News Weakly - 10/6/18

The Beginning of the End?
California has passed the law. Publicly listed companies with headquarters in the state will be required to have at least one woman on their boards of directors by the end of 2019.

California lawmakers: "We don't actually believe in a system where merit is in play. We don't care about your ability to earn or to do a job. We don't care about your company and whether or not you can make it work. We care about gender equality. Except, of course, we'll do that halfway. Only one. But no more of that evil 'free enterprise' nonsense here. We will regulate you to meet our own arbitrary social standards. We do not believe in hiring on the basis of ability or talent. If we did, we wouldn't be in charge here, would we?"

This is what I am talking about
You remember Garrison Keillor, right? Prairie Home Companion. "Down home" kind of guy. Claimed to be a Christian. Accused of inappropriate sexual behavior. He denies it and it hasn't gone to trial, but he has been fired. His house is for sale. And he can't sell books. Guilty until proven innocent. "And, oh, by the way, you will not be given a chance to prove your innocence." There is no coming back from this. No redemption. No forgiveness. No recovery. This kind of accusation, today, is the end. And a large and loud part of America is no longer interested in justice. "Vengeance is mine," saith the public. "No thanks. Not really interested in discovering the truth." In today's climate, appearing to be friends with someone accused of these things produces outrage. Apparently you can be "guilty until proven innocent by association." I'm not defending the man or approving "inappropriate sexual behavior." I'm talking about the principle of justice that once prevailed in America.

The Society of the Offended
Some of you may not know who Ruby Rose is. She is an actress (sorry, I still call female actors "actresses") who has been tagged as "the most dangerous woman on the Internet." That's because malicious people are using her as a lure to get Internet users to unknowingly go to dangerous websites searching for info about her. Fine. Don't do that.

The other thing about Ruby, however, is that she was picked to be Batwoman in the new Batwoman series slated for the near future. Now, according to the new series, Batwoman is a gender-fluid Jewish lesbian. (Yeah, I know ... seriously?) And there has been "online uproar" primarily from the LGBTQ side about her being in that role. Why? Batwoman is gender-fluid; Rose is gender-fluid. Batwoman is a lesbian; Rose is a lesbian. Batwoman is "out"; Rose is "out". Oh, I see. Rose isn't Jewish, so she can't play a gender-fluid Jewish lesbian. Next they'll demand that only the real Batwoman can play Batwoman on TV. One complaint I read was "They case Ruby Rose because she's the only LGBT person that straight people like." Ah! Okay. So if you cast a gender-fluid lesbian who straight people don't like, then it's okay. The executive producer is homosexual and the writer is homosexual and the lead actor is homosexual, but they are "systematically ignoring the voices of the LGBTTIQ+ community." Seems to me that we've arrived at a society intent on being offended no matter what.

Coming Soon to a Country Near You
Alberta's Deputy Minister of Education has notified private Christian schools that they will lose funding if they do not remove biblical language from their "Safe and Caring" school policies. What kind of language do they find offensive? Things like "We believe men and women were created in the image of God, after His likeness, and therefore have transcendent, intrinsic worth" or "Upon receipt of a request for a club or activity, the principal shall determine whether the requested club or activities would create a safe, caring, welcoming and respectful environment and is consistent with the vision and mission of the school." Failure to remove this kind of content could result in loss of funding and "the suspension or cancellation of accreditation."

Here's the plan. Remove the real, solid backing for anti-bullying, mutual respect, successful parenting and families, and such, and everything will be peachy. God? We'll have none of that, even in your private schools. The claim that there is "truth" that precludes alternative views as truth is incoherent, right? (Hint: No. It is the only reasonable thing. For instance, arguing that "2 + 2 = 4" is not made better if we say, "But your alternative truth on what 2 + 2 equals is equally valid, too.") And don't expect that we here in America are immune to this nonsense.

Science "Wins"
The modern god is the god of Science. You can't trust people and you can't trust religion, but you know you can trust Science. Like this recent story. Researchers say that light alcohol use does not have health benefits. They say that even light drinking increases your chance of a premature death. "Now, hang on a minute," a savvy person might point out. "Didn't Science tell us that a little alcohol is beneficial for my health??" Yes, yes it did. That's why you know you can trust Science. It corrects itself.

Of course, Science corrects itself endlessly. "That study was wrong; ours says the opposite." "Oh, yeah? Well your study is wrong and ours says something else." It looks like it in the news. It looks like it in the studies of false claims. It looks like the evidence shows that "a lot of published research is false." Where's your god now?

Speaking of Science
On another scientific issue, we have the ultimate prediction of global warming. "A panel of climate change scientists from around the world issued updated prediction models Wednesday, confirming that global warming is expected to see a 'dramatic and deadly' increase the moment Jesus Christ returns in glory" based on scientific data and "a historical-grammatical reading of 2 Peter 3:10."

I'm convinced science has figured it out; it's right there on the Internet.

I do the very thing I hate

Paul wrote, "I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate" (Rom 7:15). I know what he means. Take, for instance, dieting.

I've been on a diet most of my life. My doctor put me on a diet in junior high. The military kept me thin by force of regulation for 10 years. Of course, age doesn't help, so I've been watching my intake for years now to slim down. It's not working. I track my eating daily and I have one of those handy-dandy Fitbit devices that tracks my exercise. Now I can see how many calories I'm taking in and how many I'm burning. According to these two systems, I'm taking in an average of 1500 calories a day and burning an average of 2500 calories a day. I'm not losing weight. "Exercise!" they tell me. So I exercise. Desert sun or desert monsoon, I walk an hour a day (minimum). I'm not losing weight. I make sure I'm not eating fats and sweets, cut out diet sodas because those are bad for you, increase fruits and vegetables, and I'm not losing weight. So we go to a weight loss clinic and they tell me, "You're not eating enough." Ummm, okay, that makes no sense, but ... okay. "You need to eat more ... but only what we tell you." And what they tell me is "Do you like these foods?" "Yes." "Cut them out. Do you like these foods?" "Can't stand them." "Double those." And they continue to whittle this down. "Eat more fruits and vegetables! Oh, not those fruits. Not those vegetables. These. They have no flavor and no content. These will work fine." I'm convinced now that the aim of any working diet is to find out what you like to eat and eliminate it. Oh, you've gotten used to that? There are a few things you still like? Eliminate them! Until I'm chewing on cardboard and rusty nails. That ought to do it. I hate not being able to eat what I like. I hate being told that whatever I like is likely bad for me. I hate doing all this dieting and exercise without results. And still I diet and exercise. See? "I do the very thing I hate."

Okay, that's not what Paul meant. But I'm not sure that isn't an accurate statement about how diets work. "Find what you like and eliminate it." Nor am I sure that it makes sense to keep doing it. And, yet, here I am, dieting ... still. Don't go telling me about your favorite foods. I'd just have to eliminate them.

