Does Anyone Give a Damn?

I know ... that sounds bad. Good Christians aren't supposed to use that term. But there is a meaning that isn't intended as foul language, isn't there? Merriam-Webster says that it might be a curse word, but that's Option 4. Option 1 is "to condemn to a punishment or fate; especially : to condemn to Hell." That's actually my question. Does anyone actually condemn to Hell?

I will first of all point out that we don't get that option. This condemnation is not in our purview. If such a thing does occur, we don't have the authority to make that call. So let's be clear; the question I'm asking is "Does God actually condemn anyone to Hell?" Which really boils down to the question, "Is there a Hell?" John Lennon asked us "Imagine there's no heaven -- It's easy if you try -- No Hell below us; Above us only sky." Is he right? Should we jettison the concept?

The idea of Hell doesn't spring from human logic; it comes from the Bible. Jesus spoke about it (e.g., Mark 9:43-48). Hell is described as eternal, conscious torture (Matt 25:46; Rev 14:10-11), a place where "the fire is not quenched" (Isa 66:24; Mark 9:48), the result of not being written in the Book of Life (Rev 20:15), of not knowing Christ (Matt 7:21-23). It is, biblically, a given.

But ... why? I mean, the whole concept of eternal torment is repulsive to us. It sounds harsh, mean, unbearable. Isn't that "inhumane treatment"? So difficult is it for us these days that the left has decided to jettison the idea and even biblical Christians prefer to put it by the side and not talk about it. I mean, even Bible-believing Christians don't care for "hellfire and brimstone" preachers, right? Leave that for past times. We like a less awful story.

So, why is it even there? What is the importance of Hell? Paul gives us the beginnings of a clear answer when he says that God's will is to "show His wrath and to make known His power" on "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction." (Rom 9:22) So there is a point here that, like everything else, brings God's glory to the front. So, how does that work?

The just punishment for a crime should be an indicator of the magnitude of the crime. You don't say, "It only took two minutes to commit the murder, so I shouldn't get more than two minutes in prison." Murder is a crime of great magnitude not because of the time it took, but because of the life it took. (Our society, by the way, is dancing dangerously close to losing this, having rejected the notion that we are made in God's image and, therefore, have value from God. If we're simply biochemical bags, of what real consequence is it that one of us was terminated?) If it is true, then, that the magnitude of the punishment fits the magnitude of the crime, and if it is true that Hell as eternal, conscious torture away from God is the punishment for sin, how big does that make sin? Clearly sin is not a "faux pas," a "social blunder," a "boo-boo," a mistake. It is a crime worthy of eternal torture. If, on the other hand, no Hell exists, sin isn't so bad. In fact, it's really inconsequential.

If there is no Hell, then the worst we get for sin is a slap on the wrist. Some argue that it isn't eternal torment; it is instantaneous annihilation. A slap on the wrist. Over and done. But Paul says that Christ "gave Himself for our sins" (Gal 1:4), that "Christ died for our sins" (1 Cor 15:3). That makes sin something bigger than "Poof! You are no more." Someone had to die for it. If there is a Hell, someone has to die eternally for it. Eternal death, eternal torment, eternal payment. If there is no Hell, the cost of sin is minimal; if there is, it is huge.

Really at question here is the justice of God. I spoke of "The just punishment for a crime." Is God just if He prescribes Hell for sin? Or is He just if He does not? That question is answered, again, by the magnitude of the crime. If sin is an assault on God, a violation of His glory, open rebellion against His rule, some sort of Cosmic Treason, then sin is much bigger than a false step. It is as big as the God it violates. If sin is that bad, then the just punishment requires a penalty as big as the God it violates. That is, if God does not assign Hell as a response to sin, God is not just.

There is, then, one more consequence to the existence of Hell. If the just response to sin is eternal torment and God accepts the sacrifice of Christ on our behalf, how big is God's mercy? If no Hell, it's not so much. You deserve ... a slap on the wrist. God does not give you that slap on the wrist. No big deal. But if you have diligently and fully earned the sentence of eternal, conscious torture and God then does not give you that sentence, that is MERCY with capital letters and flashing lights and fireworks and all. That is bigger mercy than we can grasp, mercy magnified by ... Hell.

The Bible isn't ambiguous. God does give a damn -- the assignment to Hell for those who refuse Him, for those who claim Hell as their own. People earn it and He pays it out. Without it, sin isn't so bad, the price for sin isn't so high, Christ's death isn't so important, God isn't so just, and mercy isn't so big. But the Bible isn't ambiguous, and the result is that sin is horrendous, the price is high, Christ's death on our behalf is everything, God is absolutely just, and mercy is magnificent. I think that's kind of important.

News Weakly - 5/5/18

Banning the Bible
California Assembly Bill 2943 passed the state house on April 19 and is now in the state senate. Snopes jumped into the fray assuring us that it wouldn't result in banning the Bible. Robert Gagnon explains why that ain't necessarily so. It may not result in a Bible ban, but it could result in a partial ban. It must certainly result in banning these kinds of books. It could result in prosecution for a pastor who teaches a seminar on how Christ can free you from sexual sin such as homosexual practices. It could even place a pastor in court for suggesting his congregation buy a Bible in the bookstore to see what Scripture says about homosexual sin. "A Christian bookstore could be sued for carrying a book such as Ryan T. Anderson's latest, When Harry Became Sally, solely because the message is in conflict with the LGBT agenda."

The government makes no differentiation between "conversion therapy" and "conversion". It refuses to recognize that lives can be changed by Christ. And the bill offers no religious exemptions. As a consequence, these kinds of things could result. Will they? Given the aggressive LGBT efforts to wipe out opposition, I think it would be foolish to consider the possibility a long shot.

More Judicial Legislation?
Last week I brought you the story of how the court has decided to make DACA law, clearly judicial legislation -- making laws from the bench. It's not new. Redefining "marriage" and making "gay marriage" a thing that the entire nation is required to recognize was similar. Now they're trying for another. Reuters reports, "California and a group of 16 other states on Tuesday challenged the Trump administration’s decision to revise strict U.S. vehicle emissions and fuel efficiency rules put in place under former President Barack Obama." Because these 17 states get to decide for everyone in the nation what vehicle emissions should be and they will do so by force of law ... oh, wait ... no, not law ... by force of judicial legislation. "We don't need no stinkin' Constitution. We'll force it through with our courts and tell the whole country what they will do ... because we're the liberal states. As in 'we share liberally with all our personal requirements for you to submit to.'"

Double Standard?
Big news. They tell me that the Boy Scouts will be changing their name because they allow girls to join. It started with Cub Scouts where girls wanted to do the cool things that Cub Scouts did, but now it's going on up the levels. So they'll be dropping "boy" from their name. Girls complained long enough ("I just want to see a change," [Sydney Ireland] said. "Right now they're discriminating against girls, and I'm just calling it as it is.")

Interestingly, 1) the Girl Scouts object ("We're all girls should ever need") and 2) they do not allow boys (unless, of course, they identify as girls). Now, why is no one protesting that?

The Infidel
Meet Luis Ruiz. Luis is one of the worst things to come on the scene -- a deconverted gay man. That's right. Luis Ruiz was a survivor of the Pulse nightclub massacre where a young man chose at random (not because it was a gay hangout) to shoot up the place and kill a bunch of people. (He originally intended to do it at Disney World; this wasn't an "anti-gay" thing.) Ruiz now says he has become a Christian and is no longer gay ... GASP! "Oh, no, that will never do. We applaud people who say they are gay or who say they are a different gender than all of science says they are, but we abhor those who change their minds on that. We are not that kind of tolerant. We do not embrace them."

