Sexual Sequence

I don't know why, but I never noticed this before.

In Romans 1, Paul declares that the gospel is "the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes" (Rom 1:16) because "in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith" (Rom 1:17). Then he proceeds to show how God is righteous in His wrath against "all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness" (Rom 1:18). God, he says, has made Himself known and we suppress that truth. We know God, but we don't honor Him as God or give thanks (Rom 1:21). The result is futile thinking and foolish hearts. "Therefore," Paul writes, "God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them" (Rom 1:24). See that? Did you catch the sequence? 1) We suppress the truth about God, making us foolish. 2) We are given over to lusts. The first consequence of failing to honor God is ... sexual immorality. The second consequence is "degrading passions" (Rom 1:26) that give rise to perverted sexual immorality -- abandoning "the natural function" (Rom 1:26-27). I never noticed that sequence before ... that the very first outcome of becoming futile in thinking and foolish of heart is sexual immorality.

Perhaps that's why Scripture hits that topic so hard. Maybe that's why there are few sins so clearly and repeatedly warned against as that one. Sexual immorality is a sin, but this suggests that failing to honor God makes us stupid, and this is the first sign of the futile and foolish heart. And what does that say about self-identified Christians who are embracing the prevalent sexual immorality of our day?

Death and Life

Paul asked the Christians in Rome, "How shall we who died to sin still live in it?" (Rom 6:2). He goes on to explain in what sense we have died to sin -- buried with Christ and raised to "newness of life" (Rom 6:3-4), and that's all clear, but that question nags at me. "How shall we who died to sin still live in it?"

We (believers) live in this constant dichotomy. "What I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate" (Rom 7:15). Because we, you see, are in a different position than unbelievers. We are in a different category than the unregenerated. They are "slaves of sin" (Rom 6:17). They sin because it's their nature to do so and they have no other options. They are hostile to God. If "good" is defined as "love God with all your heart," they can't. And we ... can.

Paul says, "Do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts, and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God" (Rom 6:12-13). So we do it by choice. Paul says we can be "slaves of righteousness" (Rom 6:20). We can be "alive to God in Christ Jesus" (Rom 6:11). That's what I want. I want to be dead to sin and alive to God. I don't want to just visit that place; I want to live there. I won't be able to this side of human life, but I can get ever closer. That's where I want to be.

I Deserve Better

We've all felt that at one time or another to one degree or another, and some in an ongoing way. There are a couple of possible approaches to that. One would be to deny it. "No, you don't." And there may be some reasons to claim that. But Scripture takes a different approach.

Humans naturally tend to believe that we are the center of the universe. We are "it." Everything, figuratively, revolves around us. It's not true. So there is reason to question whether it is true that "I deserve better." But consider the case of someone who actually did deserve better. The Bible says of Jesus that "All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being" (John 1:3). Paul wrote, "From Him and through Him and to Him are all things" (Rom 11:36). Colossians says that "in Him all things hold together" (Col 1:17). That is, He is the actual center of the universe, the highest being. How did He handle that? Did He cling to "I deserve better"? In Philippians we read, "Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus ..." (Php 2:5). Oh, that could be important for people who, you know, consider themselves Christ-followers. What attitude did He have that we ought to have?

Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. (Php 2:5-8)

Notice that there is no hint of "I deserve better." He absolutely did, but He didn't claim it. He didn't regard it as "a thing to be grasped." Instead, He humbled Himself ... to death. To the worst kind of death.

Scripture does not argue here against "I deserve better" with "No, you don't." God's Word here accepts that and urges us to something better. "With humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others" (Php 2:3-4). God's Word urges us to have the attitude of Christ. When He was wronged, when He faced injustice, when He got far less than He rightly deserved, He faced it without anger. Jesus endured the cross and ignored the shame "for the joy set before Him" (Heb 12:2).

We, who are Christ-followers ... do we? Do we ignore our losses -- even our unjust losses -- considering others as more important and looking to "a better possession and a lasting one" (Heb 10:34)? Or do we angrily declare, "I deserve better"? Jesus certainly deserved better than death on the cross. If He bore that without anger or retaliation, shouldn't we? Conversely, if we refuse, can we rightly call ourselves "Christians" -- "Christ-followers"?

Love is Love

I've been thinking about the slogan, "Love is love." It is used as a bludgeon these days by the LGBT+ crowd to warn us to back off any suggestion that what they're doing may be wrong. The problem is it doesn't work because the problem is they're right ... and don't know it.