The Sin Red Line

No, that wasn't a typo. I've heard (most of my life) people -- Christians, largely -- talk about sins that indicate loss of salvation or, at the very least, that salvation was never given. "That guy is cheating on his wife. I don't think he's saved." "Do you see how she's dressed? Can a real Christian dress like that?" "No true Christian can drive a beer truck for a living." (I actually heard that last one verbatim.) There appears to be this concept of a "sin red line," a line of sin drawn in the sand beyond which salvation does not lie.

Is this possible? You might think at the outset that it isn't. We know, for instance, that all believers sin. No one arrives at sinless perfection. John assured us that "If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us" (1 John 1:8). He wrote 1 John "so that you may not sin" but went on immediately to add, "And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous" (1 John 2:1). No one, not even believers, not even the godliest believer (Phil 3:12-13), is without sin. So, no, there is no "sin red line."

On the other hand, there is evidence in Scripture that sin is a valid indicator of sorts. Jesus told us, "You will know them by their fruits" (Matt 7:16). James assured us, "Faith without works is dead" (James 2:17) and warned, "Can that faith save him?" (James 2:14). John said, "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). John's first epistle starts with the contrast of those who walk in the light and those who walk in darkness. "If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth" (1 John 1:6). How we live is an indicator of our spiritual condition.

So, what is that "sin too far," that "sin red line"? I think we need to be careful here. I don't think that Scripture supports the idea of a sin that removes you from salvation. On the other hand, there is a sin that goes beyond forgiveness. "Whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin" (Mark 3:29). There is no coming back from that (whatever it is) according to Jesus. (John speaks about sin "leading to death" (1 John 5:16), but there's no reason to assume that is spiritual, eternal death.)

We need to be cautious. We need to be sure we're standing on God's Word and not our own version of morality. "That guy smokes" is not a good measure since there is no prohibition of smoking in the Bible. "She is living a sexually immoral lifestyle and defending it to anyone who asks" might well be a reason to ask the question because Scripture says that the one born of God cannot make a practice of sin. We need to keep in mind that every Christian (including you and me) sins. Single sins are not a good indicator. And we need to beware of personal "righteous indignation," of a "holier-than-thou" attitude where we thank God we are not like that beer truck driver. In other words, there are more warnings and cautions against this kind of "sin red line" thinking than for it. Jesus's bottom line was, "You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye" (Matt 7:5). A good place to start.

Becoming Myself

Today's society largely worships "self" as the ultimate. "Oh, yeah," some will counter, "we've heard that, too. Don't be ridiculous. You're just overstating things." Maybe, but I'm talking about clear and present language you hear every day. "You've got to be yourself," they tell us. "Embrace yourself." "The greatest love of all us learning to love yourself." I mean, "self" is at the very core of the whole "self-esteem" push. It's also at the bottom of every encouragement we receive to "pursue your dreams," "if it feels good, do it," and "don't let anything get in the way of your goals." "Be all you can be."

Now, if I'm honest, I do not think this is new, a product of "modern society" as opposed to prior times. I'm not arguing that it's moreso than before. I'm saying it's more open than before, but not more present. The fundamental sin of the human being is "Me!" "I will be like the Most High!" Self-centeredness is our core problem.

Now, we would all agree that in much of life we're trying to control self. It is okay in this venue, but not in that. When Madonna gave a eulogy for Aretha Franklin and it was all about Madonna, people weren't impressed. We need to control ourselves in our interactions with people to get along. And we're all pretty aware of the fact that there are certain conditions in which individuals lose that control. One is obviously drunkeness. Another is commonly old age. Well, perhaps better put, dementia. As the mind starts to lose its memory and thinking skills, the inherent inhibitions that accompany those things are dropped. Studies indicate that it is brain shrinkage. Fine. But what we see is ... who they are. When the inhibitions are down, the real person comes out.

I don't want to be like that when I get old. Well, okay, I'm already old, but when I get to that condition. How do I avoid it? I do not avoid it by "becoming myself," by "embracing self," by "loving myself." Self is the problem. What I need is to be a "self" that is not like that. And that only comes by the work of the Spirit in a sinful heart to be more closely conformed to the image of Christ (Rom 8:28-29). Maybe I'd better get on the stick and cooperate more with Him in His work, because I don't want to be that grumpy old man who expresses a self that would embarrass the "me" who is now if I was aware of it. Worse, I don't want to bring embarrassment to my Savior. I don't want to become myself. I want to become more like Him.

The Grace Problem

We love grace. We really do. We sing about how amazing it is. We preach it. We extol it. Getting good that we didn't earn is a real good thing.

For reasons that don't seem readily apparent, grace, like so many other things, gets to be problematic when humans get hold of it.

How is that? Well, we are strange creatures. When we first encounter grace -- favor given without merit -- we are indeed grateful. We did not see that coming. It is so good. It is so wonderful. As time goes by and the grace keeps coming, we become used to it. We expect it. It's just ... there. Eventually -- and not entirely sanely -- we begin to demand it. It is not entirely sane because the definition is that we are not due the favor, but we begin to see it as our just reward. It is ours. And if God doesn't deliver, we're miffed.

Think of a kid's evolution at Christmas. That first realization of getting a good thing out of the blue is a delight. He or she is so happy. Thank you, thank you, thank you. It isn't too many years before they expect it. It's no longer a surprise. It is normal. It is coming. It is theirs. Now, imagine (assuming there is a parent brave enough to test this out ... and I doubt there is) what would happen if a Christmas came around and you said, "Nope, not this year. No presents this Christmas." The reaction would not be, "Oh, but we're so grateful for what you've given us before." No, no. It would be outrage. You are not going to be their favorite parent this year. Because Christmas gifts are now required.

The trick, then, is to try to remember grace. Grace and mercy. It might help if you remember mercy first. The fact that we are not getting what we deserve is truly astounding. If we can remember how much we're forgiven, what is it that Jesus said about love and forgiveness (Luke 7:47)? The realization of how much we've been given makes grace all the greater. We didn't earn anything that God gives. And He gives. And gives. And gives.

One of the primary problems Paul mentions in his dissertation on basic human sin, along with "ungodliness and unrighteousness" and the suppression of truth by unrighteousness (Rom 1:18) is a simple and very common problem. "Even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks" (Rom 1:21). Ungrateful. That's one of our common problems. Even for the amazing grace that He imparts. As for me, I don't ask God for "fair." If God were to give me what I deserve, I couldn't stand. I'll take mercy and grace any day, neither of which I have earned.

People with Ears

Jesus repeatedly told His listeners, "He who has ears to hear, let him ear." Notice that there are three kinds of people in that phrase. The first kind is "He who does not have ears." That one can't hear, obviously. The other two, then, would consist of people with ears, divided into those who hear and those who don't. Of course, everyone has ears, so what was He saying? He was obviously speaking of spiritual ears. Paul wrote, "The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Cor 2:14). That actually seems rather harsh, but I didn't say it; Paul did. The natural, unregenerate person lacks the ability to understand the things of the Spirit of God. They don't "have ears." That means that there are two types of people who don't "hear" -- who don't listen and understand: the unregenerate and those who can hear but just won't.