Please note: Ruiz is being held up as an example of the evil "conversion therapy" that California has outlawed and most everyone else (including organizations that once practiced it) has denied. Please note: Luis Ruiz is not a story of "conversion therapy". His is a story of conversion. Not the same thing. (I should also note that I do not know the veracity of his conversion. That is not the point of my bringing this up here. The point is that a life changed by knowing Christ is not the same as a person changed by undergoing "conversion therapy". And my point is that the "tolerant" folks aren't so tolerant if one that they once embraced no longer is what they embrace.)

Disunifying Unity
Andy Stanley, son of Charles Stanley (senior pastor of First Baptist Church in Atlanta and president of In Touch Ministries), made news when he spoke at the Orange Conference and declared that Christian unity was more important than theological corectness. Basing his words on John 17 and Jesus's prayer that His followers would be one as the Father and the Son were one, Stanley argued that being on the same page was mor important than "doctrinal peculiarities".

So, I have questions:
+ When the Bible speaks of unity, what does it mean? Uniformity? Same thinking? Same clothing? Same actions? Same purpose? For instance, if we are united in a cause but do different tasks, is that unity? If we are united in purpose but have different perspectives is that unity? What unity is in view?

+ Does unity negate the possibility of theological correctness? If we are to be one as the Son and the Father are one, do we assume that they might both be wrong? Are the Father and Son as one because they agree or because they are both in complete truth? Is unity around falsehood better? That is, is it better to be united than to have a correct view of God?

+ Wouldn't it be best to be unified around the truth?

Sometimes I get too easily confused, I suppose.

Faulty Reporting
The headline for the Newsweek story reads (in all caps), "LGBT COUPLES COULD BE DENIED ADOPTION ON RELIGIOUS GROUNDS IN KANSAS AND OKLAHOMA." For reasons I don't quite understand it does not read, "The 1st Amendment Rights of Religious Organizations Upheld." The story is that Kansas and Oklahoma have passed laws that grant "legal protection to faith-based agencies that refuse adoptions to LGBT families on religious grounds." (That the states would "grant legal protection" is horrendous on its own. Really? States need to pass laws affirmed in our Constitution?) What the laws in question do not do is "deny adoption to LGBT couples." That is, if they don't go to a "faith-based agency" they are free to adopt. "Faith-based agencies" are not the sole providers for adoptions.

The Human Rights Campaign complains these laws give "license to discriminate." They don't explain why it's okay for a restaurant to state, "No shirt, no shoes, no service," but unacceptable for a faith-based agency to "be granted" its religious freedom. I will also point out that the Bill of Rights does not insist that we have the right to adoption, but does claim we have the right to the free exercise of religion. The aim is to undercut the latter for the former, to take down the right that exists in our constitution to exert a right that does not.

Hospitality

Liberals have argued that Sodom and Gomorrah were not destroyed because of homosexual practices; they were destroyed because of inhospitality. Now, you may wonder why "homosexual practices" are not that bad, but "inhospitality" is so horrible that a death by fire and brimstone is warranted, at least in the minds of these liberals, but that's not my point. It is true that Sodom and Gomorrah were wiped out for homosexual behaviors (among other things), at least according to the texts (Gen 18:20; Gen 19:4-11). And it is also true that one of the "other things" I just mentioned was, in fact, inhospitality. (Genesis 18:20 says, "Their sin is very grave." It wasn't just homosexual behavior.)

Why do I say inhospitality with such assurance? In Ezekiel God describes Sodom as a sister to Samaria (Ezek 16:46). God says, "They were haughty and did an abomination before me. So I removed them, when I saw it." (Ezek 16:50) That "abomination" included "pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy" (Ezek 16:49). They had more than they needed and they failed to use it to help those who didn't.

There are those who argue that inhospitality is the only issue. There are those who are not linking Scripture to Scripture and, therefore, missing the whole picture. These people generally agree that there was an attempted gang rape of angels, but argue that this isn't "homosexuality". That's terminology, where "homosexual" is defined (to them) as a sexual orientation. Jude says it was because they "indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire" (Jude 1:7). Paul explains "unnatural desire" as exchanging the natural desire of men for women or women for men with men for men and women for women (Rom 1:26-27). Homosexual behavior. "Which is it; inhospitality or homosexual behavior?" "Yes ... both."

But this is not my point here. My point is two-fold. First, we tend to think that hospitality is a "nice to have", not a big thing. So we (more conservative Christians) tend to think that it's not a big deal. Second, I don't think we see hospitality in the same way that the Bible does.

Paul says, "Share with the Lord's people who are in need. Practice hospitality." (Rom 12:13) Now, that appears to be a parallel statement. "Share with those who are in need" and "Practice hospitality" seem to say the same thing. Peter links hospitality to the basic command for all Christians:

Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins. Offer hospitality to one another without grumbling. (1 Peter 4:8-9)

The author of Hebrews warns us not to "neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares." (Heb 13:2) It is this idea of hospitality that Jesus speaks of in His parable of the sheep and the goats (Matt 25:34-46). Paul says that this kind of hospitality should be rendering service to the Lord (Eph 6:7). Biblical hospitality includes helping those around us in need, but it isn't isolated to that. The primary point is to welcome the stranger, the "sojourner", to embrace them and get them close enough to give them the Lord's blessing, either the Gospel to the unbeliever or the comfort of God to the believer.

Jesus said, "By this all people will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another." (John 13:35) Scripture repeatedly links "love" and "hospitality". We often think of hospitality as entertaining guests; the Bible doesn't. The Bible sees hospitality as sharing love where you use what God has provided for you in order to help others, in order to draw them near, in order to share Christ and what you have with them. Hospitality, then, would be basic to Christians.

The sin of Sodom and Gomorrah wasn't singular. It included homosexual behavior. It also included failure to love others by sharing what they had with those in need. We might be careful to point fingers at homosexual behavior. We should be equally careful that we, at the same time, are not guilty of the same second reason for God's condemnation of Sodom and Gomorrah. We are commanded to be hospitable. Are we?

A Pauline Dispensationalist Speaks

You probably haven't noticed. I've been having a conversation with "Anonymous" (because giving your name makes you too accountable?) about Pauline Dispensationalism. He (she?) is in favor of it.

In case you missed that one (back in July of 2010), I explained there the concepts of "Pauline Dispensationalism" where the idea is that Paul offered a "new Gospel" that the Old Testament and the rest of the New Testament didn't see. Only Paul. Not John. Not the writers of the Gospels. Not James or Peter or the author of Hebrews. Not even Jesus. Just Paul. Of the 66 books of the Bible, only 13 apply today. Oh, they suppose you can pull up some interesting background information and such, but with the exception of Paul's epistles, nothing else in the Bible is applicable today.

