase or decrease. In the words of Catharina von Schlegel's hymn, Be Still My Soul, "The waves and winds still know His voice Who ruled them while He dwelt below."

The Bible makes one more extremely practical application of the Sovereignty of God.

Thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, my beloved brothers, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain (1 Cor 15:57-58).

That's right. God's Sovereignty guarantees a no-lose situation. Your labor in the Lord cannot fail. You can be steadfast, you can be immovable. Why? Because God wins ... always. Therefore -- that practical conclusion -- be "always abounding in the work of the Lord." Why not? It is sure. Do you have the impossible task of counting it all joy encountering various trials (James 1:2)? Not to worry. Your labor in the Lord is not vain. Are you commanded to make disciples among the deaf, dead, and blind enemies of Christ? No problem. Your labor in the Lord is not vain. Are you timid about doing God's work because it seems hard, fruitless, or pointless? Be at ease. God, working through you, cannot fail.

Now that is practicality. Oh, yeah. I love the doctrine of God's Sovereignty. To its very core.

The Fool's Errand

It is quite clear from Scripture that Jesus gave His disciples a universal command.

"All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age" (Matt 28:18-20).

It wasn't just for the Apostles. It was "to the end of the age". That's us. We call it "the Great Commission". We are to "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation" (Mark 16:15). And so we must. But here's the thing. This is, on the biblical face of it, a fool's errand.

Consider what God's Word says about the message and the audience.

Paul said, "For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God" (1 Cor 1:18). That doesn't bode well. "For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God" (1 Cor 1:22-24). We're thinking that if we present a pleasant message or a well-argued line of reasoning we can encourage them to faith and repentance. The Bible says that, to the world, Jesus is "a rock of offense" (1 Peter 2:8).

It only gets worse from there. The biblical description of the audience is daunting. "The god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God" (2 Cor 4:4). Oh, boy ... blind. Then there is the sin condition. Human beings are classified biblically as "slaves of sin" (Rom 6:17). Worse yet, the unregenerate human being is "dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience" (Eph 2:1-2). Oh, great, dead. But wait! It gets worse. "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). Wow! Double whammy! There is "does not" and there is "cannot". Both a refusal and an inability.

So, we are commanded to preach the gospel and we are told that the message is foolishness and an offense to the hearers and the hearers are blind slaves, dead in sin and unwilling and unable to even comprehend. "There you go," Jesus says, "preach the gospel under those conditions."

This is why I dearly love the doctrine of God's Sovereignty. If we're relying on skills and talents, good arguments and good feelings, planning and wording, we can be relatively certain that we'll fail. But if we are relying on a Sovereign God, it's an entirely different story. We can know for certain that we are commanded and we can be quite sure that the message and the audience will not be positive, but we also know that it's not our work. It's God's. Jesus said, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent" (John 6:29). He assured us "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out" (John 6:37). Apparently the list of people He plans to save was written "before the foundation of the world" (Rev 13:8; 17:8). He "chose us in Him before the foundation of the world" (Eph 1:4), "predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself", and "predestined (us) to become conformed to the image of His Son" (Rom 8:29).

We are commanded by the One who possesses all authority to preach the gospel, to make disciples. We are promised that the message would be viewed as foolish and offensive. We are told that the audience is deaf, blind, spiritually dead, and incapable of comprehending. Despite what appears to be an impossible task, we can be confident that we are not alone in it. It seems like a fool's errand, but our task is not to make converts. It is to preach the gospel and make disciples. The success of such a task is found in obeying. The results are found in the Sovereign hand of God. A fool's errand? Sure. "God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise" (1 Cor 1:27). That works for me.

A Conversation

"I really want to know, what is the will of God for my life?"

"Well, let me think. Oh, I know. 'Flee sexual immorality.'"¹

"No, that's not what I mean."

"Okay, how about this? 'If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.'"²

"No, not that either. I mean, what does God want me to do?"