I find some interesting examples of people who seem to be unable to "hear" when we look at how they read Scripture. Take, for instance, the famous story of then President Obama quoting Scripture that said that Jesus was "the friend of sinners."¹ As it turns out, the text doesn't say that He was. The context is Jesus complaining that the crowd made no sense. John came neither eating nor drinking and they said he had a demon. Jesus came eating and drinking and they said He was a glutton, a friend of sinners (Matt 11:17-19) You can see that Jesus was saying what they said, not that what they said was true. If we conclude that Jesus was saying it was true, then Jesus was also claiming that John had a demon. We know that wasn't true. So Jesus truthfully stated what they were claiming, but that's not His admission that they were right. Was Jesus a friend of sinners? He was, but not the "Embrace your sin and be happy as you are" type of friend (which, in the final analysis, is no friend at all) like Obama and others think. He was the "Repent and believe in the gospel" type of friend (Mark 1:15). So when people quote Scripture to tell us that Jesus was the friend of sinners, meaning He did not condemn sin, they do it without hearing.

Recently I wrote about the gospel versus the Social Gospel. I offered 1 Cor 15:1-11 as a basic text for what the gospel was. I pointed out that we do need to take care of the poor, the widows, the orphans, the needy, the oppressed -- all that -- but that this is not the gospel; that is a product of loving your neighbor. Well, of course, people took offense. "What about this? Didn't Jesus say, 'The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He has anointed Me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent Me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor' (Luke 4:18-19)? Didn't He include all that in the gospel?" Another example of people who don't hear. No, it doesn't mean that all of that is included in the gospel. Jesus said, "He has anointed Me to proclaim the good news to the poor." He also listed freed captives, seeing blind, and liberated oppressed. In the parallel passage (Matt 11:5) there is another list of good things that are happening to needy people. The text is simply saying that Jesus had come to bring good things to needy people -- healing, liberty (without requiring physical liberty; there is no record of Jesus releasing any prisoners), vision for the blind, release for the oppressed (again, without actually requiring physical release), and the gospel for those who need it. The requirement for blanket equivalence would mean that the gospel is all of those things. That kind of blind equivalence would require that Jesus's "Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation" (Mark 16:15) would command that we take all those miracles with us in the basic command to "proclaim the gospel." Those things are "good news," but they are not "the gospel" that we are commanded to proclaim. Look, if that was what "the gospel" entails and you haven't freed a single prisoner or healed a single blind person, you haven't obeyed the command. Or ... that's not the gospel, and some aren't listening.

I've heard people pit Jesus against Jesus. In Matthew's version of the Beatitudes, Matthew quotes Jesus as saying, "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 5:3). In Luke's version Luke writes, "Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God" (Luke 6:20). Clearly Jesus said two different things, right? In one He referenced the "poor in spirit" and in the other it was just "the poor." So, they tell me, the poor -- those who are lacking the basic subsistence requirements of life -- are blessed with the kingdom of God. They completely ignore the Matthew version and it makes no sense. If it is true that those who suffer in poverty are blessed with the kingdom of God, here's what we know. These people should be left alone. They don't need a Savior. They don't need more money or help. They don't need the gospel. They're blessed, and they already have the kingdom of God. What more could they ask? Or Luke's abbreviated version was intended to parallel Matthew's version and Luke's "poor" was a reference to "poor in spirit." "He who has ears to hear, let him ear."

We can be really too free and easy with our understanding of Scripture. We read a verse and make it a soundbite and make it our guiding principle when, as it turns out, the content and context and all of Scripture says something quite different. It is entirely possible for people "without ears" to think they "hear" but don't. It is equally possible that people "with ears" might think they hear but don't. I'm quite sure that all of us "with ears" fail to hear at times. We need to practice (Heb 5:14). We need to pay attention. We need to read. We need to heed. Because not hearing is not a good thing.
________

¹ Isn't it interesting that no one protested the president when he told us that Jesus was the friend of sinners, so we should be also? If Pat Robertson or Albert Mohler or the like had said it, the anti-religious Left would have been outraged. (By "anti-religious Left," I do not mean to imply "All the Left is anti-religious," but that there is a segment, large but not all, that is anti-religious.) "Keep your religion to yourself!" they would have bellowed. Why not when the president said it? Seems odd ... or does it?

What Does God Know?

The claim of Christendom and Judaism before it has been that God knows ... everything. He knows all possibilities -- all contingencies -- but knows nothing contingently. That is, He knows all the "what ifs" but there are no questions about "what will be." He knows what was, what is, what will be. Without error. Without question. "Yeah, yeah, sure ... but why would you make such a claim?" Let's see if it's tradition or Scripture.

John wrote that "God is greater than our heart and knows all things" (1 John 3:20). That means ... all things. That's not just a whole lot of things or even most things. All things. In the book of Job we read that God is "perfect in knowledge" (Job 37:16). Perfect. Thus, God knows all things and He knows them perfectly. The psalmist says, "His understanding is infinite" (Psa 147:5).

It sounds comprehensive, sure, but what about humans? How well does He know us? Can He know what we will do (as the Open Theists deny)? In Acts we read that God "knows the heart" (Acts 15:8). Pretty clear, but Psalm 139 is full of answers here. Before you speak He knows it completely (Psa 139:4). He knows your ways (Psa 139:3). He knows your thoughts (Psa 139:2). "In Your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them" (Psa 139:16). All the days. All the days that were formed for me. Prior to their occurrence. Complete and total knowledge of each and every human in advance.

God's Omniscience, then, is purely biblical and it is absolute and complete. Past, present, future, our world, ourselves, everything ... perfectly. Don't let anyone argue that away. Why? First, because it is clear in Scripture, but, second, because it's important.

If God is not Omniscient (I use the capital there because there are those who argue that God is omniscient while denying that He actually knows anything perfectly.) then we have a lot to fear. He promises, but will He deliver? If He is Omniscient He will. If not, you can't be sure. He gives us eternal life, but will we get it? If He is Omniscient we will. If not, you can't be sure. Here's an interesting thought. Kant argued that the basis for morality is found in the existence of an Absolute, Perfect Judge. Part of being that Judge entails Absolute, Perfect Knowledge. If God is not Omniscient, Justice is in question. In our lives as believers we are told that if we love Christ we will obey His commands (John 14:15). Obedience is a result of loving Him, but we can have absolute confidence in obeying Him because we have absolute confidence that He knows what is best ... because He is Omniscient. Nothing happens to us that He didn't see in advance. The world intends evil for us, but if God is Omniscient, we can be supremely confident that anything that happens to us occurs because God intends good (Gen 50:20).

What is Omniscience? Simply put, "God knows." But that's a big "knows." And we, His people, can delight in that every day in multiple ways. 'Tis so sweet to trust in Jesus.