Biblically, love has several faces. There is the familial love -- mentioned in Scripture only in its absence (Rom 1:31; 2 Tim 3:3) -- and there is brotherly love -- the love of friends -- and there is the one we all know ... agapē. That one is commanded, so it's not in the common category of emotional love; it's a choice. It is the denial of self in favor of the best for the loved one. I recently saw a self-help guru explaining the difference between respect and love. "Love," he said, "is when they want you." Not biblically. Love is self-forgetfulness that seeks the best for the other.

So, let's take that version and plug it back into the slogan, "Love is love." It is. Regardless of gender or person, love seeks the best for others. Conversely, if God warns against sexual immorality, seeking sexual immorality for others is not love. If those who engage in sexual immorality or adultery or homosexual behavior (to name a few) "will not inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor 6:9-10), it cannot be love to encourage that for others. So, as it turns out, they're right; love is love. We all should be doing it more and more. The problem is they keep using that word, and God's Word doesn't think it means what they think it means.

Moment by Moment

I've always been fascinated by a particular aspect of some of the Old Testament stories. Take, for instance, the Exodus. Israel, as slaves in Egypt, weren't interested in Moses's help. "Go away. You're only going to make it worse." But they sat through ten plagues, untouched; clearly from God. At the tenth, they went through elaborate preparations including smearing blood on the doorway and intricate food preparations. When the angel of death passed through, he skipped them and killed every firstborn in the nation. No mistaking it. This was God's work. So the Egyptians gave them riches and Pharaoh kicked them out and they headed for freedom. Then Pharaoh changed his mind and Israel found herself between the Red Sea and Pharaoh's pursuing army, blocked visibly by God. And the wind blew all night and dry land opened up and they walked across in safety and, when they were done, they stood and watched as the sea collapsed back on Pharaoh's army and drowned them all. Hooray!! So how is it that a mere few days later they were bemoaning Moses bringing them into the desert? "Sure, God is pretty impressive," they seemed to be saying, "but what has He done for us lately?"

We do the same. We forget quickly what He does for us. So, let me help you out. What has He done for you lately? Remember that breath you just took? That came from Him. Have you noticed how your atoms don't just fly apart, your molecules don't just scatter? That's His work. Did you eat today? He did that. Well ... you get the idea.

We, like the Israelites of old, tend to be a forgetful and ungrateful lot. Scripture says that all things belong to Him and that all things are "from Him and through Him and to Him." Something to keep in mind ... moment by moment.

Count the Cost

Jesus said, "For which of you, desiring to build a tower, does not first sit down and count the cost, whether he has enough to complete it?" (Luke 14:28). Note the "for" at the beginning. What was the cost He wanted us to cost? "If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple. Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple" (Luke 14:26-27).

We like to emphasize the simplicity of the gospel. You know. Saved by faith apart from works. Repent and believe. Easy, peasy. And that's not wrong; it is simple. But it's not easy. Jesus said we need to count the cost. What cost? On the face of it, it's faith and repentance. But what are they? Repentance isn't simply to be "sorry." It is a change in direction. And faith isn't merely to believe facts. It is to place your weight on Christ. This faith is dead faith if it has no works (James 2:17). So to believe and repent is a serious commitment. In Jesus's terms, it is more important than family and even self. Paul told the Philippian jailer that in order to be saved he had to "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ" (Acts 16:31). That is, not merely "Believe there was a Jesus," but to place his faith on Jesus, the Messiah, as Lord. Coming to Christ costs us all.

It is costly to become a disciple of Christ. We bring all that we have -- our possessions, our talents, our treasures, our sin, our failures, our hostility ... all -- and He takes it all. He takes our sin and wipes the slate clean and then gives us His righteousness. He comes to live in us and gives us His Holy Spirit. God is at work in us to will and to do His good pleasure. We surrender all our meager rags and get back all His fabulous riches. It is expensive, but only a fool would pass it up. Then again, the fool says in his heart "There is no God," so I'm sure that happens ... a lot. On the other hand, "he is no fool who gives up that which he cannot keep in order to gain that which he cannot lose." (Jim Elliot)

News Weakly - 12/10/22

Head Scratcher
Okay, I'll admit. I don't get this one. A judge in Indiana has blocked their abortion ban on the grounds ... get this ... of religious freedom. Apparently there are religions out there that mandate killing babies.

Irony
The irony is deep with this one. When a president takes the oath of office (or a citizen joins the military), the oath includes the promise to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." So it is ironic that a current presidential candidate (actually, the only declared candidate to date) would call for the termination of the Constitution. The irony gets worse when you realize that there were those in the January 6 debacle who, in the name of Trump, were quoting the military version to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Will they now consider the guy that called for the end of the Constitution an enemy? And how is he going to take that oath?