"Maybe it's 'Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials'?"³

"No, I'm looking for a direction in life."

"Oooh, I see. Perhaps, 'Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.'"⁴

"Come on. I don't think you're even trying."

"There's always, 'Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.'"⁵

"Nope."

"Oh, I know! 'Repent and believe in the gospel.'"⁶

"You're not helping me at all."

"Let's see. You would like to hear my opinions on God's will, but you aren't interested in God's views. Why would mine matter? I don't think I can help you."
________
¹ 1 Cor 6:18
² John 14:15
³ James 1:2
⁴ Rom 12:2
⁵ 1 Cor 6:9-10
⁶ Mark 1:15

Stewardship

Three times in three places Paul writes about a special assignment from God. He speaks of "a stewardship entrusted to me" (1 Cor 9:17), "the stewardship of God's grace which was given to me for you" (Eph 3:2), and "the stewardship from God bestowed on me for your benefit" (Col 1:25). So, what is this thing called "stewardship", and what is Paul talking about?

The word is οἰκονομία -- oikonomia. I bet you can figure out what word we get from that Greek word. Yep! "Economy". The Greek word, like the English one, refers to management of resources. It refers to the administration of a household, estate, or task. A steward is assigned by the master of the estate to manage the estate. A steward is responsible for the overseeing and protection of something considered worth caring for and preserving.

Now, look around a little and you'll find that we are supposed to be good stewards of a lot of things from God. We are to be good stewards of our time, overseeing, protecting, and caring for it. We are to be good stewards of our finances, not squandering it or wasting it. Our time and our money, you see, are not actually ours to squander. They belong to the Master of the estate and we are simply assigned to manage them as His surrogate.

But Paul is not so vague. In all three instance Paul is talking about one particular topic.

For if I preach the gospel, I have nothing to boast of, for I am under compulsion; for woe is me if I do not preach the gospel. For if I do this voluntarily, I have a reward; but if against my will, I have a stewardship entrusted to me (1 Cor 9:16-17).

For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for the sake of you Gentiles -- if indeed you have heard of the stewardship of God's grace which was given to me for you; that by revelation there was made known to me the mystery, as I wrote before in brief. By referring to this, when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit; to be specific, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel, of which I was made a minister, according to the gift of God's grace which was given to me according to the working of His power (Eph 3:1-7).

Of this church I was made a minister according to the stewardship from God bestowed on me for your benefit, so that I might fully carry out the preaching of the word of God (Col 1:25).

What topic? Paul is speaking of the Gospel. He was compelled to preach the Gospel. He was given a stewardship of that Gospel to take to the Gentiles. His job in life was to preach the Word of God.

Now, remember. The definition of stewardship is to manage, to oversee, and to protect something that the Master considers worth caring for and preserving. Therefore, Paul was tasked with managing, overseeing, and protecting the Gospel. We can see this in Galatians when he takes them to task at the beginning of his letter to the church there. "I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!" (Gal 1:6-8). No, really, Paul. Tell us what you really think. We can see it when the Apostle Peter himself started acquiescing to the judaizers and Paul stood against him (Gal 2:11-21). And, of course, you can see it in the fact that Paul heartily preached the Word everywhere he went. He was managing it, overseeing it, and protecting it.

Today, a lot of Christians think that the Gospel is a fluid thing, a tool, perhaps. Shift it a little here; push it a little there. Make it fit the culture and the sentiment of the day. Sure, sure, Jesus warned about fearing the One who could kill the body and the soul, but there's no reason to go all "fire and brimstone" on anyone these days. Let's make it a warm, loving gospel. Let's make it ... what Paul calls "not another gospel". We'll edge Hell out of the question and push the whole "If you love Me you will keep my commandments" to the side and heaven knows people don't want to hear that they're sinners, so don't even go there. This may be a lot of things, but it is not stewardship of the Gospel. If we are to "follow my example" (Phil 3:17), perhaps we need to leave off tampering with the Gospel and move more toward protecting it from those who would. We have a stewardship. God considers His Gospel something worth caring for and preserving. We need to be on task.