News Weakly - 9/29/18

The Ambiguous "Dehumanizing Speech" Category
Twitter has announced a new policy. The policy will prohibit "content that dehumanizes others based on their membership in an identifiable group, even when the material does not include a direct target." Expanding on their "hateful conduct policy," it ought to make a big difference. If you believe that, I have a bridge for sale ...

What is "dehumanizing speech"? It is speech that denies or diminishes their humanity, like "comparing them to insects, demons, or bacteria." Pretty sure there is a wide swath of people who will be freely and acceptably "diminished" even with this new rule, just like the hateful conduct policy. As long as you're in the "it's okay to hate them" category, it won't apply. But you can be fairly confident that "This particular behavior is a sin" will be banned if that behavior is in the "approved" group. Just my guess. (Do you think I'm somewhat cynical?)

Good News, Bad News
Good news! Chelsea Clinton is a "deeply religious person." Bad news! Whatever it is, it isn't Christianity. Chelsea delcared that eliminating the legalized murder of children would be "unchristian to me." Clearly she's bought the line that "our ability to participate fully in our society, including economically, hinges on our ability to make choices for our bodies and our families" even if that means executing family members. But her "deeply religious" thinking encourages her to make the "moral choice" every day ... to be optimistic. Pray for Chelsea.

A French Surprise
A drunk man in Paris received the first fine from the new "anti-catcalling" law in France. He slapped a woman's behind and insulted her appearance. He got three months in jail and €300 (about $350 USD) fine. The new law can get you fined up to €750 (about $870 USD) for a wolf whistle.

The surprising part is not that the law was instigated by a woman, the "Gender Equality Minister," or that the judge that laid out the penalties was a woman. It is slightly surprising that France would have such a law, given their reputation as being so sexually immoral. What's really surprising is that they prosecuted someone for it. Here in the U.S. we're content to execute a man's reputation, career, possible future income, and worse without a trial. (How is it possible, given all the #MeToo activity in the last year, that Bill Cosby is the only one to have been tried?) The surprise in France is that they actually put the man in the courtroom. Bravo.

Another One Bites the Dust
Azusa Pacific University calls itself "a comprehensive, evangelical, Christian university." They made the news back in 2013 when a female professor who decided her true identity was as a man had to part company with them because she couldn't get transgender-related medical care. Well, it looks like "comprehensive, evangelical, [and] Christian" means something different to them than it does, say, to Scripture. They are now altering their Student Standards of Conduct to say that the Bible is wrong to prohibit same-sex relationships. And they created "a special LGBTI program"! Isn't that fabulous? They're still banning sex outside of marriage and retaining their "one man, one woman" definition of marriage, but if you want to fall in love with someone of the same gender, by all means, go right ahead!

My title above is my commentary. Of course, it's a California institution. I don't think it will be long before all "comprehensive, evangelical, Christian" institutions will be forced to give in or face the consequences. It's just too bad that this one gave in before there were consequences. They gave in on the biblical principle rather than under the duress of an anti-theist State.

Update: APU has come out with a statement that says that they are reinstating the original language of the Standards of Conduct and forbidding homosexual romantic relationships on campus. Good to know. And thanks for that update, Glenn.

Say Goodnight, Brett
Well, I'm sure you've all heard. Brett Kavanaugh is on hold. The president agreed to a week-long FBI investigation. That ought to fix it. The truth is an allegation made these days equates to guilty without being proven and the protest of innocence, even with corroboration of others, is simply proof of guilt.

I think the outcome is obvious. "No thanks, man. We don't need you. You have failed to meet our standard of living the perfect life." Now, of course, that's not fair ... at least, not entirely. Perfection isn't the standard; just perfect to the standard that they demand. If you're a president and have adulterous sex with an intern, that's okay. If you lie to Congress about it, people shouldn't judge. "Judge not!" is their cry. Mind you, it's not that they're opposed to sexual abuse. It's that they're against sexual abuse in certain situations. And the fact that this particular event, if it is true, took place 35 years ago (which doesn't make it better; just a long, long time ago) and no allegations since then have indicated a trend or constant condition doesn't mean we should forgive or allow for reform. "He did it (even if no court has proven him guilty) and he's out, out, out! We'll have no such sexual immorality on our watch (except, as we've already said, the sexual immorality we approve and embrace)." I don't know. It seems somewhat ... intolerant and judgmental for a crowd that decries intolerance and judgment.

Drills

Technically, the term "military drill" refers specifically to the mass marching of soldiers, but we know there is more to it than that. The military has "drills" and "exercises" all the time. They send their troops -- sailors, soldiers, airmen, marines -- through simulated events to practice, practice, practice. Why?

The idea is simple. If you can get them used to doing certain things in certain situations, when the real situations arise, they will do them without having to think about it. It's like "muscle memory." Muscle memory is not actual memory stored in muscle. It is a set of tasks that your body has done so frequently that you no longer have to think about it. Like touch typing or playing an instrument. Your brain stores these things in a different place than normal memory and they've discovered that people who lack memory can still retain these muscle responses without even knowing how or why.

This principle is important in the Christian life. In general terms, it's what we need when we encounter life's trials. If you repeatedly remind yourself of the truth that "God causes all things to work together for good to those who love the Lord" (Rom 8:28), for instance, then when something not so pleasant occurs, you will have this automatic response built in. That kind of thing. It's actually biblical.

Solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil. (Heb 5:14)

That's spiritual muscle memory. When our "powers of discernment" are "trained by constant practice," we are headed toward "mature." We are growing. We can much better "distinguish good from evil." Spiritual muscle memory. So when that true-sounding-but-not claim comes to your attention, you will know that it's not true before you're even sure why. Like the claim, "That was painful, so it must be bad." Seems plausible ... until you evaluate it in the light of God's Word. The idea, biblically, is that you will be fed the truth (Eph 4:11-16) and be given exercises to practice the truth so that, in the end, you will be perfected (James 1:2-4).

So I keep bringing up important biblical doctrines like the Sovereignty of God and the problem of sin and the glory of the Gospel. The day will come when I (and you) will need this information in a crisis. I want to have my "muscle memory" response to be God's rather than a failed sinful response. I want to build up those muscles in advance so when I need them I won't have to think about it so much. A different kind of body building. In my view, a much more useful drill than marching soldiers.

Proclaim Justice

In Matthew 12 Jesus is faced with a dilemma (Matt 12:9-14). He was in the synagogue on the Sabbath and a man with a withered hand came in. The accusers asked Him, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?" Jesus told them they thought it was. They would pull a sheep out of a pit on the Sabbath, wouldn't they? Aren't people more valuable? So He healed the man. And the Pharisees "went out and conspired against Him, how to destroy Him." Nice.

Jesus knew it and withdrew. He continued to heal but warned them to keep quiet about it. He did it "to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah" (Matt 12:17). What was spoken by Isaiah?