No Bias Here
You know the story. The Supreme Court is going to hear a web designer's case who is asking for First Amendment rights to the free exercise of her religion when it comes to producing something for same-sex weddings. All well and good ... except you can hardly find a news outlet that will say that. No, it's "anti-gay marriage" or "anti-equal treatment" or ... well, you've seen them. The coverage I've seen warned about the impact this would have on black people who will be discriminated against or "mall Santas who might refuse to take photographs with minority children" ... which, of course, is not the aim or the question. But, of course, we can always expect our news outlets to report the story without bias, right? And, as we all know, we affirm the freedom of religion ... except, of course, for the areas in which we require people to change their religious beliefs. It's only fair. (Note: The law forbids discrimination on the basis of "disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry." No one is discriminating on any of those. They are just asking not to be forced to support two people of the same sex having a wedding. It's not the people; it's the forced participation in the act.)

Values Clarification
President Biden agreed to trade a high-profile Russian prisoner, an arms dealer known as "the Merchant of Death" -- one of the world's largest illicit arms dealers -- for an American basketball player who hates America, leaving an American corporate security executive in Russia. We are all quite clear on our nation's priorities now. Brittney Griner is free, Paul Whelan can rot, and Russia has their major arms dealer, but at least we'll have a good, drug-using women's basketball player back. It's what we call "values clarification."

Who Says You Can't Buy Happiness ...
... with other people's money? Since when was the government in the business of taking our tax dollars to shore up Teamsters' pension funds? Oh, yeah, since COVID, I guess, but only labor union pension funds. The rest of you can all hang. (How is this not a president buying off labor unions after running roughshod over the rail unions last week?)

A Previous Catastrophe
A group of scientists have discovered that Greenland was a lush green place 2 million years ago. You know, like what will happen if global climate change happens. Which, as we all know, is bad ... cataclysmic. Or is it? And ... I wonder who caused it 2 million years ago.

Bait and Switch
Senator Kyrsten Sinema announced she was exiting the Democratic Party and registering as an independent. Isn't that a bit ... disingenuous? I mean, all her Dem buddies voted her in here in Arizona and then she exits. They will no longer expect to be represented. The Republicans never expected her to represent them. Now it's just the independents who didn't actually vote her in. Seems wrong somehow.

Another Redefinition -- "Child Abuse"
Eric Trump has admitted to "child abuse" (according to social media) by making his kids ... do things. Evil things. Like reciting the Pledge of Allegiance like we had to every school day growing up. Like praying. Mandatory prayers for his children?! Next thing you'll tell me he's making them go to sleep at a certain hour and eat healthy food!! Abuser!

The A, Bee, Sees
The Bee is reporting on Kamala Harris on Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day urging Americans not to forget January 6. Well, how can we? It has taken them 2 years to investigate with their crack "anti-Trump" squad. In COVID news, a recent study found that masks are 75% effective at keeping kids safe from oxygen. That's good, right? Finally, is this really news? The DNC and the media have apparently colluded to suppress a story about the DNC and the media colluding to suppress stories. Like that wasn't obvious.

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

Mental Issues

Paul told the Roman Christians "not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment" (Rom 12:3). That's odd, isn't it? Because some people think more highly of themselves, but others think too lowly of themselves, don't they? I mean, self-esteem is a big problem, isn't it? And ultimately, in Paul's list of "really important issues," is thinking too highly of yourself really that important?

It turns out, I think, that it is. It turns out, I believe, to be critically important. Because sin rots the brain (Rom 1:21, 28). Because our thoughts are not God's thoughts (Isa 55:8-9). Because our hearts are deceitful (Jer 17:9) and the mind set on the flesh is hostile to God (Rom 8:7). "It does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot" (Rom 8:7). So it is a given that we will naturally think too highly of ourselves. We will think that we know best. We will think that God is just like us. We will think that if God doesn't share our values and our point of view, He very well ought to. We even think of prayer that way. We are asking Him for stuff and if He doesn't give us what we ask for, He's not a very good God.

It's just the nature of sin. We make ourselves central which, of course, is His position. We ... think too highly of ourselves. The trick is not, then, to think more lowly of yourself. The trick is self-forgetfulness. And, of course, that can't be done without a functioning relationship with Him, the actual center of all things. So I suppose, in order to "think with sober judgment," our first (and ongoing) efforts ought to be toward walking in a relationship with Him.

