Act Like a Christian

I've heard well-meaning believers say such things to fellow believers. They'll see someone doing something "unchristianly" and tell them, "You call yourself a believer? You need to act like a Christian." It always struck me as odd. First, do we need to act like one or be one? Shouldn't our changed hearts produce changed lives? Christianity, after all, is not an act, is it? Beyond that, what, exactly, does that mean?. What does "act like a Christian" look like?

Jesus said, "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander" (Matt 15:19), so I would argue that "act like a Christian" should be more of "act like your new heart tells you." Paul wrote about his longing to know Christ "and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith" (Php 3:9). Living Christ's righteousness. He admitted he had not yet obtained perfection (Php 3:12), but he pressed on toward that goal (Php 3:14). And then he said, "Only let us hold true to what we have attained" (Php 3:16). What have we attained? Perfection in Christ. How do we hold true to that? By changed living -- "acting like a Christian." Except it's not an act; it's allowing the inner reality to become more and more lived out in the outer person.

So what does that look like? Well, at first glance, it's fairly simple -- quite obvious. If "Christian" is "follower of Christ," then "act like a Christian" is "imitate Christ." That is at once both simple and complicated. Simple. On the surface, Jesus obeyed what His Father commanded in all things. Easy. In fact, there were two guiding principles: love God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself. Those two contain all the rules, so those were the two Jesus lived by and, therefore, we as followers of Christ should live by. Complicated. Such a set of guiding principles is frankly impossible for the Natural Man. In our natural mode of thinking, our question is "What's best for me?" and no one, including you godly folk, questions it. It is natural. Jesus's primary questions were "What's in it for God?" followed by "What's in it for My neighbor?" (Note: I'm pretty sure He capitalized His own pronouns, etc.) (Ok, maybe not a big deal in 1st century Greek or Aramaic.) Jesus lived His life outwardly. His view was not "Me," but upward and outward. Paul told the Philippians, "Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves" (Php 2:3). Jesus lived that. Paul told them,

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

Notice. In none of that do we see "What is best for me?" Nowhere is there a "me first" or "personal comfort" or "too much to give." He didn't concern Himself with "My personal justice" or "My personal gain." Jesus did feed Himself, clothe Himself, sleep, etc. He did those things necessary to accomplish His Father's will. He did what He needed to do to meet the needs of others. Jesus did things that are about "Jesus," but only so far as was necessary for Jesus to do what the Father wanted for His glory or for those around Him. He even, for His Father, used a whip on moneychangers and, for the deluded Pharisees, pronounced curses ("Woe to you ...") on the Pharisees. He wasn't all "light and flowers." But none of it was self-directed. None of it was about Him. When they attributed His works to Satan, He warned them, "Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven" (Matt 12:32). Jesus lived love -- love for God and love for His neighbor. Not that namby-pamby, cuddly-warm kind, but real love that always sought what was best for the loved one. That directed all His attention, all His efforts, all His vision. Complicated ... like that.

We might say, "Act like a Christian," but Christianity isn't an act and Christianity is not made up of activities. It's not about works. We are saved (the primary concept of "Christianity") apart from works. On the other hand, we are saved (apart from works) for good works (Eph 2:8-10). Works, then, are the natural byproduct of being "born again," of receiving a "new heart." The standard we've been given for what "act like a Christian" looks like is Christ. That standard points our attention, first, to God -- what pleases Him -- and, second, to those around us and what is best for them. That kind of mindset is directly opposed to the mindset of those who are dead in sin. It is only possible when powered by the Holy Spirit. But if we have been clothed in the righteousness of Christ, shouldn't we seek to live up to that righteousness? Just because it's hard doesn't mean it's not right ... or best.

The End

The phrase, "the end," often carries with it a sense of loss or fear, particularly when it refers to the end of life. We know that no one gets out of this life alive, but the notion of death is still a major fear. Eschatology is the word Christians use to talk about the study of the "end times." Others refer to "the Apocalypse" and refer to anything of great disaaster as "apocalyptic." You'd think that Christians would embrace the concepts of death and the end times, but even Christians fear those ideas. Why is that?

Biblically "the end" has two possible outcomes. One is eternal life with God and the other is eternal death without God. Sometimes we minimize those into "heaven" and "hell" and that's not necessarily incorrect; it's just not the whole picture. "Heaven" is a shiny place with clouds and harps and streets of gold and, frankly, a lot of us think that would be boring before long. "Hell" is a place of fire and a lot of them think that's just plain silly. But an eternity in the presence of God can never be boring and "a place of fire" cannot begin to express the torment of an eternity without God.

Do you know where the term "apocalypse" comes from? It is the Greek word ἀποκάλυψις -- apokalupsis -- that is the word that gives us the title of the last book of the Bible -- Revelation. Our culture sees "apocalypse" as disaster; John saw it as "The revelation of Jesus Christ" (Rev 1:1). And if Jesus was right -- the world hates Him (John 15:24) -- I can see how the world would combine the revelation of Christ with disaster. But, of course, while Jesus was not wrong, people don't equate the two together because of Jesus. They do it because the Revelation speaks of the end. And that's bad ... to them. So that's the question, isn't it? Do you love this world so much that an eternity with God is bad? Or terrifying? That's a problem. Do you find Paul a bit insane when he says "to die is gain" (Php 1:21)? That's a problem. Consider it from this perspective. If you were told that heaven would be a place of joy and no more tears or sickness and all that, but Jesus would not be there, would you want to go? Where your treasure is, there your heart will be. Your gut response to "the end" might be a good test of where your treasure is.

Hard Sayings - "Two or More"

Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven. For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst. (Matt 18:19-20)

Verse 19 is not a method of coercing God to do what want. It is an instruction on how to deal with the difficulty of carrying out Matthew 18:15-17. It's hard to regard people you care about as Gentiles and tax gatherers -- as outsiders. But don't worry. God has already done it, so your task is merely to carry it out (Matt 18:18). He begins verse 19 with "again" meaning "I'm on the same topic," so in verse 19 the "ask anything" in view is "in regards to this discipline process." That's the context. Who asks anything? "Two of you." Any two? Not in context. Jesus already referenced two in verse 16, so I'd guess it is those who brought the case to the church. Those folks are praying for God's will regarding this sinning brother. God will answer that prayer.

The next verse -- Matthew 18:20 -- is another seriously misunderstood text from the lips of our Savior. I have been in multiple prayer meetings where they prayed, "Jesus, we gather here knowing you are here with us because You said, 'Where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst.'" It always left me wondering, "So, what if I'm praying with four other people? Or is He not there when I pray alone?" You know, like He commanded (Matt 6:6). So we have refused to examine this text for what it really means because we think that God requires a quorum to show up? The verse is at the end of a section of Scripture where Jesus is explaining how to handle sinning believers. Matthew 18:15-17 gives Jesus's four-step process of attempting to restore a sinning brother. The final step is a bit egregious, so in Matthew 18:18, Jesus explains that when we do that, we are doing what God has already done. Verse 19 tells us to do it with prayer. Verse 20 is a reminder that serves a dual purpose at the end of this difficult procedure. First, remember; Jesus is there. You didn't go through this alone. You did what He told you and He's there. Second, remember, Jesus is there. This was a serious and difficult thing to do, so don't make light of it. Remember it's about Him and not you. It is not lightweight or frivolous. It's important, and it's not about you.