Behold, My servant whom I have chosen,
My beloved with whom My soul is well pleased.
I will put My Spirit upon Him,
And He will proclaim justice to the Gentiles.
He will not quarrel or cry aloud,
Nor will anyone hear His voice in the streets;
A bruised reed He will not break,
And a smoldering wick He will not quench,
Until He brings justice to victory;
And in His name the Gentiles will hope. (Matt 12:18-21)

The quote/prophecy seems a little strange. Wasn't Jesus sent to be Israel's Messiah? What's all this about Gentiles? But pause for a moment and I think you'll find it's a little more unexpected. This text tells us at least one reason Christ came, and it isn't quite what we expected. Sure, to save people and to proclaim the good news and things like that, but look at what this text says. He came to "proclaim justice to the Gentiles." Wait ... justice? It says that His "endgame" so to speak was to bring justice to victory. There it is again. Justice? Because of this "In His name the Gentiles will hope." Because of justice.

Jesus came for many reasons. We get most of them. This one isn't as obvious to us. Jesus came to bring justice to victory. How? God is just. Justice must be served or God is not God. Jesus came, then, to serve justice. He didn't come to kindly let us off the hook. He didn't come to simply drop the charges against us. He didn't come (first) to give us grace (being given good that which we didn't earn) and mercy (not receiving the punishment we have earned) because both are antithetical to justice. In order to give grace and mercy, Christ had to first bring justice to victory. He did it by living a sinless life and dying for our sins.

Now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it — the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by His grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by His blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in His divine forbearance He had passed over former sins. It was to show His righteousness at the present time, so that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. (Rom 3:21-26)

Christ came to demonstrate God's righteousness by appeasing His wrath ("propitiation") against our sin by paying the price ("redemption") Himself. As a result of bringing justice to victory, we are allowed faith in Jesus Christ, justification, and God's righteousness. Amazing grace!

Woe? Whoa!

I'm sure you've all read the texts from Matthew where Jesus pronounces "woe" on towns in Israel like Chorazin and Capernaum (Matt 11:21-24). They had His miracles performed in them and spurned Him. It was going to be worse for them than for other well-known sinful cities in the judgment.

The text brings up an interesting principle. "It will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you," He told them (Matt 11:22). "More tolerable"? It will be hell for both; what is "more tolerable"? It would appear, then, that there is lesser and greater sin that will receive lesser or greater punishment. All sin earns hell, but there will be more or less torment depending on the nature of the sin. Interesting principle. Our aim, of course, is salvation -- forgiveness based on faith in Christ. No hell. But Jesus considered it worthwhile to warn them that there is greater and lesser torment, so I suppose we should concur.

There is, in here, another point almost always missed. The previous paragraph referenced Jesus's words to Chorazin, but Jesus says something similar Capernaum. He assures them "You will descend to Hades," but goes on to say, "if the miracles had occurred in Sodom which occurred in you, it would have remained to this day" (Matt 11:23). Okay, we got it. Capernaum had the Son of God in their midst doing miracles in their faces and they missed it. Bad ... really bad. Got it. But what about Sodom? Did you see what He said? "If the miracles had occurred in Sodom which occurred in you," they wouldn't have been so harshly judged. They wouldn't have been so spectacularly annihilated by God. They would have repented. "Yes, okay," I can hear you saying, "so?" If God knew (and He did) that if Jesus had come to Sodom as He did to Capernaum and Sodom would have repented (and it would have), why didn't He do it?

To be honest, here, He doesn't say, so we cannot know. We can only surmise. It wasn't the right time for the Messiah. God had other plans. Things like this seem likely. But one thing ought to be clear. For whatever reasons (and whatever they are they are God's, so they are good), God did not intend to bring Sodom to repentance, or He would have. This kind of thing sounds really wrong, I know, but it's not unbiblical. John wrote that Jesus told Israel to believe and then "departed and hid Himself" (John 12:36). John said that He did it "so that the word spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled" (John 12:38). John says that only those to whom the arm of the Lord as been revealed can believe (John 12:38-39). John wrote "They could not believe. For again Isaiah said, 'He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, lest they see with their eyes, and understand with their heart, and turn, and I would heal them'" (John 12:39-40). John clearly has no problem suggesting that God blinds eyes and hardens hearts to prevent understanding.

The truth is no one can come to Christ unless it is granted him by the Father (John 6:65). The truth is God is willing to demonstrate His wrath and power on vessels of wrath prepared for destruction (Rom 9:22). And the truth is that God is not obligated to save anyone ... at all. All of us have judiciously and carefully earned nothing but wrath, have personally earned the status of "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction." If God saved not one, He would have been perfectly just. Saving any is remarkable. Woe to Chorazin and Capernaum for failing to see His Son at work? Yes. Woe to Sodom for refusing to repent with lesser input? Yes. It serves to magnify God's grace and mercy to the "few" who are shown the narrow gate that leads to life (Matt 7:14). Bottom line -- is it okay with you of God does what He pleases with His creation?

Love a Little

Jesus was eating with Simon, the Pharisee, when a woman came in weeping, wet His feet with her tears, wiped them with her hair, and anointed them with perfume. Simon assured himself that Jesus didn't know what kind of woman this was, but Jesus knew. He gave Simon a parable and a principle - "Her sins, which are many, have been forgiven, for she loved much; but he who is forgiven little, loves little" (Luke 7:47).

In this event Jesus draws a correlation between love and forgiveness. And we think (and Jesus made the point) that it was about this very sinful woman. He spoke of her sins "which are many." We get it. So Jesus draws a ratio, so to speak, between how much she is forgiven and how much she loves. "He who is forgiven little loves little." Got it.

The story, to me, however, is not about this sinful woman. The question in the event wasn't the woman, but Simon's recognition of his own need. Jesus was essentially saying, "You love little, Simon, because you think you're forgiven little." So, porting this correlation over as a test, we can ask ourselves "How much do I love Christ?" If it is "little", we are saying "I wasn't forgiven very much." No, wait, we are saying, "I'm as self-righteous as Simon the Pharisee."

Jesus said, "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments" (John 14:15). Now we have a metric for some sort of measurement. How well do I keep His commandments? "I am keen on obedience. I must love Him a lot." Or "Not so good. I must not love Him very much." Here's the thing. In His Great Commission, Jesus set another standard. We are to be "teaching them to observe all that I commanded you" (Matt 28:20). Connecting love to obedience, then, the call is for perfect obedience, so we are required to have great love for Christ. And there is this Luke passage that appears to be predicate our love on our recognition of the magnitude of our own sin that is forgiven. So we can ask ourselves "How much do I obey Christ?" as a measure of "How much do I love Christ?" And that is a product of "How much sin has been forgiven for me?" A little? Don't expect to obey much or love much.

The point, ultimately, is not that we will be forgiven varying amounts so we will love varying amounts. The point is that we are all sinners of great magnitude, short of the glory of God, in dire need of forgiveness. Recognize that, and you'll love God more. Notice that you're not particularly loving Christ much these days, and you can be pretty sure it's because of an elevated view of yourself. Now you know where to go to work on your faulty thinking. You're welcome.