The principles of Pauline Dispensationalism are of interest themselves. They argue that the entire Old Testament (which would, in essence, include Matthew through Acts and Hebrews through Revelation, not being written by the New Gospel writer, Paul) teaches "saved by works", that everyone prior to Paul was saved by ... wait ... Anonymous's words ... a "performance-based acceptance program." In this early, rejected model, apparently, there were people who proved good enough to get to heaven using this "program," but the good news is that we no longer need it. Paul came up with a better plan. (We know this because he claimed it was his gospel (Rom 2:16; 16:25; etc.)) They preach "saved by grace through faith apart from works" (Eph 2:8-9) alone with heavy emphasis on the "alone", completely ignoring Ephesians 2:10 which says that we are saved "for good works" or Philippians 2:12-13 which insists that we "work out your salvation with fear and trembling." They assure us that it is entirely possible to "get saved" and have not one, single, solitary result from it, like a changed life, a changed heart, anything at all. "All I'm saying," Anonymous tells us, "[is] if a person who never wants to live for the Lord but still wants to be saved and go to heaven they can be saved and go to heaven." They carefully and correctly avoid the Roman Catholic error of "saved by works" and horribly and sadly miss the "saved for good works." They wholly reject James's "dead faith" concept (James 2:17) or Jesus's "If you love Me you will keep My commandments" (John 14:15) claim. (Note that it is a claim, not a command -- "If you ... you will ...") They jettison entirely Paul's concept of the "new creation" (2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15) and suppose that you can be "born again" (although that was Jesus's Gospel ... which Jesus said was indispensable (John 3:3, 5)) and filled with the Spirit (Eph 5:18) and it has no effect. Paul claimed that God works all things together for good for those who love God (Rom 8:28) and explains what that good is -- "in order to be conformed to the image of His Son" (Rom 8:29) -- but apparently it doesn't necessarily happen.

I am most disturbed by these kinds of people. Having the initial true Gospel -- "saved by grace through faith apart from works" -- they immediately set out to combat the true Gospel. You can't trust God's Word even though God's Word says repeatedly that you can. You can't pay attention to Christ Himself even though we are called "Christians." They believe that the historic Church got this wrong all along and they, by some means, managed to arrive at this new truth in the last 150 years or so. What does that say about the work of the Holy Spirit (John 16:13)? They claim to be tied so closely to Paul while rejecting Paul's own words (2 Tim 3:16-17). They argue that they're doing what Paul says -- "rightly dividing the Word of truth" -- instead of doing what Paul intended -- correctly handling God's Word. And they claim that if you disagree on this -- that works has any role in the life of a Christian -- then you aren't saved. You are an "enemy of the cross."

I believe there are Christians in all sorts of "wrong places". I think there are actual Christians in the Roman Catholic church, not saved by Roman Catholic theology, but in spite of it. I am confident that liberal churches have true believers sitting in their pews not because of the doctrines they are being taught, but in spite of them. And I'm pretty sure that these Pauline Dispensationalists have genuine Christians in their midst who are indeed "saved by grace through faith apart from works" but misguided beyond that by false teachers who are eager to mishandle God's Word, strip off Jesus, and leave them without a Lord. "You can come to Jesus and you can be the Master" is a pleasant-sounding line of preaching; it's just not biblical. It is not "rightly dividing the word of truth." I would hope that you, dear readers, would be aware of this kind of misguided teaching, be able to handle God's Word as a whole, and pray for these people who have pursued this wrong course.

Bear One Another's Burdens

Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted. Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ. For if anyone thinks he is something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself. But let each one test his own work, and then his reason to boast will be in himself alone and not in his neighbor. For each will have to bear his own load. (Gal 6:1-5)

The New Testament is full of "one anothers". We are to love one another (John 13:34-35), be at peace with one another (Mark 9:50), outdo one another in showing honor (Rom 12:10), serve one another (Gal 5:13), and on and on. Lots of them. One of those "one anothers" is right here in this passage. "Bear one another's burdens." (Gal 6:2) What is he talking about?

The command is not in a vacuum. He starts with the primary "burden" in view -- transgression. "If anyone is caught in any transgression ..." (Gal 6:1). So the idea is that the burden we need to bear for each other is avoiding or recovering from transgression -- sin.

How are we at doing that? We seem to be pretty good at pointing it out, but is that "bearing one another's burdens"? Seems more like piling them on. Paul specifies restoration rather than accusation and "a spirit of gentleness" rather than arrogance or "righteous indignation". Paul includes the caution to "Keep watch on yourself, less you too be tempted." We all share in the problem of temptations. Sometimes we can easily see a brother caught in a transgression because it's the very temptation we suffer from ourselves. Is Paul's approach our approach in bearing one another's burdens?

Paul ends the thought with something that appears contradictory. He told us to "Bear one another's burdens", but ends with "Each will have to bear his own load." Now, hang on, aren't those opposites? No. Paul suggests that your job is to bear their burden of sin and your own. Now, that may sound like a lot, but if we're doing this right, it is also the responsibility of every other believer to bear the burdens of others as well as their own, so we end up in a situation where we plan to do it by ourselves but find ourselves supported on all sides. And that's a good thing.

Frankly, I don't think we're very good at this. Specifically, I don't think we're very good at bearing one another's sin burden. We are too judgmental when we ought to be supportive. We are too self-righteous when we ought to be empathetic. We are too concerned about our own sin when we ought to be seeking help from others on it. We are too concerned about what others think of us and not concerned enough about following Christ. As a result, we are too often beaten in our battle with sin. We are called to outnumber and overpower the enemy, but instead we are isolated and alone.

How's that working for you? Rather than "Do It Yourself" (DIY), have you tried Paul's solution?

What Do You Want?

There is no doubt about it. We live in difficult times in a difficult world. There is poverty and pain, loss and sorrow, crime and sin. This isn't news. It is, in fact, an opportunity for God's enemies to point out that God isn't doing what He ought -- ending pain -- and, therefore, is either not to be trusted or, more likely, nonexistent. Christians know better. We look forward to a blessed hope, a "by and by" where all tears are washed away and eternal joy reigns. But, if we're honest, Christians suffer just as much in this world and Christians wrestle just as much with the question. Perhaps more so, since "He doesn't exist" isn't a possible answer. He does ... so how do we make sense of this? So Christians who love God will weep in trials and tribulations and understandably and reasonably ask "Why, God?" and wonder how they will make it through. If you have not experienced this, you're probably not paying attention.

Well-meaning Christians will tell those in pain "It'll be alright" and we hope for the "peace for today and bright hope for tomorrow." If it goes on too long, we likely become discouraged, but we still hang on. So I have a question. What do you want? What is it you're hoping for?

It is my suspicion that what we want is comfort. Not "comfort" as in "to be comforted", but "comfort" as in "to be comfortable". Especially Americans. We like our comfort. All we really want from God is to be comfortable. Whether that's physical or mental or emotional or social or spiritual, we just want to be comfortable. Avoid pain, steer clear of trials, and just be okay. Is that what you want? Because, if it is, you can be sure that you won't get it. Trials and tribulations aren't likely; they're promised.

To help us think about this, ask "What did people in the Bible do in similar troubles?" Well, Job (a universal image of trials) said, "The LORD gave, and the LORD has taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD" (Job 1:21) and "Shall we indeed accept good from God and not accept adversity?" (Job 2:10) Paul prayed for the removal of the trial and, when it wasn't done, learned, "My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness," so that He "most gladly" would boast in His weakness "so that the power of Christ may dwell in me." (2 Cor 12:9) And Jesus, the epitome of suffering, asked, "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me," but concluded, "yet not as I will, but as You will." (Matt 26:39) These people wanted what God wanted. They wanted nothing more and nothing less than God's perfect will. If that was loss, they wanted loss. Whatever God wanted was all they wanted.

So what do you want? Are you looking forward to heaven because there will be no more tears and no more pain and no more sadness and no more sin? That's fine. It's true. But is that what you want? Or are you looking forward to heaven because there you will finally "be at home with the Lord" (2 Cor 5:8)? The question carries back, then, into today. What do you want? Is it comfort? Or is it Christ? Because in trials and pain His grace is shown to be sufficient and His power is perfected. Is that what you want? Or will you just settle for comfortable?