Christ commands church discipline. He requires that we seek to bear one another's burdens even when that burden is their sin. We don't ignore it; we confront it in love and gentleness. As quietly as possible. If one is enough, great! If not, two or three. If that doesn't get there, make it a part of the whole group, always with prayer and self-reflection seeking restoration, not punitive action. If the group doesn't bring about repentance, the actions of the brother in question and their refusal to repent suggests they may not be a brother. Treat them as an unbeliever. Remember, it's God's call. Remember, God will do His will. Remember, Jesus is there. God approves of repentance and restoration as well as those who, with prayer and caution and love, seek to bring it about in those around them. Not quite the original thought of Jesus showing up when two are there, is it?

Future Perfect Passive

I learned a new term the other day: "future perfect passive." It refers to something that is accomplished but not completed, something that will be finished at a certain moment in the future. The Greek version of this is in the sense of "will have been done." That is, there is no doubt, no question. All that remains is the final fulfillment. I learned this term while looking at Matthew 18:18.

Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (ESV)

Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven. (NASB)

Truly I say to you, Whatever you bind on the earth will be, having been bound in Heaven. And whatever you loose on the earth will be, having been loosed in Heaven. (LITV)

Verily I say to you, Whatever things ye may bind upon the earth shall be having been bound in the heavens, and whatever things ye may loose on the earth shall be having been loosed in the heavens. (YLT)

The ESV puts it the way we're used to it. The NASB, Literal Translation of the Holy Bible (LITV), and Young's Literal Translation (YLT) all take into account this verb tense. And it appears to turn the whole thing on its head.

Many people understand the text to say that God (in heaven) is required to do whatever we command (bind or loose). We bind it and He's required to concur in heaven. Or loose it. But that's not what the verb tense implies. In the traditional translations it is, but in these more literal ones it is reversed. Whatsoever we bind on earth has already been bound in heaven (or loosed). The completion of the "has been bound in heaven" is in the "bound on earth," not vice versa. Those who are doing the binding or loosing are doing so at the behest of heaven, not as instructions for heaven.

This is important given the context. Matthew 18:15-20 is about what to do in the case of a sinning believer. There is a process (Matt 18:15-17) that ends, if not in repentance, with "let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector." That's not pleasant. That's actually somewhat scary. Can we actually do that? Can we declare this person among the unbelievers? On whose authority? The text above -- Matthew 18:18 -- answers that question. If you go through that process precisely as instructed -- aiming to restore, hoping for repentance, out of deep and abiding love for your brother -- and he doesn't repent, you are acting out what heaven has already done. You are completing the work God already began. You are arriving at a foregone conclusion as intended by God.

To me this radically changes the image I had of this process. It's not about righteous indignation. It's not about "holier than thou." It's not about telling God who's good and who's bad. It is a humble ending to a humble beginning following God's instructions for God's sure ends. That feels a lot different. It puts the emphasis on the hand of God rather than the tools that hand is holding.

Judgmental

One of the big things that the self-righteous liberals like to be judgmental and intolerant about is people who are judgmental and intolerant. Never mind the double standard. Never mind the failure to grasp the meaning of "tolerance" (which requires there to be a difference of opinion to tolerate). They concur with "Only God can judge me" (with the implied "and He won't") and require everyone to stand aside and keep your mouth shut. So when a Christian points to God's Word and says, "That thing you're doing is sin," they have breached the "code of ethics." "You can't say that. You shouldn't be so judgmental." It is said that the best known verse in the Bible is "Judge not, that you be not judged."

The Bible, of course, disagrees. Let me be more specific. Jesus disagrees. Jesus gave instructions. "If your brother sins against you," He began and laid out the proper approach (Matt 18:15-17). It is a four-step approach. First, you go and tell him his fault (Matt 18:15). "Oh, no! That's judgmental!" Jesus thought it was right. Jesus said, "If he listens to you, you have gained your brother." The second step is to take two or three witnesses (Matt 18:16). If he repents, you're good to go. If not, the third step is to take it to the church (Matt 18:17). Again, if he repents, we're golden. If not, the final step is to "let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector." See him (or her) as unsaved, an unbeliever. Outside of the fellowship. Deeply in need of Christ. It's called "church discipline." It is from the lips of Jesus.

It seems judgmental, but we have very good reasons to engage in such distasteful behavior. There are two primary concerns. The first Jesus lists here. "If he listens to you, you have gained your brother." His welfare. Paul wrote in Galatians 6, "Brethren, even if anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself, so that you too will not be tempted" (Gal 6:1). The point is restoration, not punishment. James wrote, "My brethren, if any among you strays from the truth and one turns him back, let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins" (James 5:19-20). Saving, not condemning. Covering sins, not magnifying them. In Paul's version it includes "in a spirit of gentleness" and a healthy dose of "each one looking to yourself." Not some self-righteous church lady image. In the best interest of your fellow believers, we are supposed to help them in this way.

Paul lists a second reason. In 1 Corinthians 5 we read about a church member engaging in a sin "of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles" (1 Cor 5:1): he is sleeping with his step-mother. The Corinthian Christians prided themselves on their nonjudgmental attitude and Paul says, "You have become arrogant and have not mourned" (1 Cor 5:2). So he takes the astounding step of turning the man over to Satan "for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus" (1 Cor 5:5). Note that same primary concern -- the sinner's best interest. Yes, there is pain to come, but it is so that "his spirit may be saved." But he goes on to give the second reason. "Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough?" (1 Cor 5:6). We often disregard this second even more than we disregard the first reason. We fail to see that unaddressed sin in the camp will become a much larger problem than if it had been handled when it was small. For the health of the body of Christ, we must address these things.

Our modern world would like to tell us that the really loving thing to do is to just back off. Let them be who they will be. Don't say anything about their "indiscretions" and "faux pas." Jesus disagreed. The really loving thing to do is to gain your brother. The really caring thing to do is to restore a sinning saint. The really healthy response to sin is to seek to restore the sinner. We do this for the person who is transgressing God's commands, but we also do it for all of the rest of us. To fail to do so is to hold the cure for cancer and withhold it because "I want to be tolerant and nonjudgmental." A lie from the father of lies.

News Weakly - 7/9/22

Move On
Moveon.org has hosted a petition to impeach Justice Clarence Thomas. His crime? He voted against abortion. "If that's not enough," the petition says (as if "voting the way we didn't want him to" is enough to impeach someone), he also voted "wrong" in other travesties, like the insurrection hoax. Oh, and he has a conservative (read "bad") wife. I mean, what else do we need? Well, all we need to do is get really angry and make sure a lot of people agree and justice will demand that he is gone. Well, I say, good luck with that. Please ... move on.

Just Wondering
Just thinking out loud here. If "Pride goes before destruction" (Prov 16:18) and Pride Month just ended, what should we expect in July? And, consider. Pride month ... we got that. I'm sure we can work in lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, envy, and wrath months, too. Should be no problem, right? Just thinking.

The "D" Stands for "Double Standard"
In Minnesota, the DFL legalized THC-infused edibles. It caught Republican Sen. Jim Abeler by surprise because he didn't read the legislation he voted for. And now, of course, the senator is up for ridicule ... unlike Congress that never read, say, the Obamacare bill. But "they're on our side." It's only "the other guys" that deserve such ridicule.