Using Tools

Have you heard of the AED? It is a cool device that saves lives. It is an Automated External Defibrillator. When used properly, the device detects cardiac arrhythmias and defibrillates the patient to reestablish heart rythm. I mean, really cool. It is designed to be so easy that even a caveman could do it, in the modern vernacular.

So, meet Bob. Bob is a fictional coworker who suffers a ventricular tachycardia. Bob is dying right there on the spot. Ted, a thoughtful and trained CPR-type individual, grabs the AED off the wall, hooks the device up to Bob, follows the prompts from the device, and shocks Bob back to life. Presto! Bob's life is saved. After returning from the hospital, Bob shows his deep gratitude. He makes friends with the AED, takes it to dinner, offers it gifts, and praises it to everyone he meets. What a wonderful device! What a life-saver!

This, of course, is silly. The one getting the gratitude would not be the AED, but the one who used the device to save Bob's life. The AED, absolutely necessary to save him in this case, was simply the tool that Ted used to give Bob his life back.

It has been argued that if God is absolutely Sovereign, then evangelism is pointless. It has been argued that if God chooses whom He will save, there is no reason to share the Gospel. William Carey is considered by most to be the father of modern missions. He argued for overseas missions in a Calvinist setting and was told, "Young man, sit down! You are an enthusiast. When God pleases to convert the heathen, He'll do it without consulting you or me." That's the problem, right? If God is Sovereign and God chooses whom He will save, why bother spreading the Gospel?

The problem, of course, is the same problem as with Bob and his great appreciation of the AED. He confused means and ends. He confused the tool and the one who used it. God is a God of means. He has ordained a variety of means for His ends. So He uses humans to glorify Him and He commands His people to use certain methods to achieve what He wants. He uses imperfect preachers and teachers to edify the Body. He uses the Word to renew your mind. He uses our prayer to accomplish His will. And He uses "what is foolish in the world to shame the wise" (1 Cor 1:26). We, as evangelists spreading the Gospel, do not make converts. He does that. We, then, are the tools He uses like that AED Ted used.

God is a God of means. He establishes various routes, methods, commands, and procedures to accomplish what He wants to accomplish. Does He have to? Perhaps not. But the fact that He wishes to involve His people in His work isn't a bad thing. Nor does it deny the basic running theme of all of Scripture that God is Sovereign. We just need to be sure to keep in mind Who is using the life-giving tools.

News Flash!

Okay, so a study was published that ... get this ... claims that "people who consume pornography have a more positive attitude toward extramarital sex." And, of course, that's bad because, well, adultery is a problem for marriage.

No, seriously, they needed a study for that? Because no one really thought that porn was a problem until a serious study indicated it was.

Honestly, do I need to say more?

Ad Man

When I was leaving high school, I was trying to figure out the next step. What did I want to do? What did I want to be? What could I do? You know, just so I could figure out what college courses to take and what major to pursue. One possibility was architectural design, but one that someone suggested that really pulled at me was advertising. You see, I liked creative writing and I liked music and I liked art, so perhaps I could combine all those skills in advertising. Well, of course, that was an obvious direction ... until I was informed that I couldn't really do any of those very well. So I was off in other directions.

As it turns out, I would not have made a good ad man. The most simple function of an advertiser is to induce people to partake of the advertised product or service. So you have to be able to influence people toward your intentions. And how do you do that? Well, in my case, I try to use sound reasoning and clear logic and provide evidence and rationale. Seems like a solid approach. And it ends up being completely off track. The most effective way to get people to do what you want them to do is not by careful reasoning and argument -- not with truth and logic -- but with emotion. You need to get them to feel a certain way because, it appears, most people are more driven by their gut than their brains.