Why Does It Matter?

We Christians have a reputation for "moral grounds." We seem to always be doing battle over moral issues. We want people to ... well ... stop being bad. I suppose that might be an accurate portrayal. But should it be? Is our primary concern that people be good?

In Paul's first letter to the church at Corinth we read, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor 6:9-10). Controversial, I know, what with all that "homosexuality" stuff and all, but I want to point out two things. First, that particular issue is one of nine that Paul cites, and it's not a comprehensive list. He's simply listing things that point to "the unrighteous." So when we make "those who practice homosexuality" our primary focus, we're selecting a really small view. Second, notice what Paul's concern was. It wasn't, "They shouldn't be doing those things!" It wasn't the behavior at all. The problem was "the unrighteous" and the concern was that they would not inherit the kingdom of God.

Would it change your views, your outlook, your interactions with others, your direction if you were more concerned about the eternal welfare of others than you were about their "bad behavior"? Would it make any difference in your approach and your prayers if the key issue in your mind was not "Those behaviors are bad" but "These people won't inherit the kingdom!"? Is our primary concern immoral behavior or is it lost souls who need the solution we have to offer?

Confused

My wife is watching a Canadian show set in the 1890s about a police detective who uses advanced (for the time) scientific methods to solve crimes. The character is a nice guy and a devout Roman Catholic. In one episode two "sodomites" (the term they used in the show) end up dying -- one murdered and the other by suicide. The mystery is solved (and it's not quite about their sexual proclivities), but the detective is having a crisis of faith. He confesses to his priest, "How is it that two good men by all standards will be eternally damned for one sin?" Obviously the actor is following the script. Obviously the script writers were oblivious.

Scripture doesn't present us as basically "good men by all standards." Scripture claims, "No one does good, not even one" (Rom 3:12; Psa 14:3; Psa 53:3). Now, those two positions -- "basically good by all standards" and "no one does good; not even one" -- are as far apart as it gets. And it's not merely a difference of opinion over whether or not homosexual behavior is a sin. It's much more. If the biblical position is that natural man does no actual good, then the problem is not "mostly good" people, but people who have no natural conception of what "bad" really is.

Our kindly and confused police detective felt no concern about imposing his own sense of "good" on God, where God becomes the problem because He's confused. Writers aside, we generally have the same issue. We don't question our standards and values; we question God's. Which clearly points to a failure to grasp the obvious. We are naturally in rebellion against the Master of the Universe and are mostly proud of it. Which naturally demands repentance rather than rebellion.

Sex Sells

I know ... I'm not supposed to ask this. It's not "Christian." I, of course, would disagree, but I understand. Still, I'm going to ask, primarily because I'd guess most of us don't really know the answer. What is the definition of "sex"? Not as in "gender" -- male or female -- but in terms of the act.

Here's what we know. Sex outside of marriage is sin. Okay, settled. Except no one is saying just what "sex" is in that context. I'm thinking, for instance, of the classic "bases" we learned when we were teens. First base is holding hands, second base is "above the waist," third base is "below the waist," and home base is sexual intercourse. Given that structure, when have two people engaged in "sex"? Obviously "home base" is a given, but what about, say, holding hands? Second base? Where is the line? Some argue that sex begins at penetration. Those, then, assure us that having oral sex is not sex ... except you can't call it "oral sex" and say it's not sex, can you? So it's somewhat dicey. One article I read said it can be anything from penetration on out to cuddling. In fact, sex may not even include another person. So it can get really baffling trying to determine what is or is not "sex."

Besides the stupid "titillating" that occurs in such a question, there are real issues. For instance, Jesus said, "Whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery" (Matt 19:9). So, your definition of "sexual immorality" will be important here. "He masturbated, so I can divorce him." "He looked at porn, so I can divorce him." "He lusted after a woman, so I can divorce him." Without a definition, Jesus's primary position -- "What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate" (Matt 19:6) -- gets tossed aside by making just about anything ("any cause" (Matt 19:3)) sexual sin. And Paul urges, "Flee from sexual immorality" (1 Cor 6:18). How can we do that if we can't even define it? So I'm not just playing around here. It is significant. I'm also not offering a definition at this point. I'm just asking you to think about it.

What Do You Know?

In Romans 6, Paul is discussing the question, "Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?" (Rom 6:1). He answers (almost incredulously) "How can we who died to sin still live in it??" (Rom 6:2). (The way he says it would suggest two question marks. He's really clear here that the answer is "No!") But Paul, as clear as he is here, suggests another possibility -- ignorance.

Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? (Rom 6:3)

Paul suggests that the only reason that those who have died to sin would continue in sin would be that they didn't know it. "Do you not know??" Assuming the best, then, Paul explains, in case they didn't know, in what sense we have "died to sin."

Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; for he who has died is freed from sin. (Rom 6:4-7)

It is important, then, to know that we are dead to sin. By that, it means we are in Christ now and no longer in Adam (1 Cor 15:22). We are no longer ruled by the god of this world, but by Christ. We will still sin (as indicated by the original question, "Are we to continue in sin ...?"), but we are no longer ruled by it. Like John's "No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God" (1 John 3:9). That death to sin occurs when we are buried with Him through baptism. Now, mind you, "baptism" means, simply, "immersion" -- "to be whelmed." Generally it is whelmed in a liquid (they used it to refer to dipping fabrics in dye), but Paul also uses it when we are "baptized into one body" by the Spirit (1 Cor 12:13). Here, then, it is to be immersed into Christ, being identified with His death, burial, and resurrection. Our practice of water baptism is a physical, symbolic version of that spiritual reality when we come to Christ. We are buried with Him and raised to new life with Him when we place our trust in Him for salvation.

Notice in that text that he asks "do you not know" and later talks about what we ought to know -- "that our old self was crucified with Him." Later he says that we know "that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him" (Rom 6:9). We need to know this stuff. We need to know that we have died to sin. We need to know that we have been buried in Christ's likeness to be raised in Christ's likeness. We need to know this because it is incredibly practical. We are freed from sin!! We won't die again!! Our salvation is secured in Christ!! And we can (and, ultimately, will) defeat sin. It's a process. It's a long process. It won't be complete on this side of eternity, but it is a certainty. That's good to know.

A Prayer

At the end of his first epistle to the church at Thessalonica, Paul includes a prayer.

Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. (1 Thess 5:23)

The prayer includes a couple of interesting components. First, he includes this phrase describing the whole being: "spirit and soul and body." It is Paul's description of human beings or, at least, those who are in Christ. Now, I've heard lots of discussions on what we are. Some argue that we are spirit and body. To this group, "spirit" and "soul" are synonyms. And, biblically, this often appears to be the case. Jesus warned about not fearing the body, but the one who is able to destroy both soul and body (Matt 10:28). Two parts. In the Old Testament Scripture talks about the two almost interchangeably. In Genesis 41:8 "his spirit was troubled" and in Psalm 42:6 "my soul is cast down." Emotions are experienced in both. In John 12 Jesus was troubled in His soul (John 12:27) and, in John 13, He was troubled in the spirit (John 13:21). So in some uses and some applications there appears to be no distinction. Still, in this text as well as Hebrews 4:12 there is a distinction. In this text Paul clearly sees them as distinct, even if he doesn't say how they are, and in the Hebrews text we read that the Word of God can divide between the soul and the spirit. It appears, then, that they are closely connected (difficult to divide) but not simply two words for one thing. We are, then, a sort of mini-trinity. Kind of like being in the image of God (Gen 1:26).

The other part, though, that I find interesting here is easily missed. It's one little word that carries a load of meaning. The word is "kept." Notice who is at work here. The prayer (obviously) is to God and it is for God to do something. God sanctifies and ... God keeps. The prayer is for God's complete sanctification and for God to keep us perfectly. Now, think about that for a moment, because we generally think in terms of "work out your salvation." Here Paul says that we are kept by God. And that, brothers and sisters, is a great relief. The ultimate way that we are sanctified and we are blameless is because God is doing it.

News Weakly - 12/3/22

Cautionary Tale
Last week some 2,500 people posed nude on a beach in Australia to raise awareness of skin cancer. A large crowd saying, "Do as I say, not as I do." Because nothing raises awareness of skin cancer like doing the very thing that causes it.

You Keep Using That Word
The Senate has passed the legislation to protect "same-sex and interracial marriages." No one, clearly, is paying attention. First, "interracial marriage" and "same-sex marriage" are not similar things. They've tried to make that connection for a long time, but it's false. Marriage has a definition -- the union of a man and a woman. The race of that man and woman is not a part of that definition. The sex of the two individuals is. And codifying "same-sex marriage" erases that definition ... with no suitable replacement. Protecting marriage between races is good, but eliminating the definition of marriage is not protecting marriage. Linking the two hides that fact. And, seriously, do Republican senators think an amendment will protect religious liberty? If we can vote to ensure "marriage equality" by eliminating the definition of marriage, it's a small step to affirm religious liberty while removing it.