Department of Jokers?
The DOJ is suing Arizona because they require people to be legally qualified to vote and the DOJ thinks that's unfair. Now, if the law says that you have to be a citizen to vote and the DOJ sues people for enforcing that, in what sense are they the department of justice?

Not Misinformation
Bette Midler and Macy Gray are in trouble. Both made "transphobic" statements that were ... you know ... undeniably true. Midler complained that they were taking away "women" and making them "birthing people" and that was just mean of her. Gray said that just because you change body parts, it doesn't make you a woman. Really mean. Both are true. The science is undeniable. Neither suggested that trans people were bad people. Both simply wanted to point out that "woman" has a meaning and "because I feel like it" is not part of that. Haters. Of course, it will make it difficult to support equal rights for women when "women" becomes this vague, undefined, "because I feel like it" term.

No Surprise, But ...
It's not like this wasn't a likely possibility, but President Biden is issuing an executive order to protect the continued murder of babies. Executive orders have limits and it appears that they can be used for good or ill, and, clearly, Democrats in general and this president in particular, over against the majority of nations (who, if they allow abortion, limit it) and over against his stated religion (Catholic) and over against laws of various states which is, therefore, over against the 10th Amendment, are all proving that protecting the Constitution and the people for which it stands is all nonsense as long as they can kill who they want in order ... to have unprotected sex when they want. No surprise, but sad and even alarming just the same.

Tower of Babble
You may have heard that Justice Kavanaugh was harrassed while having dinner in a restaurant. You know, like "mostly peaceful" folk do with people they don't like. Because the restaurant told the truth about the unruly protesters, thousands of false reservations were made at restaurant. And AOC thought it was funny that Justice Kavanaugh couldn't eat dinner in peace because "he decided half the country should risk death if they have an ectopic pregnancy within the wrong state lines." Of course, it's a lie. All the states that have currently banned or limited abortion include the exception of the risk of a mother's life. But, of course, truth is not an issue for her type. It should be to all of you.

The A, Bee, C's
On the tails of our Independence Day celebration, the British parliament has convened a special July 4 commission to investigate colonial insurrection. (For the record, folks, that is what an insurrection looks like, not that ridiculous Jan 6 thing.) In Texas, the story is out that Elon Musk, father of 9, is planning to go to Mars ... to get some peace and quiet. And after the president gave his passionate speech demanding that gas stations lower their prices, he is now asking pollsters to raise his approval rating. We'll see how that goes.

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

________
Postscript: Please note that there is nothing in the news about the Department of Justice or the Attorney General or any national law enforcement agencies taking any action on the criminals that illegal attempted to coerce Supreme Court Justices to vote the way they wanted them to or to investigate and bring to justice any of the domestic terrorists responsible for ongoing attacks on churches and pregnancy centers. I wonder why that is. Note: It's not a conspiracy theory when the conspirators openly document it.

Just Thinking Out Loud

I was just mulling this over the other day. In Romans Paul writes, "As it is written, 'None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.'" (Rom 3:10-12). And no small number of Christians say, "Well, we know that isn't true." (I use the term "Christian" there even though some are simply self-professed Christians, but I know genuine Christians who balk at the claim as well.) "We know that's not true because lots of people seek for God. We know that's true because there are a lot of good people." So some embrace Scripture ... selectively. Some stuff they agree with and some they don't.

A lot of these people tend toward the "red letter" view. "Much of Scripture," in their view, "is up for debate, but we can trust the words of Jesus." So they classify themselves as "Jesus followers" because they believe they follow His words. Oddly enough, they do so while ignoring them. It wasn't Paul who said those things; he was quoting the Old Testament. And Paul wasn't the first New Testament speaker to voice it. That would be Jesus. Jesus, speaking in red letters, said, "No one is good except God alone" (Luke 18:19). Exactly the same thing Paul said. I haven't heard anyone say, "Well, we know that isn't true" regarding Jesus's words. Yet, if they discard Paul, they discard Jesus, too. Jesus said, "You do not believe because you are not among My sheep" (John 10:26), carefully and clearly placing "among My sheep" before "believe." Jesus said, "No one can come to Me unless it is granted him by the Father" (John 6:65). You say people seek for God? Jesus says they can't -- "no one can." And those "red letter" types embrace Jesus's words ... selectively.

In taking the "high ground" ("We only accept the words of Jesus"), these people ignore the Word that was God (John 1:1), making themselves out to be the ultimate arbiter of truth when Jesus said, "I am ... the Truth" (John 14:6). They conflate their own perspectives and standards to be God's views and standards and reject out of hand the things God says if He disagrees with them. Not quite the "high ground" they were aiming for ... unless we're talking about the Old Testament "high places" (e.g., 1 Kings 3:2–3) where idols were worshiped.

From the Perspective of Normal

I read an interesting piece on Canada's social, political, and moral climate. Interesting. From 1963 on Canada has been shifting to perhaps "the world's most liberal society." They accomplished it by establishing "vast liberal-leaning media, juridical, academic, educational, bureaucratic, and corporate structures." Today, then, there is no "far right" in Canada not because it's banned, but because they've become so used to "liberal" as the norm that they wouldn't consider it. I would say, "There, but for the grace of God, goes America."

I'm not looking here to evaluate Canada or even liberalism. I'm looking at "normal." In China, for instance, the populace has been so isolated and so controlled for so long that they generally consider it "normal." The majority takes no offense at governmental overreach. Large segments are not up in arms over loss of rights or liberties. They never had them. Much like the Middle Ages when people lived from birth to grave as serfs and peasants, people seem to see "normal" as acceptable and right without further evaluation. It's only from outside "normal" that anyone will further examine such things.

This is the approach of the LGBTQ types of the day. Make it "normal" and no one will notice. It cannot be normal (statistically) because it constitutes less than 5% of the population, but if you make it appear normal enough, people won't notice. It is the approach of the Left, where "inclusivity by exclusivity" is regarded as right and good and no one notices because it's "normal" or "reproductive rights" over "human rights" is right and good because it's "normal." Control the media, academia, education of children, etc., and you can make your side out to be "normal" and, therefore, good and soon enough no one will know any different and anyone who disagrees, regardless of why they disagree, will have their claims evaluated; they will be rejected simply as "abnormal."

The article says that "Canada lacks many aspects of America that may temper the aforementioned trends." Things like a strong military, organized and especially conservative religion, homeschooling, traditional-leaning private schools, and various independent publications. These tend to balance out the controls of the Left in those areas and our "normal" includes them. You can sense, however, that our society is moving away from them, and a new "normal" is right around the corner for us, as well. For instance, in 2000 Californians voted in Prop 22 that defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman. In 2004, Then San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom (yes, that Gavin Newsom) illegally allowed some 4,000 marriage licenses to be issued in San Francisco. In May of 2008 the California Supreme Court declared Prop 22 unconstitutional and threw it out, ordering the immediate redefinition of marriage to change from the "longstanding, traditional definition" to include "same-sex." In response, Californians voted again to make "one man and one woman" the definition, this time as part of the state constitution. In 2013 the U.S. Supreme Court nullified the will of the people and, in 2015, made the new definition federal law. Wrong or right is not my point. The radical and sudden shift from a normal "No, that's not marriage" to "How could you think it's not?" took seven years in this country. What's next? Will we continue to allow "normal" to define right and wrong, good and bad, or will we have some standard we can look to that is universal, objective, and true? I think we all know the answer to that. So the real question is what will YOU do? Accept "normal" as good or believe God?