Consider the two approaches -- mine and my opponent's -- to an example subject. Is homosexual behavior a sin? "Well," I launch in, "here's what the Bible has to say. Chapter and verse. Context. Language. Overall content. Multiple places. And here's what we see in Church history. A constant perception. And here's what we see in nature and here's what we see in human history and ... there you have it. Clear as day." What do I get in response? "What do you have against love?" "I think it would be really sad that people who love each other wouldn't be allowed to get married." "You're just a hater and a bigot." I even get, "You're on the wrong side of history" even though I just gave the biblical and historical precedence for my view. Because, you see, it is not reason that prevails, but emotion.

We're naturally that way, I think. We naturally prefer feelings to thinking. Then feed us 60+ years of television ads -- 30 second blasts aimed at heart, not minds -- and factor in the negative effect of rational decision making that would often indicate that we shouldn't do what we feel like doing, and you end up with a natural condition aggravated over time to a serious problem. While the human being generally feels based on how he or she thinks about something, we tend to -- are encouraged to -- decide based on how we feel rather than how we think. Indeed, we are urged "Don't think about it; go with your heart", as if thinking is inferior to feeling.

So, you see, advertising would have been a poor choice for me. I think too much. I evaluate by argument and evidence, by reason and examination. I think that making a coherent, cohesive, well-reasoned, well-supported explanation of something ought to be convincing. It's not that I'm better or smarter than anyone else. I just think different than the mainstream. I am, of course, quite wrong in that. The majority of humans, given to the debased mind (Rom 1:28) rather than the transformed mind (Rom 12:2), are just not interested in arguments. They'd much prefer feelings.

Heavenly Dilemma

So, here I am, reading through Revelation again. Frankly, I'm not a big fan of the book not because of anything wrong with it, but simply because it is so full of imagery and symbolism that it's hard to actually say what it really means. Well, that's fine. Given the future nature of it and the 1st century authorship of it, it's likely what you'd expect. And it is the only book in the Bible that actually promises a blessing for reading the book (Rev 1:3), so I do it.

So I come across the end part. You know, when the seals and the trumpets and the bowls of wrath and all are done and the millennium has occurred and it's all finished. We're at the final outcome, the end, the New Heaven and New Earth. And we read those actually famous and blessed words,

And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be His people, and God Himself will be with them as their God. He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away" (Rev 21:3-4).

Think of it! No tears, no mourning, no pain, no death. Eternally in the presence of God. Someone mentioned to me the other day that God has the very best retirement plan for His people. So true, so true.

But my son asked me one day, "Dad, how can I be happy in heaven knowing that people I love are in eternal torment?" Now, that's a show-stopper. Good question. For the husband whose wife is in Hell or the daughter whose mother is in Hell or the father whose son is in Hell, how is it even remotely possible that God could wipe away every tear, that there would be no mourning or crying? Indeed, some have suggested that this makes God Himself a monster. A real stumper of a question.

What is it that makes the question so real? Well, as it turns out, I am more closely tied to my wife and my children and my parents and even my friends than I am to Christ. I am more able to relate to my fellow conspirators in Cosmic Treason than with the Holy One of Israel. Invoking Godwin's Law -- gratuitously playing the "Hitler card" -- I more closely relate to Hitler than I do to Jesus. Now, don't go pointing fingers at me. The same is true of every one of us. This is what makes the whole "Hell" thing so offensive. This is one of the top reasons why so many have jettisoned Christianity. The doctrine that so many will be damned for eternity in torment is unbearable to us. "If that's what God is like, I want no part of Him." And, in truth, if we're honest, there is at least a twinge of that in all of us to some degree or another at some point or another.

This fact is what clears up the question for me brought by my son. How can I be happy in heaven knowing that people I love are in eternal torment? Well, the Bible tells me that God's will includes the demonstration of His wrath and power on vessels of wrath prepared for destruction (Rom 9:22). This displays, as I say, His wrath and power while magnifying both His justice and His mercy and grace (Rom 9:23). In other words, only through this does God get the glory He deserves. Now, when I get more aligned with God than I am with His creatures, that will be an outstanding thing to behold. That will be good. Indeed, the Bible says, "Therefore God has highly exalted Him (Christ) and bestowed on Him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father" (Phil 2:9-11). Get that? Every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, and that will bring glory to God. Understand that "every" means "even those in Hell".