The Plan

Before there was "Frito/Lays", the Frito company was making corn chips called, appropriately, "Fritos". In the late 60's/early 70's they had a cartoon mascot, the Frito Bandito. He was a "bad guy" whose only desire was to get some Fritos. So, with his trusty sidekick, he'd go through a commercial trying to steal Fritos, always without success. In one of these he and his helper end up in a heap outside the factory, beaten and bruised. The Frito Bandito says, "This didn't go like I planned it." His side kick says, "You planned this?"

In his letter to Titus, Paul starts out speaking of "eternal life, which God, who never lies, promised before the ages began." (Titus 1:2) Isn't that odd? If it was "before ages began", to whom did He promise it? Well, obviously to the Godhead. I imagine something like this. "Hey, Son, I have an idea. Let's make a Bride for you." "Sounds good!" "Now, of course, when we do it they'll turn on us and sin." "What then?" "Well, Someone will have to take their just punishment." "Me?" "Yep!" "Sounds good. Let's do it!" (That was imagination, not suggestion of anything actual.) The point is that God planned eternal life before ages began. And if you look at it, you might just ask, "You planned this?"

Did He? Scripture says that "God shows His love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." (Rom 5:8) That, dear readers, is premeditation. Before we earned, deserved, improved, accomplished anything "Christ died for us." We know that "He gave His only Son." (John 3:16) Not an accidental event. Not a mistake. Not a fortuitous event. There is premeditation and intent here.

It gets worse. Peter said that Jesus was "delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God." (Acts 2:23) It wasn't even Plan B. "Foreknowledge" means He chose this route in advance.

It gets worse. We learn later that "Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel", in executing the sinless Son of God, did "whatever Your hand and Your plan had predestined to take place." (Acts 4:27-28)

God planned it before the ages began. He did it without regard to our merit. He gave His Son. He did it by definite plan and foreknowledge. It was accomplished in every detail by His hand and plan. "You planned this?" Yes ... yes He did. And executed it perfectly to the last detail. He accomplished all that was necessary to create a Bride for His Son, to be both Just and Justifyer, to save those He wished to save, to bring ultimate glory to Himself. Good plan!

Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and how inscrutable His ways! “For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been His counselor?” “Or who has given a gift to Him that He might be repaid?” For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be glory forever. Amen. (Rom 11:33-36)

Omniscient, Omnipotent, Sovereign

God is described in Scripture as having all knowledge (Omniscient) (Psa 136:1-6, 16; Psa 147:4-5; Isa 46:9-10; 1 John 3:20; etc.), having all power (Omnipotent) (Matt 19:26; Rev 1:8; Rev 7:11-12; Rev 19:6; Psa 147:5; Jer 32:17, 27; Job 37:23; Dan 4:35; etc.), and having all authority (Sovereign) (Psa 115:3; Prov 16:9; 1 Chron 29:11-12; 2 Chron 20:6; Job 42:2; Psa 103:19; Psa 135:6; Eph 1:11; Rom 9:21; Lam 3:37; Prov 16:33; etc.). If you were paying attention to the texts I cited in each case here, you'll find that they often interconnect. Why? Because His Omniscience, Omnipotence, and Sovereignty are all interlinked.

Does God know? We have to ask that question. Does He know? Or is His knowledge partial like ours? If it is in any way incomplete, there is margin for error. Does He know ... everything? When we say that He is Omniscient, we are saying He knows everything. No exceptions.

Can He act? Does have the ability to perform what He wills? Or is His power limited like ours? It is true that there are things that God cannot do -- lie, sin, die, that sort of thing -- but there is nothing that He wills to do that He lacks the power to accomplish. That's Omnipotence. He has all power for all things.

So, He knows perfectly. That's good to know. And He has all power. That's a relief. Still, having all knowledge and all power doesn't necessarily mean He has the authority to act on that perfect knowledge with His perfect power. He has to be authorized. Is He authorized? Does He have permission to act? Here we come up against His Sovereignty. Scripture says He is the "only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords." (1 Tim 6:15) Not only is He a Sovereign; He is the only Sovereign. He works all things after the counsel of His will (Eph 1:11). He is indeed the highest authority there is (Matt 28:18). No doubt about it.

God, then, has perfect knowledge, absolute power, and the highest authority on which to exercise Omniscience and Omnipotence. Where does that leave us? It means that your troubles today are in His hands. It means that, as a Good God, He wills to accomplish good and will accomplish good. It means that all that you are going through, enduring, or could suffer is limited by His Omniscience, Omnipotence, and Sovereignty so that nothing other than what He wills for you can happen to you and that all that happens to you He wills and manages. Not too much; not too little. And always for good.

I recently spoke to a loved one in pain who asked, "What if God wants me to go through this for the next 40 years?" Reasonable question. You need to first establish the above. Does God know? Can He act? Does He have the authority to do so? If you answer "Yes" to these, you are left with only two questions. First, if God knows that enduring this "for the next 40 years" or the next 40 seconds is not in your best interests, will He allow it to continue? The second question is equally important. If He knows that what you are enduring is in your best interest, will you cooperate with Him?

It all boils down to which God you believe in -- one who submits to your ideas of good and bad or the one who is Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Sovereign. I'm sure you know that only one of those is the real God.

News Weakly - 4/28/18

Weaponizing Apologies
In an interview with the Guardian, Canadian singer living in Switzerland Shania Twain said that she would likely have voted for Trump in 2016. She didn't. She couldn't. But the fact that she said she would made people so angry that she needed to apologize. Two things we know about these kinds of apologies. 1) They don't work. They don't count. They are "not enough", "too little, too late." They accomplish nothing because the public does not forgive. 2) They serve the opposite effect. Although we live in a "free country" and people have the "right to vote" for whomever they think is best, you'd better not vote for whomever "they" don't want you to. And an apology simply confirms it. She would have acted within her rights as an American (if she had been an American), and this apology denies that. It says, "You're right; I should only vote for whomever you say I should." These apologies-on-demand these days are simply used as weapons against the people who offer them and the ideas they hate. (Note: There are, in the end of it all, no ideas that are not hated by someone. Modern technology just makes them louder.)

Southwest Flight 1380
Interesting. Remember that Southwest Airlines flight that shelled an engine, killing one and injuring more, but landing safely on only one engine? Turns out the pilot, Tammie Jo Shults, was not only among the first female combat pilots, but also a Christian. She wrote in a blog post that "being a pilot gave her 'the opportunity to witness for Christ on almost every flight.'" A friend from her church said "she wants people to know that God was there with her [on Flight 1380] that He helped her in getting control of that plane and landing that plane. It was because of Him, not her." I like stories like that.

Technology is Not Your Friend
Truthfully, technology is generally amoral. That is, it doesn't come with a moral component; we insert that. My point (in the title) is not that Technology is evil. My point is that evil humans intend to use technology for evil ends. How? You're aware of VR, right? Virtual Reality, the technology that allows a gamer (for instance) to be actually "in" a virtual reality, a 3-dimensional simulation. Also in the mix is the latest AR -- Augmented Reality. This one will take what really is and add things to it. It could allow you to see your own hand in front of you, for example, and place a virtual item in your hand. Imagine, then, what sinful humans could do with this in terms of "Changing Human Connection, Intimacy, and the Limits of Ordinary Life." This kind of technology would make for very realistic virtual sexual immorality, giving the feel of "I didn't do anything wrong because I didn't really do anything" while sinning with your whole heart. Not your friend.