The Christian and Works

This is one of my question entries; it just may not look like it at first.

There is a lot of confusion on the topic of works and Christianity. If you ask most people, works are a major part of Christianity. To the casual observer, they are everything because, well, all religions are about "being good." To the more informed Christian, we know that we are saved by grace apart from works ... and, yet, we are constantly being told, by preachers and by Scripture, how we are supposed to live. We seem to handle that dichotomy well. "Not of works" and, yet, lots and lots of works. It is so confusing that many people grow up in the church not realizing that it's not about works even while they quote the "not of works" texts. Others recoil so strongly that they start their own cults of "not of works" to completely eliminate the problem ... in direct opposition to Scripture.

So, what do we know? We know that we are "by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast" (Eph 2:8-9). Works do not produce salvation. Paul belabored that "not works but grace" message to the Galatians who were tempted to think otherwise (Gal 3:1-9) and the Ephesians (Eph 2:8-9) and the Romans (Rom 4:1-5) and ... well, you get the idea. Let's just say it was his repeated theme. We got it. Good. We also know that "we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them" (Eph 2:10). It is undeniable that the Bible in general and the New Testament in particular are full of commands about how we should live, what we should do, how we should think, and so forth. (If I need to offer you references to support that claim, I suspect you're not reading your Bible.) So we also know that works are important; they just don't cause salvation. How are they important? They demonstrate a changed heart (John 14:15). They serve the purpose of God in the world (Matt 5:16). They are the certain product of living faith (James 2:17).

So, here we are, down to my question from you. We know that we are not saved by works; we are saved by grace. We know, on the other hand, that works are vital to the Christian life, not in a causative way, but as a necessary result of a changed being. My question is how do we get that across? I ask because we're not doing it very well. We might focus on "saved by grace" and end up ignoring works. Or we might recognize "faith without works is dead" and end up focusing on works. How do we strike the proper balance here so we 1) don't think of works as saving and 2) don't think of works as beside the point? I think, if you look at Church history, you'll find this has always been a problem, so I'm not asking, "Definitively, how do we solve this for all time?" I'm asking if you have suggestions on how we can maintain that balance where salvation comes by grace through faith but grace through faith produces works, keeping the two in their proper place with their proper importance. It feels like we're in a boat and everyone leans to the "grace" side and we begin to tip, so we lean to the "works" side and we begin to tip, so ... I'm wondering if any of you have ideas on how to better express/address this.

Gratuitous

We know the word "gratuitous." It refers to "excess" or "unnecessary," like "That movie had too much gratuitous sex and violence." The dictionary lists a few definitions. The word originally meant simply "free," but the word has migrated a bit since then. Now it means "without apparent justification." The legal version means "without expecting a return value." You can see, I'm sure, the correlation with "free." No obligation on your part. The "gratuitous sex" was sex in the movie that the movie didn't require to tell the story, for instance.

So what about this one: "gratuitous love." What would constitute gratuitous love? For humans, we are obligated to love God and love one another. That eliminates, for the largest part, gratuitous love among humans. However, there is the possibility of gratuitous love for us when we consider loving that which is not required. For instance, "I love birds" is all well and good, but it is not commanded or required. An entomologist might love ants, but you and I are under no obligation to do the same. It is no crime or evil to take some ant spray to that line of invaders climbing into your pantry. That might be "gratuitous love" for someone.

What about God? Is there such a thing as gratuitous love with God? The question is a little reversed. What is God obligated to love? He loves Himself; to do otherwise would be idolatry. What else? Well, He loves us, of course. But is that obligatory? Is He required to do so? If He did not, would He be wrong? Most of us would answer in the affirmative, but that's because most of us are sinners in our thinking because God is not obligated to love His creation. We know this because there are times that He hates aspects of it (e.g., Psa 5:5; Psa 11:5-6; Prov 6:16-19; Rom 9:13). If God hates the wicked and "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom 3:23), it looks like we might be in trouble.

We all like the wonderful fact that God loves us (John 3:16). That's a good thing. What we generally don't keep in mind is that God is not obligated to love us. God's love for us is gratuitous. It is freely given without obligation or expectation. No obligation on God's part. We too often think that "Of course He loves us; He's supposed to." He is not. He does it freely. Considering what sinners we are, that is amazing love.

News Weakly - 9/22/18

To Get to the UK, Turn Left
I thought California was crazy. Then I read this story from The Economist about how so many teenage girls are suffering from "sudden-onset gender dysphoria." The story reported, "In 2009, 41% of the adolescents referred to Britain's Gender Identity Development Service were female; in 2017, 69% were." Wait ... "Gender Identity Development Service"? Yes. Established in 1989, the UK has had a service in place to assist kids in changing their genders. Turns out California is just a crazy-wannabe. Oh, and the story? The suggestion is that "social and peer contagion" is driving more kids to "gender dysphoria." But we we knew that already, didn't we?

Dirty Rotten Money
McDonalds has "strong policies, procedures and training in place specifically designed to prevent sexual harassment." On top of that, they've disclosed a new initiative to evolve these policies to fight sexual harassment in their industry. Still, it is reported that "At least ten McDonald's employees have filed charges against the company." As a result, "McDonald's employees, emboldened by the #MeToo movement, are staging a one-day strike Tuesday at restaurants in 10 cities across the U.S."

Now, I have to say, I'm not fully understanding this. McDonalds employs something like 1.9 million employees, 10 of which have complained about sexual harassment. Now, let's not minimize sexual harassment, but I'm trying to figure out how that number is the kind of thing that would produce "the first multistate walkout protesting sexual harassment." Oh, wait ... that statement is "according to Fight for $15." Could it be that these workers would like to get hold of some of McDonald's money? Could it be that these employees are striking for a raise in the name of "sexual harassment"? Could it be "McDonalds has money that we want, so we would like to force them to give it to us"? If so, striking to stop sexual harassment (where it barely exists) when what is really in view is more money is what is known in the industry as "a lie."

Other People's Money
ESPN has reported that "Some members of the Pro Football Hall of Fame say they will not attend the yearly induction ceremony until they receive health insurance and an annual salary that includes a share of the league's revenue." The letter to the NFL was signed by 22 Hall of Fame members including folks like Joe Namath and Sarah White, the widow of Reggie White. Because if you've gotten rich playing a game to entertain folks, it is only reasonable that you continue to get rich when you're not anymore. They owe it to you (2 Thess 3:10). Just another "They've got money, so we want it" situation.

More Not News
Hold onto your hats. This is a doozy! Apparently Hillary Clinton doesn't like President Trump! No, really! She thinks he's "uncontrollable" (unlike she is, right?) and dangerous (like when she promised to remove religion from America?). Shocker, isn't it? I mean, seriously, why would this be classified as "news"?