The Same Story?
It's kind of weird. Just like the push to protect marriage by eradicating its definition, Biden is urging Congress to force rail labor unions to agree to his "deal" "as a proud pro-labor president." Hang on, Mr. President. You favor labor unions by overriding labor unions? Another radical disconnect. (And it's not just me that thinks so.) And the Democratic-run House sealed the deal, overriding capitalism, free enterprise, and labor unions by force of law. "You will accept our offer and you will like it. Because this is America and we decide what's best."

Obfuscation ... Look It Up
Stewart Rhodes, founder of Oath Keepers, was found guilty of "seditious conspiracy" for the Jan 6 "attack" on the U.S. Capitol. Mind you, the FBI already declared that the event was not insurrection. Mind you, "sedition" is defined as "conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarch." Mind you that lots of people and groups from all corners urge people to rebel against the authority of the state. But, of course, no one will think of this in those terms.

What a Strange World
Disney released a new animated family-friendly movie -- Strange World. It included a main character who was LGBT, and no one can figure out why it failed to clear $20 million on a 5-day weekend. Can't imagine, given that all parents love the idea of taking their kids to pro-LGBT cartoons. What a strange world!

Ain't MisBeeHavin'
The Bee highlighted the shenanigans in China this week with their coverage of those nutty anti-science right-wingers who were protesting President Xi's common sense COVID restrictions. Go figure. Then there was the report on Blake Ruff, a biological male who identifies as a big furry Alaskan Malamute, who won Best in Show at the Kennel Club's annual dog show competition. And why not?

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

Peace

Chapter 5 of Paul's epistle to the church in Rome begins like this:

Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. (Rom 5:1)

It starts with a "therefore," so there is context to consider. This one is ... the first 4 chapters. Paul explains that God's righteousness is revealed in the gospel (Rom 1:17) and then steps right out to explain that God's righteousness is also in God's righteous wrath (Rom 1:18-3:20) ... which we've earned. But, he says, there is an answer. "We hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law" (Rom 3:28). From 3:21 through the end of chapter 4, Paul explains and illustrates the basic premise of the gospel -- saved by faith. Therefore ...

I don't know if you noticed it, but "peace with God" is linguistically ambiguous. Does it mean that between us and God there is peace, or does it mean that, with God, we have peace? The answer is equally ambiguous. Yes. The context makes it clear that the "peace with God" that we enjoy comes from being justified by faith, diverting His wrath (Rom 3:25 -- "propitiation"). Where His righteous anger against our sin once stood, we now enjoy peace.

That's the meaning of the text, but, in truth, the outcome is also that, with God, we now have peace. Because we are justified by faith, we can now "Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all comprehension, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus" (Php 4:6-7). Our new relationship with God through Christ means that we can give all our concerns to Him and experience supernatural, incomprehensible peace. In fact, that's what was promised at His Advent, wasn't it? "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among those with whom He is pleased!" (Luke 2:14). That "those with whom He is pleased" refers to those who come to Him in faith, and to them He brings peace. Supernatural, incomprehensible peace, a wonderful gift in a world of unrest.

Self Righteousness

Oh, look ... I'm missing a hyphen there, aren't I? No. I'm not writing about self-righteousness. I'm writing about a righteousness we determine on our own. This week a sufficient number of Republican senators voted to devalue and undefine marriage in order to include "same-sex" in that category. Not merely to include it, but to give it legal protections. Mind you, it was less than 15 years ago that California was fighting tooth and nail against it. On two occasions, Californians sought to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman and twice the courts shot it down. But here, 14 years later, it isn't merely a question anymore; it is (or very soon will be) law. The Democrats and those Republicans have removed what the court recognized back in 2008 as "the longstanding, traditional definition of marriage" and replaced it with ... well, nothing at all. That is, "We decide what is right and no one else." That is the self righteousness I'm talking about. But I'm not writing to unbelieving, pharisaical types. I'm writing to genuine Christians. So let's consider this for a moment.

We are "people of the Book," so to speak. Our beliefs and our doctrines and our rules are laid out in God's Word. We're not supposed to be making them up. We have a written manual. Jesus prayed, "Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth" (John 17:17), a glorious, single-sentence sermon. We are sanctified -- set apart and made more like Christ -- in the truth which is found in God's Word. Simple stuff. Straightforward. Not complicated. So why is it so hard?