The Left is Not Your Friend
California is at it again. They're pushing through Assembly Bill 2943, making it unlawful to engage in "'a transaction intended to result or that results in the sale or lease of goods or services to any consumer' that advertise, offer to engage in, or do engage in 'sexual orientation change efforts with an individual.'" That is a book ban, at the very least. It defines "sexual orientations change efforts" as "any practices that seek to change an individual's sexual orientation. This includes efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same sex." Parachurch organizations on the subject, be ready. Churches, beware. Biblical Christians, watch out. The Left here is not interested in diversity, tolerance, or political compromise; they want to require by force of law that you do not express dissent against their position.

The Inflitrators
The New Yorker put out a piece recently about "Chick-fil-A's Creepy Infiltration of New York City". Say what? Yes, it is an evil infiltration. I mean, they have that nasty "to glorify God" phrase on the corporate purpose statement and they've insulted the entire animal species of cows who apparently can't spell ("Eat Mor Chikin"). (Seriously, those are a couple of the complaints.) "The brand's arrival here feels like an infiltration'" the article says, "in no small part because of its pervasive Christian traditionalism. Its headquarters, in Atlanta, are adorned with Bible verses and a statue of Jesus washing a disciple's feet. Its stores close on Sundays." The problem is clear. We don't want this Christian infiltration. It's gotta go.

DACA Demand
You know what DACA is, right? It's an immigration policy (as opposed to a law) started by President Obama in 2012 that allowed a specific group of illegal immigrants to gain work permits and stay in the United States. ICE agents sued. States sued. Courts ruled (mostly by not ruling). It was intended as a temporary measure until Congress could put together an official law on the subject. So in September of 2017 President Trump announced its repeal and tossed the ball to Congress to do their jobs. They didn't.

Now the courts have ruled. DACA is law. The Congress hasn't passed it. It was intended as a stop-gap to address a problem. But the courts have decided that it is mandatory government immigration policy. Janet Napolitano, previously the head of DHS and now president of the UC system declared that rescinding DACA was "unconstitutional, unjust, and unlawful."

I don't see how this is not judicial legislation, a clear case of a judge making law rather than interpreting or enforcing it. Whether or not I think DACA is a good idea, it seems to me that when the courts get to decide what is and is not policy (as opposed to "legal" or "constitutional"), we've signaled the end of the system of checks and balances instituted by the Constitution and, in effect, we've become ... unconstitutional.

Diversity Wins
So the Cal State University, Fresno, professor who cheered the death of Barbara Bush on Twitter and longed for the day that the rest of her kin would die horrible deaths won't lose her job. Won't be disciplined.

So, the way "diversity" works these days is you fire (or worse) the one who says things you find offensive but say nothing at all to the ones who are, oh, hey, look at that ... Muslim ... or "person of color" or LGBTLMNOP or ... any of that particular group who may prove "insensitive, inappropriate and an embarrassment to the university" but falls under that protected status. Christians, just be aware ... you are not in that category. I'm not complaining; I'm just letting you know.

We Agree

The perception is that Christians cannot agree on anything. Oh, not that some can't agree. The suggestion is that there are no points at all on which Christianity has not disagreed. Everything has been up for debate, from whether or not Jesus ever actually lived to whether the Bible is authoritative or reliable to ... well, anything you'd like to mention. The conclusion the suggestion draws, obviously, would be "You can't know." That is, everything Christian is in question and should be viewed merely as a matter of opinion rather than actual fact. "So, don't tell us what God says. You can tell us what you think (perhaps), but don't pretend like there are actual facts involved." And the fact is that there is and always has been division in the Body of Christ (1 Cor 1:10).

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but this idea that Christians agree on nothing is not exactly true. In fact, it is not even nearly true. As a singular example, at no time in all of Church history has any held that homosexual behavior was not a sin. Ever. Until this century. That is, given all the stuff that Christians have disagreed about, one of the clearest things they have not is now in question. Now that is some level of arrogance to conclude, "They've all gotten it wrong for all time, but we have figured it out."

That's just one example. Is there any other agreement? Yes, there is.

First, let's be clear. Not all who call themselves "Christian" are Christian (Matt 7:21-23), so we immediately run into problems when discussing "What do all Christians agree on?" We have to dismiss the non-Christian, you see. So, as a bare structure, it is impossible, for instance, to have a "Christian" who doesn't believe in Christ or who doesn't believe in God. Hey, look! We just found a couple of basics that all Christians agree on.

From the early days of Christendom there have been efforts made to ... well, agree with each other. The Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, and others comprise efforts made to say, "This is the minimum on which we can all agree." So, we have God as Trinity. Jesus's virgin birth, sinless life, death on the cross, and physical resurrection, His eventual return, and His exclusivity -- that He is the only path to salvation. We have the agreement that the Bible's 66 books are God's inspired Word. We have agreement that those who place their trust in Christ will be saved. There is a lot of agreement.

There is much emphasis on the disagreements among believers, suggesting we can't really know what is the "true faith", what is biblically true, what is genuine Christianity. I don't think that's true. It is true that Christians disagree on a large variety of things. Generally they are nuances, shades, minutia. I think that most of the division we see is between Christians and false-believers, self-professed "Christians" who are, as it turns out, not actually known by Christ (Matt 7:21-23). I think if you weed out that group and then look at the disagreements that remain, they will be much smaller, much more nuanced. They will be more "I think that Scripture says this" and "No, I think when it says that it means this." That is a fundamentally different disagreement because it is premised on Scripture as truthful and authoritative. On that we should all agree.

Another Jesus

In Paul's second letter to the church at Corinth, Paul was concerned that they were too susceptible to error.

I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough. (2 Cor 11:3-4)

Interesting. By what means might they be led astray (as the serpent led Eve astray)? Teachers. Not just teachers; false teachers. Not just false teachers; false teachers that teach "another Jesus" or "a different spirit" or "a different gospel".

Now, we know what Paul thought of "a different gospel" (Gal 1:6-10) -- there is no "different gospel". The same is true for Jesus. There is no "other Jesus". It is deception. Of these false teachers Paul says, "Such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light." (2 Cor 11:13-14) So, we have "another Jesus", "a different gospel", and we have false teachers that, well, look really impressive. Messengers of God serving "an angel of light" who is no such thing.

You don't have to look far today to find these. They disguise themselves as megachurch pastors preaching health and wealth or as Social Justice Warriors preaching "feed the poor" over against "preach the gospel". (That is, "feed the poor" isn't wrong; it's only wrong when it removes and replaces "preach the gospel".) They offer a "kinder, gentler" Jesus fathered (often "sort of") by a "kinder, gentler" God. None of that "wrath" and "hell" and junk. "He's not that kind of Jesus." This "other Jesus" isn't just, isn't righteous, and certainly isn't biblical. That is, this "Jesus" finds the God of the Bible offensive. "All that sacrifice and blood and killing and stuff? Bad, really bad. Not this Jesus." They offer a "new and improved" version of the gospel. It's much more friendlier. Discard exclusivity. Set aside hell. Certainly don't include God's Word as authoritative or definitive. And so on.

Paul is concerned about the willingness of the church at Corinth to embrace these kinds of opposing views. They are happy to include alternatives. Another Jesus, a different gospel, a different spirit -- it's all good. Let's not be narrow. Let's not be closed-minded. Let's include diversity of views and tolerance of ... false Christs and gospels and spirits. It isn't unclear that Paul is opposed to that. His argument? "I am an Apostle of Christ (2 Cor 11:6-33). Listen to me, not them." And how does that translate today? "You have God's Word; listen to that."

Or go with "another Jesus" or "a different gospel". At your own risk.