The Perfect Candidate
Something different this time. I'm going to make a commentary and you see if you can tell which news item I'm talking about.

A psalmist asked, "If You, LORD, should mark iniquities, O Lord, who could stand?" (Psa 130:3). Sounds harsh of God, I suppose, but ask anyone currently in the crosshairs of public opinion -- Trump, Kavanaugh, men, Christians, white people, etc. -- and I would suggest it would be the same for them. "If you, O public, should mark iniquities, who could stand?" As demonstrated by the "deaths" at the hands of the #MeToo movement and the Left's work to execute conservatives like Judge Moore and Brett Kavanaugh, the only "acceptable standard" is perfection ... absolute perfection. I wouldn't pass muster. Neither would you. (Hint: Neither do they. But, hey, they'll gladly burn to the ground anyone they don't like that doesn't either.)

Unfortunately for America, we've decided that "innocent until proven guilty" is dead and the public gets to decide who lives and who dies.

Tempted

We all know that the Garden of Eden was paradise. No sin. No sadness. No error. Until, of course, that crafty serpent (Gen 3:1) came along. What was it that got us thrown under the bus?

It wasn't that the serpent was merely making suggestions. It wasn't that the serpent had some good ideas. It wasn't that God was a cosmic killjoy and the serpent was offering some new things. The problem started with "Did God actually say ...?" (Gen 3:1). It was followed by an outright assault. "You will not surely die" (Gen 3:4). "God's holding out on you." The argument and the offering seemed good to Eve and Adam in her wake, so here we are, under the curse.

Some people think that the serpent delivered on his promise. They got "the knowledge of good and evil" just like he said they would. They were "like God" in that sense. This is a mistaken notion. The truth is they did not lack the knowledge of good and evil. That's because "the knowledge of good" was whatever God said, and they had that. Conversely, "the knowledge of evil" was the opposite -- whatever God did not say, whatever God did not command, whatever God forbade. They knew, for instance, "evil" in the form of "of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat" (Gen 2:17). They knew that. They had that knowledge. Satan, as it turned out, lied.

This prototype of the serpent's temptation of Eve in the garden is the template for all temptation. We use the term loosely, of course. "I'm tempted to eat another piece of cake." That sort of thing. But in terms of sin, temptation is always the same. 1) It is an assault on God. 2) It is a lie. Always.

We get confused sometimes. "Sin," we think, is "doing bad things." Sin is not. It is our assault on God. It is our rebellion against God. It is our insult to His glory. Always. And we don't need a snake for ours. "Each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire" (James 1:14). We do this all on our own. The remedy, of course, should now be much clearer. It isn't "work harder" or "try harder". The problem is a heart problem. That is why Jesus said, "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments" (John 14:15).

We can employ tools -- accountability, "keep out zones," etc. -- but what we need is a greater love for the Master, the kind of love that couldn't endure militating against Him. We are encouraged to memorize God's Word to prevent sin (Psa 119:11) because sin is always a lie, so God's Word gives us the truth. And we are indeed to flee sin (1 Cor 6:18; 1 Cor 10:14; 1 Tim 6:10-11) and resist Satan (James 4:7), but the direction we should go is toward Jesus rather than merely away from temptation. Always.

The Argument

Hey, it's the Internet. Someone is wrong. And it's your job to hunt them down and correct them. Or so it would seem.

The Bible has an interesting take on this concept.

Let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger; for the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God. (James 1:19-20)

"Oh, now, come on, Stan! Nothing in there about Internet arguments." True, but imagine what our exchanges would look like if we practiced this as a guideline.

There are three components here. The first -- the starting point -- is to be "quick to hear." Now, in today's world we have a term -- TL/DR. "Too Long/Didn't Read." (Was that too long?) We all seem to think that almost anything is too long, so we'll read the first paragraph to get the idea and respond. We won't analyze the text. We won't examine the meaning. We won't hear the arguments. We'll skim and shoot. "Instead," James is saying, "rather than being quick to fire off a response, how about being quick ... to hear?" How about listening to all that is said? How about examining their position, arguments, intent? I mean, isn't it a fundamentally sound idea that in order to properly explain what's wrong with another position you have to first understand it? How about hearing attitude, intent, motivation? How about paying attention before responding?

Second, be "slow to speak." That, obviously, doesn't mean "talk more slowly." That means weighing our words, our attitudes, our intentions, our ideas. Are we first motivated by love? Or is it "righteous indignation" or "I will be right" or some unconscious competition? Then, are we expressing ourselves in a way that can be understood? Are we addressing the real issue(s)? Are we guarding our tongues (Prov 15:4; Prov 18:21; James 1:26; 1 Peter 3:10)?

Third, or, perhaps, more at underlying it all, we are to be "slow to anger." James tells why this is: Man's anger doesn't produce God's righteousness. If we, as followers of Christ, want to produce God's righteousness in others, it would seem obvious that our anger is not the way to go about it.

Think of it. What would our Internet interactions look like if we were, you know, intending to follow these instructions from God? I'm pretty sure too many of mine haven't. I'm pretty sure I'm not alone. And I'm not convinced that those times I've been not quick to hear, slow to speak, and slow to anger have been the most effective interactions.

Two Minds

In Paul's epistle to the church at Ephesus, he talks about two kinds of minds. The first is the "Gentile mind," what Paul describes as the "futile mind" (Eph 4:17). Paul says this kind of mind is darkened in understanding and excluded from the life of God (Eph 4:18). This kind of mind produces callous sin predicated on sensuality "for the practice of every kind of impurity" (Eph 4:19). You understand, I hope, that Paul is not commending this.

So what is the other option?

The other mind is the "new self" (Eph 4:24), the renewed mind (Eph 4:23). This one is marked by a laying aside of the corrupted self (Eph 4:22). It is marked by righteousness and holiness of the truth (Eph 4:24).

Paul goes on to explain what the behavior looks like for a person of this mind (Eph 4:25-32). I won't lay it all out for you. It is too large. It begins with truth and unity (Eph 4:25). It entails healed relationships with God and with each other as can only be imagined and accomplished by those who have set self aside. It's a new life, a "new self."

Here's the thing. Paul only offers two options here. There is the futile mind of the unsaved, and there is the renewed mind of the those in Christ. Both affect how we live, obviously in opposite directions. So you should figure out which is yours. But here's a big hint. Is your thinking like the rest of the world? Do you concur with the our world's system? It's that system that has the futile mind. If your thinking is not challenged, is not brought into question, is not actually in opposition to the "norm," the everyday, the general worldview, then there is good reason to think yours is the former mind, not the renewed mind. If you are evaluating values and truth and Scripture on purely natural means -- you know, "It can't mean that because that would go against our current philosophies" -- then you might just be in trouble. By definition the renewed mind is different. Is yours?