When the serpent in the garden asked Eve what God commanded, she answered correctly -- "You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden" (Gen 3:3) -- and then added to it -- "neither shall you touch it." We've been adding and subtracting ever since. A generation prior to mine, for instance, was quite certain that smoking, drinking, dancing, playing cards, and going to movies were all sinful behaviors and all good Christians avoided them. I can't find them in my Bible. On the other hand, commands like, "Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord" (Eph 5:22) and the "male counterpart" -- husbands are to love their wives like Christ loved the church, giving up self (Eph 5:25) -- are not obscure, unclear, unknown, or hard to grasp, but they are rarely obeyed. Lots of Christian wives believe they should submit to their husbands ... just not in everyday practice when he is wrong and she is right. Lots of good Christian husbands embrace the command to love their wives ... except, of course, for that "gave Himself up for her" part. But those same people will likely take you to task for, oh, I don't know, using the Lord's name in vain, for instance, without a twitch of shame that they are ... self righteous. They are practicing a righteousness that they themselves make up and adhere to ... when it's convenient.

Just a couple of examples here. I'm sure if you thought about it you could come up with your own list. I'm also sure that if you did, it would not be a list of things that you are being self righteous about, because the essence of this kind of self righteousness is that it is primarily defined by what we think is right and that is essentially how we choose to live. Brothers and sisters, these things ought not be. Paul told the Philippian jailer, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved" and we'd prefer to leave off that "Lord" part. We live the classical oxymoronic cry from Peter -- "No, Lord." And then we bemoan those naughty homosexuals or liberals or whatever other group of sinners (the broader group to which we all belong). We need repentance. We need to submit. Jesus said we were to make disciples and teach them to "observe all that I have commanded you" (Matt 28:19-20). We need to learn that, too, rather than pick and choose our own version of "righteousness" and be satisfied.

What Would Jesus Do?

In Paul's letter to the church at Philippi, he urges them to "make my joy complete by being of the same mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose" (Php 2:2). "Okay, Paul," you can imagine them saying, "how do we do that? What is this unity of which you speak? What is the mind, the love, the spirit, the purpose?" He doesn't leave them hanging. He's not asking for a vague "unity." He is specific.

Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others. (Php 2:3-4)

This is so clear, but so foreign that we seem to be unable to fully grasp it. Instead of "humility of mind" and regarding others as more important than myself, we are built, it seems, on "looking out for #1." If altruism exists in the natural mind, it is "enlightened altruism" -- the idea that "doing good for others does good for me." Looking out for the interests of others over my own? Not even reasonable. You see, it's all very clear, but it's also all very contrary to our normal thinking.

To make matters clearer, then, Paul makes a simple command: be a follower of Christ. "Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus" (Php 2:5). That's all. What attitude? He emptied Himself, became a servant, and humbled Himself to death on a cross (Php 2:6-8). Simple. Or not.

We call ourselves "Christians" -- followers of Christ. That's all that is asked of us: give self up. As our purpose. In love. A way of thinking. It is the unity Paul begged for, the love, the spirit, the purpose. It is, therefore, possible. And expected. So what will you do, Christian? Will you follow Christ?

The Comfort of Intent

I think of Genesis 50:20 as the "Romans 8:28" of the Old Testament. Sort of. You know the text. It's the end of Genesis. Jacob and his family have all moved to the safety of Egypt where his son, Joseph, is the #2 guy in the land. Then Jacob died. And Joseph's older brothers were scared. "When Joseph's brothers saw that their father was dead, they said, 'What if Joseph bears a grudge against us and pays us back in full for all the wrong which we did to him!'" (Gen 50:15). Not an unreasonable concern, given that they 1) planned to kill him and then 2) threw him in a well and, finally, 3) sold him into slavery. Given that in slavery he was falsely accused of rape and imprisoned, forgotten, locked away. It doesn't seem unreasonable that someone might harbor resentment, right? And you don't want the #2 man in the nation resenting you. So they went to apologize. But Joseph told them, "Don't be afraid; am I in God's place?" (Gen 50:19). Then the great line,

"As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive." (Gen 50:20)

Do you see the beauty in it? On one hand, Joseph did not excuse their actions. He didn't have to call what they did "good" when it clearly was not. He didn't have to fudge the facts, so to speak. On the other hand, he didn't have to stew over it. He didn't have to sweat it. Why? Because, while their intent was evil, God's intent was good.

I find such comfort in that on a daily basis it seems. People I know and people I don't know often intend evil against me. I don't have to sugarcoat it. I don't have to deny it. I can acknowledge it. But I can acknowledge it without malice or resentment because I know the ultimate intent -- God's intent. God intends it for good. God works all things together for good. He defines good and never fails to accomplish it. It's okay! God intends it for good, and He can even use the actual evil intentions of others to accomplish it. And that is a great relief!