The Whole Truth

"I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." That's how the oath goes for someone on the witness stand. That's ... well ... ridiculous ... if taken at face value. I mean, does this witness actually know "the whole truth"? And if "the whole truth" was told, wouldn't it take an incredibly long time? "Well, I was born back in ..." Of course, that's not what they're going for. What the oath is asking for is that our witness will tell the truth in the testimony they're about to give, that they wouldn't omit pertinent facts, and that they won't insert lies. Okay, that's not so bad. In fact, in a court of law, it's kind of necessary.

So why do we want something else in churches today? Why is it that we think something else would be better for presenting the Gospel, something far more important than the courts of law? But apparently we want something less than "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."

First, I'd like to point out that I'm not the source of this accusation. Paul wrote to Timothy,

I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. (2 Tim 4:1-4)

The warning is that, in Timothy's lifetime (and, clearly, in Paul's time as well), people in churches would "not endure sound teaching." They would, instead, "accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions" and they would "turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths." (I think it's ironic that one of the popular myths today that they are wandering off into is the one about Genesis being a myth.) You see, Paul was warning Timothy of the very thing I was saying; we're not going to accept the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. We'll push out the "whole truth" thing, admit lies, and call it "church".

There is a treatment for this, according to Paul. "Preach the Word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching." This immediately disqualifies teaching "what they want to hear" and requires teaching the Word. It immediately puts an end to tickling itching ears and requires the whole truth -- the truth about the topic at hand. Telling people "God loves you" may be truthful, but leaving out God's wrath in the process ignores the whole truth. Presenting the "pleasant parts" of the Bible while ignoring the more difficult, more unpleasant parts is not presenting the whole truth. We want to hear about God's grace and mercy and we should, but not at the expense of those stickier parts like His judgment of sin or His Divine Sovereignty. We like the whole "diversity of gifts working for the common good" idea (1 Cor 12:1-26), for instance, but we're not at all keen on the "You are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord" kind of concept (1 Cor 5:1-5).

We like the warm and friendly God. We like the "I form light" and "I make well-being" God but cut Him off in mid sentence when He goes on to say, "I create darkness" and "I create calamity" (Isa 45:7). In other words, we like the God of our choosing, not necessarily the God who is. But Jesus said, "I am ... the Truth" (John 14:6) and Paul said that love "rejoices with the truth." (1 Cor 13:6) So what is it going to be? Are we going to receive the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, or are we going to pander to our passions and preferences?

Missing the Point

News Flash! Are you ready? Here it is.

This is a blog

Okay, not as newsy as one might think, but I think I need to make that statement because it seems as if people -- not a small number -- miss the point. This is a blog. By definition a blog is "a website that contains online personal reflections, comments, etc." A blog is not "the definitive source", an authority on a subject, "that by which all truth may be obtained", or the pope of the people. By definition a blog is the opinion of the author or authors. You take it or you leave it. You agree with it or you don't. You can even argue with it if you like. But "You need to recognize that this is just your opinion!" is mindless because that's the definition of a blog -- "personal reflections, comments, etc."

Somehow, people often don't seem to see that. So they take offense that I say in my blog (see the previous definition) that "Scripture says 'X' so God says 'X' and we should listen." "That's just your opinion!" Umm, yes, it is. Your point? If you don't like what I said, it's easy. There are options. You have choices.

1. The easiest of all choices is turn it off. If you don't like a TV show, change the channel. If you don't like a radio station, turn it off. If you don't like what I've written, move on. Easy.

2. Tell me where I'm wrong. I'm always open to the idea that I could be wrong. I've been wrong in the past. I'll be wrong in the future. I am constantly honing, refining, and correcting my thinking ... kind of like Scripture says -- being renewed in my mind (Rom 12:2). So I'm open to a pleasant discussion that explains why I'm wrong on "X". Calling me names and telling me how disgusting I am for believing what I see in Scripture doesn't help. Explaining to me why I shouldn't believe Scripture doesn't help. Look, they always tell us, "If you want to engage someone, you need to do it on their level." If you want to show a scientist that he's wrong in his position on a science issue, you need to show him with science. If you want to explain to a child why you don't want them to do something, you have to do so at their level of understanding. It's just the way things are. If you want to tell me why I'm wrong in my conclusions about Scripture, you'll have to do it ... with Scripture. If I'm wrong in politics or social issues without reference to Scripture, feel free to tell me where I'm wrong and why without reference to Scripture, but most of my positions are taken from the Bible. Telling me I'm ludicrous for believing the Bible or understanding it in the way that the Church has understood it for 2000 years doesn't help.

3. Tell me how much you dislike me. Tell me how much I've misrepresented your position or how wrong I am in my worldview because, well, "Science" or "common sense" (something which is, at best, in very short supply and, I suspect, nearly non-existent today). Tell me how reprehensible you think I am. Tell me how I'm wrong in everything I believe by misrepresenting everything I believe. This is a possible option. I'll tell you up front, however, that it is not a useful option, a helpful option, an effective option, or a Christian option. I'm sure your mother told you, "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything." Helping me see where I'm wrong from Scripture or evident reason might be "nice" in the sense of being helpful or effective. This last option is not. Choose your mother's second option and don't say anything.

You'd think that the very nature of a blog would make it clear that what I say here is my opinion. The sense I get from too many is that they seem to think my writings are definitive, that I am telling the world what is and is not true, and "you'd better follow what I say or suffer the consequences, likely from the hand of God!" This kind of thing falls entirely outside the definition or function of a blog. If you don't like what I say, see Option 1 or Option 2. Don't bother with Option 3. There are already enough of you using that one and it's not producing anything of any use to either of us. Now if you actually have some helpful input about how "You said that Scripture says this and means that, but here are some reasons from the Bible that you are wrong," not only would I allow it; I would embrace it.

Where is Love?

Love is defined in various ways. "I love pizza" is not the same as "I love my dog" or "I love my wife." But, for the most part, we see it as "warm affection." And I'd suggest that is all well and good, but not biblical. Biblical love is something else entirely.

Paul, in correcting mistakes of the church at Corinth, tells them they're misguided on the gifts of the Spirit. He explains that all gifts are from the Spirit and are for the common good (1 Cor 12). He says they should "earnestly desire the greater gifts" and follows that thought with "And I show you a still more excellent way." (1 Cor 12:31). What way?

Paul explains that all the "greater gifts" without love are useless. Worse than useless. Annoying, unfulfilling, empty (1 Cor 13:1-3). Having established the necessity of love over gifts, he goes on to offer the famous description of love. Lots of people, even unbelievers, have heard it. They make wedding songs out of it.

Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails. (1 Cor 13:4-8)

Read that list and answer some questions for yourself. How does that list of descriptive items compare with our current cultural view of "love"? What part of these items are based on emotion? Many today link "love" with sex. Can you find that link here? Some modern marriage vows include "til love does us part" and people commonly "fall out of love". How do these ideas fit in with "bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails"? We are told that if you love someone you will embrace them, sin and all, and accept them for who they are. How does that correlate with "does not rejoice in unrighteousness"?

If you're paying attention, I think you can see in this description that feelings have nothing to do with this kind of love. This love is a choice, an act of obedience, a constant decision. It is clearly based outward -- a focus on the loved one -- rather than our rule of thumb -- a focus on me. Without this version of love even the gifts of the Spirit are useless. What about the rest of the things we do?

It's not really that hard. Love is a choice we make to seek the best for others at our own expense. It doesn't embrace sin, but doesn't reject the sinner. It is not self-seeking. (That's actually a quote from the text.) It isn't an emotion.