Unimpeachable

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has called for the impeachment of the Supreme Court justices who voted against Roe v Wade. That, of course, isn't perfectly accurate. She is claiming they lied under oath. She is not alone. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) told The New York Times that she feels Justice Kavanaugh misled her in a private meeting. Others are saying loudly that the three of the most recent appointees lied. Did they?

If you are paying attention, I don't think you can make that case. All three of the most recent appointees were heavily questioned in regard to their stance on Roe. All three of them recognized that it was "precedent." Their position is what is called in the legal field stare decisis. Stare decisis is the principle that precedent should determine legal decision-making in a case involving similar facts. That is, judges should lean toward agreement with prior judges in similar cases. You don't want to undermine the judicial system, right? But stare decisis is not law; it is a preference. And all three justice nominees where careful with their answers. Do they see Roe as precedent? Yes. Does that mean they cannot overturn it? That was never asked, but clearly that answer must be "No." In fact, Amy Coney Barrett had written a law review article that referenced the concept of a "super-precedent," a ruling with such precedence that it would demand subsequent rulings agree. Sen Amy Klobuchar asked her if Roe was a super-precedent. Barrett said, "I'm answering a lot of questions about Roe, which I think indicates that Roe doesn't fall in that category."

All the candidates recognized Roe as precedent. Precedent is not law. None of them claimed they would not vote against precedence. In fact, we shouldn't want a judge who would refuse to examine the facts and arguments in a case simply because a prior judge made a ruling. We should hope that stare decisis was a factor in their considerations, but certainly not the sole factor. They made statements that would likely lead the pro-abortion questioners to believe that Roe would be safe under their watch, but they were all lawyers and all gave lawyer answers -- completely true ... but not necessarily the conclusion you expected.

Here's what is disturbing to me. The almost single issue at stake in all three confirmation hearings was not ability or character; it was abortion. These congressional interrogators weren't looking for someone who would make rulings constitutionally, legally, or even wisely. They were looking for judges who would rule as they wanted them to. It was illegal for them to ask, "How would you rule?", but they sure tried. The highest concern of these agents of our democracy was not justice or law; it was the uninterrupted right to kill babies. To me, they carried out an interrogation under false pretenses and, in their own way, lied to the public doing so. They are not unimpeachable. (Before jumping to conclusions about what I just said, look it up.)

Personhood

Have you heard of the NRP (or NhRP)? It is the Nonhuman Rights Project. According to their website, "The Nonhuman Rights Project is the only civil rights organization in the United States dedicated solely to securing rights for nonhuman animals." That's right. We will not recognize any rights of the unborn human beings, but we will work hard for human rights for animals. "Nonhuman rights," they say, "are based on fundamental values and principles of justice such as liberty, autonomy, equality, and fairness." (Just take a moment to visualize what life becomes if all animals are given "equality" in the same sense that men, women, LGBTQ, all races, etc. are given. Equal pay? Just wondering, because an elephant or a horse can pull a lot more weight than you or I, for instance. But that would be moot because animals that aren't forced to work likely won't. Nor would any volunteer to be eaten. Oh, and all conservancy and protections (like preventing overpopulation of certain animals) would be right out, too.) The president of the organization says, "Our groundbreaking lawsuits in the US demand recognition of the legal personhood and fundamental right to bodily liberty of autonomous nonhuman animals living in captivity." Personhood? To a non-person? When we won't recognize the personhood of some humans? And why not? In 2017 New Zealand granted legal personhood to a river. In 2014 the Te Urewera park was recognized as a legal person. In 2018 a New Zealand volcano, Mount Taranaki, gained the same status. So why not animals? But my real question is why not humans? Insanity is spreading. It may already be at your door (Rom 1:22-23, 28).

Independence Day, 2022

Today we Americans celebrate our "Independence Day." We celebrate our struggle against the tyranny of King George III and Great Britain. We celebrate becoming our own nation and all that has been accomplished because of that struggle. Independence. On this day we celebrate the events of 1776 when we declared independence from Great Britain and became dependent only on ourselves.

That is, as it turns out, not entirely accurate. Perhaps it is more so today, but it wasn't in 1776. The Declaration of Independence was finally revised and signed on July 4, 1776. In it our forefathers declared that the purpose of government on earth was intended to secure rights that the Creator had given people. They presented a long list of violations of that obligation. So, they said, they were dissolving their connection to the failed authority of the king and turning to the authority derived from the people.

"See," you may say. "Independence meant self-governance." Sort of. The Declaration ends with "And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor." It started with the endowment of "unalienable Rights" by the Creator, and it ended with "firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence." Yes, they were intending to derive their governing power from the people, but their ultimate reliance wasn't the people; it was God.

We've moved on, haven't we? We've achieved ultimate self-reliance. We've ruled God out of government. We're offended if someone wants to pray on the 50-yard line at a school football game. Someone in government suggests that we need God in government and they're tagged as "no different than the Taliban" (by someone who classifies themselves as "Christian"). There is a common belief that you can be a Christian and you can be in government, but don't bring your Christian beliefs into government. This is, of course, utter nonsense. Following Christ engages all aspects of life and you can't turn it off. Beyond that, we shouldn't. We ought not (where "ought" carries a sense of moral obligation).

I don't believe that God has called for a theocracy. I believe that will happen when He makes it happen at the end. But as we celebrate our independence from an oppressive government while we live in a nation that is tending toward removing God-given rights instead of defending them, I would like to remind you (Christians) of two things. First, the founders of this nation did not believe in actual independence. They sought independence from Great Britain and from oppressive government, but they held to ongoing dependence on God. So should we. Second, while we are not called to be the government of this world, we are told to make "supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings ... for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way" (1 Tim 2:1-2). Let's do that. Often.

Closer and Closer

In Matthew 24 Jesus prophesied that not one stone of the temple would remain on another at some point in time. The end of time. The "end of the age" (Matt 24:3). So the disciples asked when (which Jesus already told them He didn't know) and what the signs would be. He proceeded to answer the second question. In amongst the things He lists, He included this:

Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and put you to death, and you will be hated by all nations for My name's sake. And then many will fall away and betray one another and hate one another. And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray. And because lawlessness will be increased, the love of many will grow cold. But the one who endures to the end will be saved. (Matt 24:9-13)

There is debate about when Jesus is talking about. Does "the end of the age" refer to their current age which would be replaced by the "age of grace" -- the "church age"? There are plenty of accounts that suggest that Matthew 24 occurred in 70 A.D. Others are quite sure that this is a reference to the very end, a time (obviously) yet to come, but getting closer and closer every day. Which is it? I'm one that typically answers "Yes" to that question. Both/and. Like the question "Was the Messiah going to be the Great King or the Suffering Servant?" "Yes." I suspect that much of Jesus's prophecy occurred in their day and will occur again in the final days. It's my way of making sense of "coming quickly," "this generation will not pass away before" kind of language. Others disagree. And since it's my suspicion and not any sort of certainty, I'm okay with that.