The problem is not that people will receive the just recompense for their Treason against the Most High. The problem is not that God will be unjust. The problem is us. (Seems to happen way too often.) We are more closely allied with the enemies of God than with the God we worship. Once that error is rectified, "He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away." I don't say I fully grasp it yet, but I can see it.

Heterophobia

Emily Nesbit was a former English teacher in Pennsylvania. She engaged in consensual sex with one of her 18-year-old students. She has been charged with sexual assault under Pennsylvania's Institutional Sexual Assault statue that makes sex with students illegal. Odd thing. She is not being hailed as brave, heroic, or ground-breaking. She is going to jail.

A high school dance teacher in Texas faces second-degree felony charges for her affair with a 17-year-old female student. She is not being celebrated for her sexual choices, but is instead banned from any contact with the witness or any minor under the age of 17, from using or possessing computers or cellphones, or from accessing pornography while she awaits her trial.

After crashing his vehicle one weekend, Tiger Woods' story came out. He has been linked to affairs with at least 9 women including a porn star and a pancake house waitress. Following the admission of extramarital affairs, strangely enough, Woods was dropped from multiple sponsorship relationships with companies, his wife left him, and he was out of the golf game for months. Estimates put his losses in money alone between $5 and $12 billion dollars. Read that again. Losses. He was not, for reasons unknown, rewarded for his sexual choices.

After being selected as the first openly gay NFL player, Michael Sam kissed his boyfriend on camera for the world to see. The NFL is having trouble keeping up with the demand for Michael Sam jerseys. He was congratulated by President Obama. Miami Dolphin player Don Jones tweeted "Horrible" after the viral video kiss and was fined and dropped from participation with the team until he completes "training". The news calls Sam "heroic" and "courageous". (One news outlet said this was the end of the "male-dominated NFL". What???) GLAAD says "This is a game changer."

Now I wonder what the difference is? Why did all these other people (and more besides) get in trouble for acting out on their personal sexual preferences -- we're not talking about rape or anything -- but Sam is hailed as a hero? Why were these others not congratulated as being "game-changers"? What is this ... heterophobia¹? Why does society recognize some sexual desires as wrong but others as good? And when will we realize that there really is right and wrong, moral and immoral, good and bad, and not all relative?
________
¹ It's sad that I have to do this, but I will likely need to explain that I am not actually suggesting "heterophobia" (at least, not at this juncture). It is a literary device wherein the reader is supposed to answer logically, "No!" The point is not that there is some "heterophobia" going on (any more than there is actual "homophobia"), but that people are randomly determining moral values without rhyme or reason ... or even consistency. Just so we're all clear.

Redefined

As you've likely heard, "A judge on Friday struck down Arkansas' ban on same-sex marriage, saying the state has 'no rational reason' for preventing gay couples from marrying."

Most interesting to me was the judge's reasoning when he wrote, "This is an unconstitutional attempt to narrow the definition of equality." Equality? No, "marriage". And, oh, it wasn't narrowing, but maintaining.

Then there was this little tidbit from one of those who sued the state in order to achieve her "marriage" license. "We think that (the judge) did a really great job and that he ruled on the right side of history." Talk about a redefinition. History has always maintained a definition of "man/woman" marriage, but this time the judged sided with history by going against it. That's a "good job"?