We understand love to be an emotion. We're mistaken. Love is a choice. Liking someone is chemistry, but love is something we do, not feel. The interesting truth is that when we treat people this way, that "warm affection" that we've come to associate with love is the result. But it's the result, not the cause. This kind of love is the mark of true Christianity (John 13:35). Now, ask yourself: Is that the kind of love I have toward God and my neighbor?

I'm Grateful

I'm grateful.

I'm grateful for health. I'm not talking about the health I work to maintain. I'm talking about the health that has clearly been handed to me by God. Most of my life I've been in good health, sick very little, no big health issues. You might argue that some of your health is your doing, but I'm grateful for the majority of my health that is simply a gift from God.

I'm grateful for my life. That would include a family and friends whom I love and who are happy to have me in their "thoughts and prayers". I'm grateful for those. That would include a job that I have no business having -- an obvious gift from God -- that pays the bills and keeps us fed and takes care of my family and all that. I'm grateful for that. I'm grateful to be in America. Not something I arranged. But I appreciate the freedom and opportunities and if I fail to be grateful for this I will end up ungrateful, entitled, arrogant and miserable. So I'm grateful that God put me here.

I'm grateful for the little things like clean water and hot water when I need a shower, for air to breathe and sunshine to enjoy, for skills and talents I've been given by God. I'm grateful for comfortable shoes and the ability to fix myself a sandwich. I'm grateful for a Bible I can read and books readily available ... and the simple ability to read.

I'm grateful simultaneously, for not getting what I have earned and for getting what I have not earned. I have not earned God's favor, but He gives grace -- unmerited favor -- freely. I have earned God's wrath, but He gives mercy -- withholding the punishment I justly deserve.

I'm grateful for Christ. I have amassed a great sum of offenses to the Most High and God has laid it on Him. My entire "debit" column has been wiped out, past, present, and future. Besides the clean slate, I have also been given the righteousness of Christ, completely filling my "righteousness deficiency". Because of Jesus, all the places I did the wrong thing are erased and all the places I failed to do the right thing are credited to me as done. I have no idea how to express my gratitude for that.

I'm grateful. Really grateful. Grateful to God.

News Weakly - 4/21/18

New Party in Town
"The Working Families Party endorsed actor Cynthia Nixon over two-term Gov. Andrew Cuomo on Saturday, fueling Nixon’s left-flank challenge and deepening a split among New York Democrats." That's how the story reads. Cynthia Nixon is an actress, most famous for her part in Sex and the City. She spoke of "the progressive New York that we want to create" and "has promised to legalize and tax marijuana, end cash bail, push for single-payer health care and increase funding to public schools — raising taxes if necessary."

I guess I get it. A "progressive New York" is one that relies on government, not people, indulges drugs, compromises income for a "single-payer health care" system, and trusts, from all appearances, the wisdom of Hollywood. By the way, Working Families Party, I hope you have good jobs. This is really going to cost you. (In California they estimated $400 billion a year. They estimated a 15% payroll tax just for the "free" health care.)

Shooting the Deceived
Perhaps you've heard of, maybe even read, The Boy Who Came Back from Heaven. It was written as a true story about a boy unfortunately named Alex Malarkey, who was in a 2004 car crash and purportedly died, visited heaven, and came back. The book was written by his father, Kevin Malarkey. It was released in 2010 to much acclaim in certain sectors and followed by a movie of the same name. Subsequently, in 2015 Alex released an open letter that denied the accuracy of the book or the reality of its claims. "People have profited from lies, and continue to," he said. "They should read the Bible, which is enough." Well, now, in order to finish the story, 20-year-old Malarkey is now suing Tyndale for making him famous for it even though Tyndale pulled the book from print when they found out it was a lie. Malarkey wants them to disassociate his name from the book. You know, the book that they pulled, the book that is no longer available, the book that it took young Malarkey years to disavow himself. What his father did in fabricating the lie was reprehensible. Don't take it out on those who were deceived.

Exclusive Inclusivity
The Free Pride Glascow parade considers itself a "more open-minded alternative" to the traditional Glasgow LGBT pride events, so, in order to be more more open-minded, they are banning drag queens from the parade because it might offend "non-binary people". That is, if a guy thinks he's a girl, he's in, but if a guy thinks he's a guy but likes to walk around dressed as a flamboyant girl, he's definitely out. We'll have none of that kind of inclusivity here.

The Natives are Restless
So, apparently not all Californians are on board with California law, especially when it, you know, violates federal law. Another California city has voted to opt out of the sanctuary state law, ironically called the "California Values Act." Two municipalities now have voted to declare, "Those are your values, not ours."

Not the Same
On Tuesday Barbara Bush died at the age of 92. She had been sick for some time battling congestive heart failure and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. She was a true matriarch, married to George Bush senior, our 41st president, for 73 years, the mother of our 43rd president and Jeb Bush, former governor of Florida and presidential candidate in 2016. In her dying days she wasn't worrying about herself "thanks to her abiding faith." The nation will mourn her passing.

In like fashion, Queen Elizabeth "lost the last of her beloved corgi dogs this weekend." It marks "the first time Her Majesty hasn't had a corgi in her household since World War II." Now, if this is the same kind of news item, we, indeed, live in a fallen and sick world.

Unnecessary News
The Public Religion Research Institute, PRRI, has released a report that "White evangelical support for Trump at record high."

Maybe.

I think it's odd that the chart shows that in January of 2017 only 68% had a favorable view of Trump. But wait! Didn't they tell us that 81% voted for him? I think it's questionable, given the vague definition of "evangelical", that this actually reflects the ideas of actual Evangelicals. And I find it offensive that the race card gets played again and again. What does "white" have to do with "Evangelicals"? Why is that a factor? Why are they even asking the race question? I have all sorts of problems with this kind of reporting.

(One more point. The thinking/intent here is clear. "We don't like Trump. Whatever Trump does is wrong. Anyone who associates in any way with Trump is evil. White evangelicals associate in some way with Trump. Therefore, white evangelicals are evil." This is a classic logical fallacy known as "guilt by association". Don't buy it. The correct approach is to 1) find out if the person in question is Evangelical, then 2) find out what they really think, then 3) evaluate their position, not what you think of Trump, the poll, or the term "white evangelical".)

If Christ Is NOT the Only Way

One of the sharpest complaints against Christianity is the concept of exclusivity. We claim that Christ is the only way to salvation. We make that claim because He did. In the face of that, it wouldn't be feasible to call ourselves "Christians" and deny what Christ said. But what if? What if Christ is not the only way? Have you ever considered that?

Well, to start with, logic would dictate that, if Christ is not the only way, then Christianity is no way. That is, if the Author and Finisher of our faith is, frankly, wrong, then there is nothing in our faith that we can count on. Logically, if most faiths claim to be exclusive, most faiths are wrong. They can't all be exclusive and correct. We have it from Christ that He is the only way (John 14:6), so if He's wrong, we can eliminate Christianity from that list of possibly true faiths. The rest of them will have to fight it out to determine which is correctly exclusive, but we're out of the running.

Paul gave the gospel in brief in the 15th chapter of 1 Corinthians, where he claimed that Christ died for our sins, was buried, and was raised the 3rd day to many witnesses (1 Cor 15:3-8). He goes on to say that "if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins." (1 Cor 15:17) This puts Christ and His resurrection as a cornerstone of Christianity in general and salvation in particular. If Christ is not the only way, then His death and resurrection are meaningless at best, your faith is worthless, and you're still in your sins.