Mature

Look around. Things get crazy these days. Yes, I know, those darn liberals are out of control. The feminists and leftists and abortionists and ... you know, all "them" guys ... they're just not right. But even in Christendom it's wacky. There's a big-name, well-known, well-loved guy in Houston that assures Christians that they can live their best life now, that we're all supposed to be wealthy. There are "superstars" who tell us that God wants us all to be healthy and the only thing that is causing you not to be is your lack of faith. There are people who defend "gay Christian" in the sense of "practicing gay Christian" and Methodist "pro-life" ministers who assure us that John 10:10 is the reason why believers should be in favor of abortion. There are even folk who agree that the Bible is important ... then turn around and tell us the many ways that it's useless, undecipherable, and unreliable. It's insane, I tell you.

Did you know that the Bible talks about that? Writing to Christians, Paul warns that they could be "children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes" (Eph 4:14). That's what I'm describing, isn't it? "Carried about by every wind of doctrine," twisted "by human cunning," misled by "craftiness in deceitful schemes." In the church.

Interestingly, the verse I just quoted begins with "so that we may no longer be children ..." Ah, so there is a solution, a remedy, preventive measures. What?

[God] gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors/teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ. (Eph 4:11-13)

This is meaty. God has a plan. He provides people gifted with certain gifts to equip the saints. That's their job. That's their purpose. To what end? To equip them "for the work of service." Okay, so the saints are being equipped to serve, to minister. Why? "To the building up of the body of Christ." Alright. That's pretty straightforward. God gives us apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastor/teachers whose primary purpose is to equip believers to serve with the aim to edify Christ's body -- believers as a group. How long are we supposed to operate this way? "Until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God." Unity and knowledge. One faith and one Christ. When we arrive at that, we can ease up. When we become "a mature man" -- when we reach maturity. To what standard? "to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ." Got it. Perfection. Like Christ.

It's all pretty clear. I don't think there's any confusion about the meaning, any hidden thoughts or obscure concepts. I don't think I said anything here that wasn't obvious in the text. So what's my point? Given the utter insanity we find around us these days in Christendom -- and it's not getting better; it's getting worse -- we should be asking why? Based on this text, God's people are being tossed to and fro by waves and winds of doctrine brought about by cunning and crafty liars. Why? Because we're not doing our jobs. The messengers (apostles) and forth-tellers (prophets) aren't doing their job. The evangelists aren't doing their job. And the pastor/teachers, especially, aren't doing their job. The point of the church is to build the saints, and to a large extent they aren't doing their job. As a result we -- the saints -- aren't being equipped, aren't ministering as we should. We aren't building the body. We aren't maturing. The author of Hebrews wrote, "Everyone who partakes only of milk is not accustomed to the word of righteousness, for he is an infant. But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil" (Heb 5:13-14). That's us. Not trained by practice, but tossed by winds and waves. We don't, for a large part, seem to get past milk because, in the Hebrews account, we're not accustomed to the Word.

We need to work, brothers and sisters. We need to call on our leaders to lead. We don't need "social justice" messages, clever stories from the pulpit, or hip music. We need the Word preached to us -- "Thus saith the Lord." We need to have God's truth detailed to us. We need to become accustomed to the Word with constant practice. We need preachers and teachers who will speak the truth in love so we can "grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ" (Eph 4:15). We are a youth-driven culture. We are called to maturity. It's time to grow up.

Groupthink

We are humans. (I don't think that's a controversial statement.) We have a lot of things that are a product of us simply being humans. We are air breathers. We produce offspring in a particular way, different, say, than lizards or fish. And we are groupthinkers. What do I mean? We as a group (humor) tend to think of ourselves as groups.

Oh, we have a large variety of groups, most of us in many of them. There are "racial" groups (in scare quotes because aren't we the human race?) and gender groups and educational groups and family groups and job groups and national groups and religious groups. On and on it goes. You might identify as a middle class, white, Christian, American male or an upper class, black, Muslim, South African woman or ... well, you get the idea. And we break those down further, don't we? That first category example I listed included "Christian," sure, but what kind of Christian? Is he Catholic or Protestant, Orthodox or atheist (seriously, you will find a category of "atheist Christian," an entirely nonsensical concept)? Oh, Protestant? Okay. What kind of Protestant? Baptist, Anglican, Presbyterian ... well, you see how this goes. There are, according to some estimates, 33,000 Protestant denominations. (This page lists "about 22,000 denominations," but they are way too generous in their definition of "Christian," including "Buddhist believers in Christ," "gay/Lesbian homosexual tradition," Mormons, and Jehovah's Witnesses.) And we are ... one ... or more ... or less of them, apparently.

So, we tend to think of ourselves as part of a group and we are generally loyal to that group. And being associated with that group serves to identify you. "Oh, you're one of those, eh? So, you must think ..." Beyond that, this kind of "groupthink" is mandated. "So, you're a Democrat, eh? Oh, no? Well, then, you must be a Republican. No?? Well, then, you're Independent or something else and your vote just doesn't count." In America today in order to be useful at voting season you must be either Republican or Democrat. Everyone knows that if you don't vote Democrat/Republican, you are voting Republican/Democrat no matter how you vote. Mandatory.

Here's the problem. It just isn't so. It's just not true. I'll just use me as an example. I am white, so I am routinely pidgeon-holed as a racist. No evidence. No incidents. Just skin color. I'm male, so I'm sexist by definition. It doesn't matter if the conclusion is accurate; it is a given. I'm a Christian, which puts me in a particular category, but, worse, I read my Bible as if it actually means what it says, so now I'm a "fundamentalist," and not in a good way. That is, if you find a "fundamentalist Muslim" who reads his book for what it says and concludes that his job is to kill infidels, I'm that kind of fundamentalist. The thing is, I'm not. These things help you to peg me in my moral, political, social, economical, etc. views, but, as it turns out, they don't. I'm far more "center" in most of this stuff than most of you might suspect. But that doesn't matter. Truth doesn't matter. Because we are "groupthinkers" and you can take a cursory look at me and know right away what kind of loser I am. You'd be wrong, but you would think so.

That's not intended to be either a defense of me or a complaint about the false stereotyping. It is simply an illustration of all of us. Yes, even me. We tend to group people. "Oh, you're a ..." Then we categorize them. "That means that you believe ..." Then we embrace or castigate them. For the group, not for who they are. "Oh, you're a Christian? So am I! We're in this together." It doesn't matter that this particular Christian is an atheist and you are a theist. "Oh, you're a Republican? I'm a Democrat, you loser!" It doesn't matter that this Republican hasn't voted Republican for decades. And so it goes.

We think of ourselves in groups. We tend to embrace our own groups and discount the others. The groups of which we're a part tend to edge our own thinking in a particular direction just by proximity. Unfortunately, that just serves as a barrier to real relationship, because we are all, in fact, individuals. No two people think alike. No groups of people are 100% in uniformity. And our embrace or assault of others for their groups is a response to a lie with only a shade of truth. I apologize for the times I've done that to you. I hope not to do it in the future. Don't worry. I don't expect you to stop doing it. You're only human, right?