Regardless of where you fall on that, when I read that text above, it feels like I'm reading about current events. There is a growing hatred for Christians in the world. Many are falling away. So-called Christians hate other Christians. False prophets are abounding. Many are being led astray. Note the phrase, "because lawlessness will be increased." In the mid 20th century in America, I don't suppose there were more genuine followers of Christ (percentage-wise), but there was certainly a greater sense of obligation to Christian morality. As a society we valued marital fidelity and opposed sexual immorality. We sought to be a community and tried to continue in Christian values. Today, "lawlessness" in that sense has increased. And because of that, the love of many has grown cold. Sure sounds a lot like today.

Jesus taught He would return. Therefore, genuine followers of Christ must believe that He will return. There is a point in time when it all ends and a new age begins where sin is no more and God is physically on the throne. Since that is true, it is not speculation that we are closer to that today than human beings have ever been before. I have no doubt that it can get worse. I have no doubt that it will. And I can't say that this present tumble into immorality ("lawlessness") and hate for believers is the last or worse to come. I'm not saying this is the end. In fact, I'm pretty sure it will get a lot worse before that happens. I'm just saying that you, true followers of Christ, ought to be aware that Jesus promised that it would get worse for His followers. Be prepared. Be confident. Don't be among those who hate Christians, who fall away, who betray one another, who follow false prophets or pursue lawlessness or whose love grows cold. "The one who endures to the end will be saved." (See 1 John 2:18-20)

News Weakly - 7/2/22

Measured Response
On June 24, SCOTUS shot down New York's concealed carry law and Roe v Wade. In response, Biden signed a "landmark gun measure." Background checks, blocking domestic violence offenders, and "red flag" laws. Oh, and $13 billion. An "historic achievement." That ought to do it.

The other newsworthy response was violent protests breaking out over the SCOTUS ruling on Roe v Wade. Sorry ... "mostly peaceful" rock throwing, flag burning, property damage, and "violent altercations" protests. They blocked Los Angeles freeways and closed streets in cities around the country. One sign read, "No uterus, no opinion." Another said, "Kurt Cobain believed in womens rights so you should too." So which is it? Rapper Kendrick Lamar donned a "crown of thorns" and called for "women's rights." He's not allowed to do that, is he? Or can men only have the opinions women give them? I know that women who disagree with pro-abortion women don't get a say. So which is it? One sign read, "No abortion bans, not now, not ever!" ... much like the laws in Washington D.C. that allow abortion into the third trimester or Maryland that aims to allow post-partum abortion. One sign said, "I dream one day women will have the same rights as guns." None of them appear to be dreaming of a day when all humans will have rights. One protester said today they were letting their voices be known, and "Next is revolution." Mostly peaceful; mostly reasonable. Or ... not.

As a side note, apparently no one realizes that federal law considers killing a baby in the womb a homicide -- killing a human being. The federal government classifies the unborn as a "child, who is in utero", not "potential humans."

More Faux Outrage
As if guns and abortion weren't enough, now the Supreme Court has ruled that people can pray! Oh, the injustice!! Of course, it's not merely praying in view. This high school coach would pray on the field after games. The school district told him he couldn't. Mind you, it wasn't sanctioned by the school. Notice that no one was coerced to pray with him. He didn't do it as a school representative. So, in effect, the court did rule that this guy could pray. His actions do not constitute "establishment of religion" since it was voluntary and to fail to allow him to do it did constitute supression of free exercise of his religion. But, hey, that's not how the minority dissent nor the overwhelming media presence will paint it.

Unclear on the Concept
Climate protesters in Sydney blocked roads and a tunnel with "violent" and "erratic" protests ... stopping traffic all over the city and producing more greenhouse gases that would have been if they hadn't stopped traffic all over the city. They're planning to keep it up until the people take their message seriously. Message ... yes ... that must be "We don't care how much we interrupt lives or damage the environment as long as we can save the environment." Got it.

People are Outraged!
Well, of course, that's not news. However, the reason is. In a speech delivered on the 25th of May, one day after the Uvalde, Texas, shooting, Sarah Huckabee Sanders said she wanted to make children in a mother's womb as "as safe as they are in a classroom ..." Oh, that's bad. That's tone deaf. What an idiot! Oh, wait ... hang on. Since 1973, over 65 million babies have been killed by abortion. In the same amount of time, 220 children have been killed in school shootings. Both are bad, but clearly not on the same level. You know, if abortions killed only 300 kids in 50 years, I'm not sure pro-life people would be nearly as concerned.

Ah! There it is!
Previously the Archbishop of San Francisco barred Nancy Pelosi from receiving communion for her stance on abortion and multiple archbishops concurred. When I reported on it I said, "I will be further surprised if they actually carry through on the ban." As expected, Pelosi violated the church order and took communion at the Vatican presided over by the Pope, thus repudiating the Catechsim of the Catholic Church. Is this another abortion death?

A Travesty of Justice
A New York judge cleared Trump of contempt charges. I'm sure the whole "We hate Trump for merely breathing" crowd will call that a travesty of justice. I'd suggest that that level of hate is a travesty as well.

It's Only Wrong If You Do It
SCOTUS ruled Thursday to limit the president's authority to implement regulations under the Clean Air Act to reduce carbon emissions. Justice Elena Kagan delivered the dissenting opinion. She was concerned that the Court was making decisions that Executive and Legislative branches should make. I'm pretty sure she wasn't equally concerned when SCOTUS made abortion the law of the land or the courts made "same-sex marriage" the law of the land. I actually agree with Kagan that legislating from the bench is wrong for the court. However, it has happened a lot and appears to only be a problem for some when it is in opposition to their view. (Note: SCOTUS's ruling on abortion was not such legislation. It did not ban abortion; it put the laws where they should have been ... in the hands of the states.)

Got to Bee True
There was the story about the Democrats pausing the January 6 hearings after the Roe v Wade ruling to call for insurrection. Word is out that the restrooms in the Supreme Court have now been change to gender neutral so Ketanji Brown Jackson can avoid any embarrassing confusion. And the Bee was shocked at the sentence handed down to Ghislaine Maxwell considering the years of faithful service she provided to our nation's leaders.

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

God is Good

A lttle lesson in etymology. Okay, two. First, "etymology" is the study of words. Now, the real one. Did you know that, in English, the origin of the word, "good," is the word, "God"? Interesting, eh? "Good" in the sense of "kind or benevolent" was attributed to God, so it was the origin of the word.

It is, in fact, fitting. Jesus said, "No one is good except God alone" (Luke 18:19). David challenges his readers, "Oh, taste and see that the LORD is good!" (Psa 34:8). He assures us, "The LORD is good to all, and His mercy is over all that He has made" (Psa 145:9). The prophet Nahum wrote, "The LORD is good, a stronghold in the day of trouble; He knows those who take refuge in Him" (Nah 1:7). James says, "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with Whom there is no variation or shadow due to change" (James 1:17). We have it on good biblical authority that God is good. More than simply being good, He defines good. No one is good except God alone. "The LORD is good; His steadfast love endures forever, and His faithfulness to all generations" (Psa 100:5). Based on this unassailable truth, "We know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to His purpose" (Rom 8:28).

Knowing this, then, should inform our entire lives. When uncomfortable, painful, even disastrous things occur, aside from the understandable response to pain that makes us human, do we rest in the certainty that God is good, or do we respond with anger at God? Do we believe that only God is good, or do we believe that sometimes -- sometimes -- we probably have a better idea of what is good than He does? When God told Saul, "Go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey" (1 Sam 15:3), do we suggest that God would have been wrong for doing so? Do we argue that God is mistaken when He claims, "I form light and create darkness; I make well-being and create calamity; I am the LORD, who does all these things" (Isa 45:7)?