Paul listed two men in history that were significant to the question. He speaks of the first Adam and the last Adam (Rom 5:12-21). The first brought sin and death and the last brought life (Rom 5:15). If Christ is not the only way, Paul breaks down here. No "first" and "last" man. No life through Christ.

Paul wrote:

Having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. (Rom 5:9-10)

The problem isn't "bad people" or "not good enough". The problem is enemies of God and dead. If Christ is not the only way, then Paul was seriously overstating his position. Not enemies of God, not dead in sin, not really that bad off. But Paul, the "saved by grace through faith apart from works", "no other gospel" Apostle, was obviously confused. When the Philippian jailer asked, "What must I do to be saved?" Paul should have answered, "Whatever you darn well please," not "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ." (Acts 16:30-31) If Christ is not the only way, Paul didn't know it (1 Tim 2:5).

Neither did Peter (Acts 4:12), the author of Hebrews (e.g., Heb 2:3), Jude (Jude 1:3), John (e.g., John 3:13-18; 10:1-8; 14:6) ... well, any of the authors of the New Testament.

The Bible speaks of Jesus as unique. He is the "only begotten" (John 2:24; John 3:16; 1 John 4:9). In Him all things exist (Col 1:17). Everything is from Him, through Him, and to Him (Rom 11:36). It is Christ "in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins." (Col 1:14) If Christ is not the only way, then our only response to this unique, only begotten, source of existence and purpose of all things is "Meh, who cares? We can find that elsewhere."

If Jesus is not the only way to God, then the biblical record is not only unreliable, but evil. It claims that God sent His Son to die on our behalf. It claims that He lived a sinless life, qualifying Him and Him alone to pay for sin. It claims that He is God Incarnate, deity, the second person of the Trinity, qualifying Him and Him alone to be capable of covering all sin.

If Jesus is not the only way to God, Scripture is not to be believed. Jesus said it. The Apostles said it. Every other possibility is denied in Scripture and Jesus alone is offered as the way to salvation. If it is true that Jesus is NOT the only way, then the Scriptures are pointless and Jesus, in particular, is unreliable.

Exclusivity seems like a big problem. It's so narrow. It's so offensive. It's so ... necessary. You see, if we admit that 2 + 2 = 4, then we are denying that 2 + 2 can equal anything else. Exclusive. It's the nature of truth. That is, exclusivity itself shouldn't be such a problem. Other religions claim it and no one complains. We all believe in it in everyday living. We all practice it. So it appears to only be a problem when it comes to Christ. As it turns out it is unavoidable that the Bible teaches that Christ and Christ alone is the only way to God. They may not like it, but it is unavoidable.

Guns Don't Kill People

On one hand we have the many and loud voices clamoring for gun control. "Save our children," they cry, and the like. On the other hand we have the NRA-types who are quick to respond, "Guns don't kill people; people kill people." I'm sure you're following me so far. I'm sure you've heard all this. But here's my question: What next?

It seems to me that no one goes beyond the initial volley. We're talking about murdered people here and all we want to argue about is ... guns. Why is that?

I think it's abundantly clear that more laws, even great laws, won't solve the problem. I think it's patently obvious that guns don't kill people; people do. And while I'm not opposed to good laws and good law enforcement, it seems to me that we're ignoring the problem. People are killing people.

Isn't it interesting? In all the times I've heard one of that ilk say it -- "Guns don't kill people; people kill people" -- I've never seen one of them run on down the path. "Okay, given. Now what?" They appear to think that the fact that people kill people is the answer to the question at hand. It isn't. The question at hand is not "Should we have stricter gun laws?" The question at hand is "Why are people killing people?"

You see, this brings it down to a bigger problem. No, gun laws won't solve it. Neither will gun ownership. Guns or the lack thereof are not the problem. The problem is that people kill people.

This is, for me, the most frustrating thing in this whole mess. While so many are over in this corner debating gun control or gun rights, where are those actually looking at the problem? The problem is the current culture that minimizes human life and maximizes personal desires. The problem is a nation that makes "my feelings" and "my rights" -- always "me" -- the guiding principle. The problem is a society that has rejected the basis for objective morality and then complains that bad things happen. The problem ultimately is the same one that has ever been -- sin. Neither gun control nor gun rights will solve that problem. Christians -- those commanded by Christ to make disciples -- we have the solution to that problem.

God Did NOT Say ...

A "helpful" blogger on the Huffington Post suggested "6 Things Christians Should Just Stop Saying." Interesting. So what things do we say that we just ought to stop because they clearly aren't true?

Number 1: "The Bible is the inerrant, infallible Word of God." Well, that's interesting. Why do you suppose that's #1? He tells us why. "You can't prove it." And why do you suppose that the very next one is "We just believe the Bible"? Well, of course, because that's the corollary to #1 (as he points out). Because you only believe your own interpretation of the Bible which is "replete with errors."

Number 3, then, is a zinger. We should stop saying, "Jesus is the only way to heaven." And there you have it. The end of Christianity. On what does he base this recommendation? Well, "I refer back to No. 2 above" which was his corollary to #1. You cannot know that the Bible is true at any point and you cannot know that anything in it is true and just because Jesus is claimed to have said it is no reason to believe that He actually did ... or, at least, that we can actually know He did because some of us disagree that He did, so there!

The rest doesn't matter at this point. Following "Christ" becomes purely subjective where we can't know what He said and we can't know what He meant and we can't know ... well, much of anything. We can know that those silly disciples that argued later that "there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12) were confused. Since it was a running theme in all of the New Testament, we can be sure that all that New Testament stuff was confused. We can be certain that Jesus wasn't speaking clearly or accurately when He said, "No man comes to the Father but by Me." (John 14:6) We don't have a reliable Savior. We don't have a reliable source. We don't have ... Christianity.

Now, perhaps, you can begin to see why undercutting the Bible is the starting place for this kind of "helpful" thinking. It isn't an assault on the Bible; it's the end of Christianity.

Blessed Be the Name of the Lord -- the Sequel

In the book of Job we read that Satan tested Job because of a challenge from God and took away Job's property and children (Job 1). What a blow! He lost everything. He lost everything at Satan's hands under God's supervision (Job 1:12). So, of course, Job was upset with God, right? Right?

Then Job arose and tore his robe and shaved his head, and he fell to the ground and worshiped. He said, "Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked I shall return there. The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away. Blessed be the name of the LORD." Through all this Job did not sin nor charge God with wrong. (Job 1:20-22)

Well, he was upset. He "tore his robe and shaved his head." But did you get what he did next? He "worshiped". Really?? The chapter ends with the astounding claim, "Through all this Job did not sin or charge God with wrong." Seriously?

Who among us would be with Job on this? I've seen a lot of people endure a lot of things in my life. Accidents, injuries, deaths of loved ones, cancer, sickness, financial, social, and other loss. Lots of stuff. I have to say that the most common response has not been worship or "Blessed be the name of the LORD." I've heard a lot of "Why, God?" And that's not necessarily bad. I'm not suggesting it is. If you read through the book of Job, he eventually asks the question himself (Job 31:35). That's not a problem. But how many of us are going to say, "Shall we indeed accept good from God and not accept adversity?" (Job 2:10)?

What does it take to get there? I ask because clearly we're mostly not and clearly we should be. What does it take to accept adversity from the hand of God -- serious trials -- and say, "Blessed be the name of the LORD"? I would suggest it takes a renewed mind (Rom 12:2). I would think it would take confidence in the Sovereign Lord. Perhaps we have -- I have -- a ways to go on that. "I do believe; help my unbelief." (Mark 9:24)