There are a lot of obvious places to comment in the story. The people of Arkansas voted in 1997 to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman and passed an amendment to their state constitution "with the overwhelming support of Arkansas voters" in 2004. Doesn't matter. Didn't count. Neener, neener. There is the constant faulty connection between "who I want to have sex with" and race. There is that absolutely nonsensical "This victory is an essential step on the journey toward full equality for all" from the HRC which mandates that "equality for all" excludes Arkansas voters, Christians, and anyone else that thinks that history answered this question a long, long time ago. And, of course, there is this almost mandatory error of linking the stand on the traditional, heretofore unchallenged definition of marriage with a "gay marriage ban". You see, defining something as X excludes the rest of the letters of the alphabet, not just "Y". It isn't a ban of a particular type of marriage; it is a defense of true marriage.

But, then, given Americans' failure to think and the standard rule "If it feels like it it's true", I'm pretty much whistling in the wind here. It doesn't matter if they're wrong. They'll still change the world. Just not for the better.

Talk about redefining, have you heard about Chaz Stevens? He is a self-declared Satanist. Following the Supreme Court ruling that allowed prayers in public, Stevens demanded "equal billing". He wants to open the Florida State Senate with a satanic prayer. Yeah, okay, really not much news there. But here's the kicker. Stevens classifies himself as a Satanist and then says, "We allow various religious nutjobs to give a prayer. They pray to Jesus who is make-believe, god who is make-believe, why not Satan who is make-believe? Why discriminate against one make-believe god over another?"

Ummm, Chaz, buddy ... can you be a "Satanist" that believes that your "Satan" is make-believe? One cannot be classified as a follower of Satan of Satan if one believes no such being exists. You can't follow a nonexistent being. Now, of course, to be completely fair, I should point out that the world is full of people who are self-professed "Christians" without being actual followers of Christ. In fact, I know of some who don't even believe He exists. Some don't even believe He ever existed. So, on that side of the equation, we'd have to say that this notion of being a follower of a being that doesn't exist isn't new; it's just foolish. So, which is it? Has Chaz Stevens redefined "Satanist" to mean "someone who does not follow Satan" or is he simply one of a large group of foolish folk who have also defined "Christian" as "one who does not follow Christ"? I ask because I know there are a lot in that former topic -- those who redefine "marriage" (and "equality" and "democracy" and even "all") -- who also classify themselves as "Christian", so the two redefinition camps may end up merging.

I Shot an Arrow into the Air

So, here's the plan. "Fast-food workers plan strikes in 150 cities across the United States and protests in 33 other countries on May 15 to demand higher pay and better working conditions."

I've looked in the past at the idea of raising the minimum wage and the questionable benefits of doing so, but I'm more interested in this basic strategy. Cause some controlled pain in order to force people to provide what they want.

So, let's think about this. First, who will pay for this? Well, of course, the striking workers will because they won't get paid while they're not working. But they figure that's a cost worth bearing. Then the customers will because they'll have a harder time getting served due to the lack of workers. And, of course, I would think that the primary target would be the companies themselves -- the McDonalds and Burger Kings.

As it turns out, of course, that's not quite the way it works. According to McDonald's website, of the 35,000 restaurants worldwide, 80% are franchised. That is, 80% of those 35,000 restaurants are owned by private owners, not corporate owners. Thus, 28,000 private owners will be paying for this strike. And that's just for McDonalds. Burger King claims 12,000 restaurants with 90% franchise owned. You know, it doesn't take very long to figure out that the ones getting stuck with this strike action will not be corporations, but private owners.

The final irony, of course, is that neither the companies, the private owners, nor the customers can raise the minimum wage. That's a function of the government ... who won't be suffering any undue discomfort from this little action. And when they do, $15/hour will no longer be a living wage. We'll have to do it again. Because as we all know it is the duty of every company to pay its employees whatever they feel is a living wage or whatever they think they're worth and it is unfair of any company to fail to do so. Who says? The unions, of course.

Longfellow wrote of shooting an arrow into the air -- "I know not where" -- and breathing a song into the air. He later found the arrow lodged in a tree and the song lodged in a friend's heart. I suspect we'll more likely find this protest lodged in the heart of the American economy if this goes through. So, tell me again, how is this a good idea?