We who believe in God, who believe He is good, who appreciate His promises and His power and His presence ... do we believe all that? Or do we pass judgment? If He meets our expectations of what is or is not good, then He's alright. If not, either the information is faulty or God Himself is wrong. Either Scripture is mistaken or God is. We are people blessed by a God who defines good and with His breathed Word. Are we going to trust His Word that He is good, or will we presume to judge them? Will we believe the Savior that there is no one good except God, or will we prefer our own standards of "good" against which to measure God?

It's Not Rocket Science

Our world has been in an uproar since June 24, 2022, when the Supreme Court finally recognized that the precedent of the Roe v Wade ruling was not constitutional after all. Women have gone crazy. Men have gone crazy. The vitriol and outrage are palpable. "It's you men," they accuse, although there are plenty of women (including one on the Supreme Court) who would disagree. "It's you religious people," they assure us. It's a lot of things, they're sure, but what it is not is moral or rational. The only moral, rational thing to do is to allow women to kill their babies on demand.

To me, it's not rocket science. It's not even religious. I cannot, sincerely, grasp how this is so elusive to so many. Here it is. I believe, whether you are atheist or religious, male or female, any race you may choose, that there is a common moral position that says, "It is immoral to kill innocent human beings." I know! Revolutionary, right? I would hope not. I would hope that we could all agree on that. I would hope that something as heinous as killing innocent humans would be universally classified as evil. But if we're all agreed on this, why is this so contentious?

It doesn't require biblical insight to understand that what is growing in the womb of every mother is a human being. Science clearly tells us that it can be no other. Standard biology demonstrates that the one that occupies the uterus is simply the first stage of all the stages of human life.

A middle-aged man is no less a human than a senior citizen. A teenager is no less a human than a 20-something. An infant is just as much a human being as that teenager. This earlier stage -- the fetal stage -- is just as human as any other stage. It possesses its own unique DNA. It contains its own heart and lungs and brain and the rest. It is not mother's tissue; it is a human being. Beyond the science, federal law says "an embryo or fetus" is defined as a "child in utero" who, if injured or killed, is classified as a "legal victim." The law defines a fetus as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb." Science and law agree. The unborn are human beings.

It's as simple as that. It doesn't require a Bible. You don't need a seminary. You don't even need a pastor. Atheists and religious people alike would agree. It is morally wrong to kill an innocent human being. Science and law agree. The unborn are human beings. It would seem beyond reason to conclude, "Therefore, we should let people choose to kill these innocent human beings." So why is it that my stand in favor of innocent human beings is considered immoral, racist, sexist, and all sorts of other unrelated things and "Let 'em kill 'em if they want" is the moral view? Rhetorical question. The only answers would have to be from bias rather than reason.

_______________
Postscript
"So, religion has nothing to do with it, eh?" Oh, to be sure, all of my worldview is informed by my faith. We can arrive at a common moral perspective that it is wrong to kill innocent human beings without religion, but the value of human life is better informed by religion (Gen 9:6). And it is quite clear that God is opposed to abortion: "Choose life, that you and your children may live" (Deut 30:19). However, the pro-life perspective that killing innocent humans is not necessarily or exclusively a religious one.

Worthy

Jesus said, "Whoever loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And whoever does not take his cross and follow Me is not worthy of Me" (Matt 10:37-38). Interesting. "Worthy of Me." In Ephesians Paul wrote, "I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called" (Eph 4:1). He told the Philippians, "Only let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ" (Php 1:27). His prayer for the Colossian Christians was they would "walk in a manner worthy of the Lord" (Col 1:10). He told the Thessalonians, "We exhorted each one of you and encouraged you and charged you to walk in a manner worthy of God" (1 Thess 2:12). I'm sensing a trend.

The term isn't hard to grasp. "Worthy" refers to being of equal worth. That is, "worthy" is "having worth" and being worthy of something or someone is having suitable worth. So Jesus considers "worthy of Me" to mean "loving me more than others." Paul wanted them to "walk in a manner worthy of the calling," meaning that their lives reflected the value of the call. These aren't complicated concepts on the surface, but just what do they mean in practice? We know, for instance, that sinners never attain "worthy of Me" and sinning saints never achieve "worthy of the Lord" -- a walk that rightly represents the value of God -- so how does this work? What does this look like?

And so, from the day we heard, we have not ceased to pray for you, asking that you may be filled with the knowledge of His will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, so as to walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to Him: bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God; being strengthened with all power, according to His glorious might, for all endurance and patience with joy; giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in light. (Col 1:9-12)

Paul's primary point in this text is that "walk in a manner worthy of the Lord" phrase. Look at what surrounds it. First, prayer. Prayer for what? "That you may be filled with the knowledge of His will." He clarifies the quality of that knowledge. "In all spiritual wisdom and understanding." The purpose is to walk in a manner worthy of the Lord. How many of us do this? How many pray for knowledge of His will? Oh, I'd hope it is quite a few. How many pray for knowledge "in all spiritual wisdom and understanding"? Probably less. We might even use a phrase like "just a glimpse." Not enough.

Paul goes on to expound on what this walk looks like. Predicated on knowing God's will deeply, the worthy walk is fully pleasing to Him. That's the aim (2 Cor 5:9). What is pleasing to Him? Bearing fruit. Not just any fruit; the fruit of "every good work." Leave no good work undone. Multiply them. What else? Increasing in the knowledge of God. We never "arrive" here. God is infinite; we are finite. We will never grasp God. So a lifelong pursuit of knowing God better is pleasing to Him. What else? Being strengthened with power. Not just any power; all power. Not just any power; power according to His glorious might. His power. The power that is "is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think, according to the power at work within us" (Eph 3:20). That power. It exceeds your requests, even your imagination. More than that, it is already at work within us. That power. That power is what provides endurance and patience. Notice that both of those require reasons to endure and be patient -- tough times. And not just endurance and patience. Also joy. This walk worthy of the Lord includes giving thanks to the Father. Why? Because while we don't qualify as saints and heirs, He has made us that.

I think, if we're honest, we don't make a practice of that worthy walk. We are not marked by "all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (Eph 4:2-3). Let's be honest. We don't love God with all our heart, soul, and mind. Part of our problem is that we don't grasp the extreme value of our calling (Eph 4:1), of the gospel of Christ (Php 1:27), or even the Lord (Col 1:10). Anything we put above Him and His grace and gifts diminishes the value of His grace and gifts and the value of knowing Him. So the repetition of the concept of the worthy walk is quite important, given that we don't typically do that and we aren't particularly concerned.