The Simplicity of God

There is a doctrine that is not as well known as others regarding the nature of God. The doctrine is called "the simplicity of God." Simply put (little joke there), the idea is that God is not made up of various parts. He is one, and that includes all that He is. He is not "love" and "omniscient" and "omnipotent" (to name a few) independently. All His attributes -- all the ways that describe Him -- are all tied together. One. He is not a collection of attributes; He is one. His attributes are not independent; they are part of the whole. One.

Let's look for a moment at one of His attributes and see how it is "one." I've been thinking about His omniscience. "Omniscience" means that He knows all things. All things. His disciples said, "We know that You know all things" (John 16:30). David wrote, "In Your book were all written the days that were ordained for me, when as yet there was not one of them" (Psa 139:16). Before anything was, He knew it. He knew it all perfectly ... before. "Even before there is a word on my tongue, behold, O Lord, You know it all" (Psa 139:4). John wrote, "God is greater than our heart and knows all things (1 John 3:20). Jesus told His disciples that God numbered the hairs of their heads (Matt 10:30). Hebrews says, "There is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do" (Heb 4:13). In Acts we read, "You, Lord, who know the hearts of all men" (Acts 1:24). He knows everything without exception before anything has happened.

How does that work out in the concept of the simplicity of God? Well, think about it. As Sovereign, He would have to know all things. Conversely, knowing all things in advance, all things in advance will certainly happen. To be a righteous Judge, He would have to have perfect knowledge; He does. To be good He would need to have perfect knowledge; He does. To be "the only wise God" (Rom 16:27), He would need to have perfect knowledge; He does. And perhaps now you begin to see how His "distinct" attributes begin to end up not so distinct and, instead, become a whole. Not parts. Because as complex as God is to us, He is, ultimately, simple. One.

Baptism Now Saves You

In his first epistle Peter comes out in a clear declaration that Paul was wrong and we are not saved by faith apart from works.

Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you — not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience — through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him. (1 Peter 3:21-22)

First, "corresponding" to what? Well, Noah and family were saved by an ark that took them "safely through the water" (1 Peter 3:20). So, quite clearly, baptism is what saves us, not "faith apart from works" (Rom 3:28).

This position is, of course, problematic. First, it removes any reliability of Scripture if we pit one text against another to remove one or the other. So much for "God breathed," eh? (It doesn't help that Peter himself called Paul's writings "Scripture" (2 Peter 3:14-16).) But further, having undercut "justified by faith apart from works," by what are we justified? Baptism, I suppose, but is that it? What else? No, if we are saved by baptism apart from faith, this is a big problem. So ... are we?

It's interesting to note that Scripture uses "baptism" — literally "to dip or immerse" — in a literal and a figurative sense. No one, for instance, in Jesus's day believed baptism washed away sin. That wasn't the point. It was symbolic of that function, even in Jewish culture, but not actual. That is, if literal immersion in water has always been the means of salvation and God never once brought it up to His people, there is a serious problem. So Paul uses it figuratively in Romans when he writes, "Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life" (Rom 6:4). Now, no one actually dies when they get immersed in water, so clearly the water immersion concept is a visible metaphor of a different kind of immersion. Paul uses a similar image in Colossians "In Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead" (Col 2:11-12). Again, dipping in water does not circumcise anyone. Indeed, Paul makes it clear this circumcision was "made without hands," and it is done by "baptism." "There, see?" some might say. "Baptism accomplishes this circumcision." Well, perhaps, as long as you ignore the text which says that our baptism was "through faith in the working of God." That is, it is not the physical nature of being dunked that accomplishes this, but through faith.

Let's circle this around, then, to Peter's comments. How was Noah saved? The ark? Sort of. But Hebrews says, "By faith Noah, being warned by God about things not yet seen, in reverence prepared an ark for the salvation of his household, by which he condemned the world, and became an heir of the righteousness which is according to faith" (Heb 11:7). Yes, the ark was significant, but Noah was saved by a faith that produced the ark. In the same way ("Corresponding to that"), the faith that immerses us into Christ is displayed in the outward show of being immersed into water — baptism. But it's not the dunking that saves — "not the removal of dirt from the flesh" — but the faith that causes us to call on Him. We are saved by that baptism, that circumcision not made by hands, that faith that is shown outwardly to all in the immersion into water as a sign of an inner reality. It turns out, then, that Peter and Paul agree.