Boys and Bears

In John 9 we learn a difficult lesson. The disciples asked Jesus the obvious question regarding the man who was born blind. "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents?" (John 9:2) Jesus gave an unexpected answer. "It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him" (John 9:3) That is, first, not all tragedy is the product of or judgment for sin. Second, it is so that "the works of God might be displayed." In other words, while we universally view hard times as bad, God appears to view them as necessary and for a good purpose. In 2 Kings 2 we have two famous stories. The first is the origin of the song, Swing Low Sweet Chariot, where Elijah becomes only the second man in all of history to not die (2 Kings 2:1-12). At that event, Elijah's disciple, Elisha, asked for "a double portion of our spirit on me" (2 Kings 2:9) and received Elijah's mantle. That is, Elisha was given Elijah's job of calling Israel to repentance and twice Elijah's resources to do it. The second event isn't as much fun. Elisha was coming out of Bethel where he encountered some rude boys who jeered at him for being bald (2 Kings 2:23). The text says, "And he turned around, and when he saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. And two she-bears came out of the woods and tore forty-two of the boys" (2 Kings 2:24). Okay ... what? Can we make any sense out of that?

Remembering that the Bible is God's Word, not simple lies or mere myth, and that God "works all things after the counsel of His will" (Eph 1:11), what can we derive from this? Behind the scenes, keep in mind that Bethel was a particular city of idolatry (1 Kings 12:29), just for background. So, first, the boys were jeering the man known to be Elijah's successor (2 Kings 2:15). Second, they were disregarding God's appointed prophet by ridiculing God's work. "Go up, baldy" was a reference to Elijah's going up. It was a taunt similar to the one they gave Jesus -- "If you are the Son of God, come down from the cross" (Matt 27:40) -- except it included the sense of "and be gone from here." That is, "Get out of here, you messenger from God, because we reject you entirely." Third, it is a mistake on the part of many moderns to think, "But these were innocent children!" Modern thinking says so; Scripture denies it. God said, "The intention of man's heart is evil from his youth" (Gen 8:21). David said we are conceived in sin (Psa 51:5). There are no innocents. Beyond this, the words translated "little children" (KJV), "small boys" (ESV), or "young lads" (NASB) isn't as clear as you might like to think. "Young" comes from qatan meaning small, young, or unimportant. "Boys" is naar referring to youths, servants, or even young men (71 times). The same wording appears in 1 Kings 11:17 referring to Hadad the Edomite who was an enemy of Solomon and fled to Egypt while he was "young." The term may refer to age or maturity or social stature. Either way, then, we have condemned sinners in full rebellion forming a mob (more than 42 of them) (2 Kings 2:24) against God and His known prophet.

Opponents of God and His Word would like you to believe that this is clearly an injustice. It is not Scripture or even Elisha on trial here. It is God. If the account was in error, it wouldn't have been included. If Elisha was in error, God wouldn't have allowed the "injustice" of two bears malling the kids. So the outcome appears to be God's intention for God's glory and God's purposes. Those who are hostile to God (Rom 8:7) will continue to use it to blaspheme. You who are not need not.
________
One other side comment here. I want to point out that the text does not say that any of the boys died. We all know that not all bear attacks result in death. The text says the bears "tore" the boys; it does not say they killed them.

Vengeance is Mine

Jane's Revenge is on the march. They claim to be "not one group but many" and they claim to have attacked pro-life entities (churches, crisis pregancy centers, individuals, etc.) all over the country. "You know that we are serious." They offered an ultimatum. Get out or else. If you run a crisis pregnancy center aimed at helping women have their babies, you had 30 days to close your doors. They were not surprised that the time has passed "with no sign of consilience."

"Consilience"? Really?? I had to look it up. Consilience is the principle that evidence from various sources can converge. It is the linking of principles from different disciplines to form a comprehensive theory. It is compatibility, harmony, consensus. So what does this "consilience" look like to Jane's Revenge? Walk away. "You quit and we win." Strange. That doesn't sound anything at all like consilience.

So now "the leash is off." They say they have demonstrated "How easy and fun it is to attack." They warned "We answer to no one but ourselves." They promise "increasingly drastic measures." What is the "crime"? What is the wrong they wish to right ... by whatever violent means necessary? Apparently helping pregnant girls without killing their babies is making survival "largely untenable." Helping girls without killing babies is criminalizing humanity (their words). Offering help without killing babies is limiting medical autonomy. It is an "infrastructure of the enslavers." To them "complete liberation" is the elimination of any other options. Attacking clinics that do not kill babies helps build "robust, caring communities of mutual aid." They say, "Through attacking we find joy, courage, and strip the veneer of impenetrability held by these violent institutions." Wait ... "violent institutions"? You mean the ones that help without hurting or killing or damaging anything? Those "violent institutions"? You who urge people everywhere "to paint, to burn, to cut, to jam" are the non-violent?

Protesting outside the homes of Supreme Court Justices to coerce a decision in your favor is an illegal act. Threatening to kill a Supreme Court Justice is an illegal act. Vandalism from graffiti to arson are illegal acts, all multiplied by their repetition. Violent people are aiming at nonviolent people and calling it "good" and "right." Like the abusers who claim, "You made me do this," they demonstrate their insanity by continuing to break the law and blame the victims. But, of course, this issue is one that the powers that be actually want violence against, so we aren't expecting any law enforcement or justice in the foreseeable future. Indeed, the White House encouraged illegal activities like this. Talk about corruption.

________
Postscript. For documentation of Jane's Revenge's aims and perspectives, go to their blog. Seriously, they are documenting this stuff in the open .. including the source of the above quotes.

The Righteousness of God

Seems like you can revisit this over and over again and see something more. So ... I did.

Paul tells us why he wrote to the church at Rome, a group he didn't know. It was because "I am under obligation both to Greeks and to barbarians" (Rom 1:14). Obligation for what? "to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome" (Rom 1:15). So he steps into his "I am not ashamed of the gospel" (Rom 1:16-17) and explains why. To follow the explanation, you need to pay close attention.

For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.” (Rom 1:16-17)

Not ashamed of the gospel, he says. Why? "For it is the power of God." What power?" The power "unto salvation." Okay, that sounds good. Not ashamed of the gospel because it is the very power that God uses for salvation to all who believe. But he's not done. There is another "for" statement, another reason. How is the gospel the power of God for salvation? "For in it," he goes on to say, "the righteousness of God is revealed ..." Oh, now, see? That's another level of information. The gospel reveals God's righteousness, and, in revealing His righteousness it operates as the power that God uses to save those who believe. Well, why didn't you say so in the first place, Paul?

From there it only gets more interesting. The next verse begins with "for." The gospel, revealing God's righteousness, begins with "the wrath of God is revealed ..." (Rom 1:18). Oh, now, hang on. That can't be. That doesn't make sense. We all know that wrath is not "righteousness" and we all know that the God of the Old Testament was a wrathful God, but the God of the New Testament is not. Except ... that's not what Paul says. Paul says that God's righteousness is first revealed in His wrath. Knowing that this is hard to grasp, Paul spends Romans 1:18 through Romans 3:20 explaining why God is righteous in His wrath. We've earned it. In spades. To the full measure. Without excuse.

Then, having built this massive case against every single person on the planet (Rom 3:9), Paul says, "But now the righteousness of God has been manifested ..." (Rom 3:21). There it is again -- the righteousness of God being manifested, revealed, shown. (Paul says this 4 times in Rom 3:21-26). More of the gospel. He explained that God is righteous in His wrath against sin. Just how is the righteousness of God manifested here? First, it is "apart from the law" (Rom 3:21). We cannot be saved by the law (Rom 3:20). This righteousness, then, is not our following rules. Instead, it is "the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe" (Rom 3:22). All have sinned -- fall short of God's glory (Rom 3:23) -- but we can be justified (declared righteous) "by His grace as a gift." (Rom 3:24). Oh, really? I mean, that's a sweet deal, but how is that righteous? Given what we've already seen about Man's sin condition, how is it right that we could be justified? "Through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" (Rom 3:24). Jesus, then, redeemed us. He apolutrōsis us, literally "paid the price." That which we owe due to our sin He paid. And you know what that is. "The wages of sin is death" (Rom 6:23). He paid that on our behalf. He appeased ("propitiation") God's righteous wrath "by His blood" (Rom 3:25). Paul says that this "propitiation by His blood" "was to show God's righteousness" (Rom 3:25). It is the only way that God could be just and justifier of those who have faith in Jesus (Rom 3:26).

There are those who will tell you that an angry God is an evil God. They lie. Scripture says that God's righteousness is first shown in His wrath against sin. There are those who will tell you that Jesus didn't die for your sins. They lie. It was absolutely necessary that a just God obtain just payment for sin. These people that try to mitigate Scripture and twist it to mean the exact opposite of what it says do so with "another gospel" that does not reveal the righteousness of God, but something else. They suppose they're being generous with God. They do so by stripping Him of righteousness ... according to Scripture. He doesn't need that kind of help. In this they eliminate the gospel, the good news, that God is righteous -- righteously angry against our sin and righteously appeased by His Son's sacrifice on our behalf. It is "another gospel" that is not another gospel.

News Weakly - 6/25/22

Break It Up; Nothing to See Here
The story is out. Biden daughter Ashley reportedly wrote in her diary about "probably not appropriate" showers with dad. She suggested they served to create her sex addiction. But, not to worry. "Believe the woman" is a variable that only applies to "those guys," not "our side." Soon to be moved to "misinformation."

You Always Act on What You Truly Believe
The EU is dedicated to fighting global climate change -- to make the necessary changes and take the necessary losses. Fight this problem at all costs. Well ... sort of. Because of a shortage of natural gas in Germany, they're firing up coal power. I mean, they can't afford an electricity shortage, right? What's next ... nuclear? Heaven forbid! Apparently "at all costs" isn't actually a comprehensive statement. "At all costs ... unless it gets too expensive."

I Do Not Think That Word Means What You Think It Means
A Japanese court "ruled that Japan's ban on same-sex marriages does not violate the constitution." The story says, "Japan's constitution defines marriage as one between 'both sexes'." Do you see the problem? If marriage is defined as "between both sexes," then it cannot be a "ban on same-sex marriages" since "same-sex" does not meet the definition of "marriage." Which is what I've said all along. It's not that Japan is not allowing people of the same sex to marry. It is that marriage has a definition and "same-sex" isn't part of that.

Vive la Différence
The First Amendment says that the government cannot make laws "respecting an establishment of religion." That is, the government cannot determine a federal or state religion. So they outlawed prayer in school in the '60's and, more recently, tried to prevent Maine from using taxpayer funds to pay for attendance at religious schools. Here's the difference between establishing a state religion and using taxpayer funds for religious schools: "establishment." The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that a government that pays taxpayer money to private schools for public education can also pay taxpayer money to private religious schools for the same purpose. That is not "establishment." That is a refusal to discriminate against a school because it is religious. That is equal treatment. That's the difference.

I'd Get Fired for Doing This at Work
Attorney General Merrick Garland went to Ukraine this week to discuss Russian war crimes with his Ukraine counterpart. Odd. He did not pursue any prosecution of the thousands of rioters of 2020. He did not begin investigations to the crowds of illegal protesters outside of the homes of SCOTUS justices trying to coerce a ruling from them. He did not launch an inquiry into Jane's Revenge, the domestic terrorist group that has attacked more than 50 targets last month whose offense was simply standing for pregnant women and their unborn children and who has recently amped up their threats. In fact, there appears to be a long list of things he is not doing instead of offering help to Ukraine for Russian war crimes. I guess his priorities are clear.

Overreact Much?
In Belfast, Ireland, someone who attended a comedy show was so offended by a joke that they called the police ... and the police investigated. I have heard bad jokes before -- indeed, I've told enough myself -- but asking the police to investigate it as a crime? And they did? We are now pushing "the right not to be offended" way out of proportion.

It Warms Your Heart
Out of his deep and abiding compassion for the American people, President Biden has called on Congress to create a 3-month "federal tax holiday" on gas. Mind you, the current federal gas tax is $0.184 per gallon. The current average price of gas is $5.19 per gallon (and Californians could only wish it was that cheap), so I'm not really sure how far that will go to ease our pain at the pumps, but I'm sure his concern is sincere. Surely he's not just trying to buy better approval ratings by offering inconsequential assistance and hoping no one will notice.

Unrelated
British health officials will be offering vaccines to gay or bisexual men for monkeypox ... not because it's primarily a problem among that category ... or anything at all related to homosexual sex. Trust me. It's just random.

You Keep Using That Word
The Biden administration is proposing a "dramatic overhaul" of Title IX protections. Title IX was written 50 years ago before anyone thought of "sex" as either "sexual orientation" or anything different than "gender." We've come a long way, baby. "No discrimination on the basis of sex" has been expanded to "sexual orientation" and "gender identity." But we can't expect reason from any of this. The AP story, for instance, gave a graphic for the 19 states that have banned transgender students from playing sports. That, of course, is a lie. None have banned transgender students. Some have banned specifically biological men who identify as the female gender from women's sports because there is an actual, biological, physical difference, but "I identify" has overruled reality in too many minds. Especially now with examples like North Carolina, where the court has ruled that anyone can "correct" their birth certificate to match their gender identity without surgery. That is, full biological males will compete with full biological females because they "identify" as female, and that is neither reasonable nor safe. As the AP article rightly notes, "Nothing in the 1972 law explicitly addresses the topic," so "dramatic overhaul" is an accurate description. "A right, reasonable, and good thing" is not.

The Guillotine is Set
The Southern Baptist Convention has dropped their report on the sexual abuse in the SBC. Long lists of names of accused abusers, unanswered and unexamined, have been released along with the clear admission that this is a real mess. There will be "potential liabilities" and accusations and charges. Heads will roll. Unfortunately, godly people will suffer with the crud that actually perpetrated the abuse and cover-up. The falsely-accused will not escape any more than the rightly accused, and the SBC reputation will be more than tarnished. Some of that will be deserved, but some is due to our world's hatred for Christians and Christians' inability to keep their heads straight. Consequences are called for, repentance is demanded, transparency is required, and hurt and abused people need care. Will it happen? All in all, it does not bode well for the SBC, Christians, or Christ.

Then, Of Course, There's This ...
Without much comment from me, as you all know, the Supreme Court removed federal protection for killing babies in the womb. Note, first, it is not an abortion ban. Note, second, that it doesn't end abortion. Some states will; others will not. And we don't know just how far Congress will go to 1) take guns to keep kids from getting killed while 2) passing laws to keep your babies getting killed. We'll have to wait and see. (As a sidenote, I listened to Biden's blather on the ruling. So many lies and errors that I don't have the space or time to comment.)

Bee Brief
In honor of the latest news from the Supreme Court, the Bee offered two entries. First, the story of how Roe v. Wade was aborted in its 198th trimester. Then there was the heartfelt story of leaps of joy felt in millions of wombs across the nation. Sometimes the Bee is only partly satire.