The dictionary defines justice as "the quality of being fair and reasonable." Kind of an undefining definition since "fair and reasonable" seems to be purely relative. So Merriam-Webster goes with "the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments." Now, if I wasn't trying to get to "the justice of God," that might be better. As it is, it's not. Justice corresponds to fairness, moral rightness, of every person receiving his or her due. So justice is that which corresponds ... to what's right.
But, as is so much the case these days -- words are shifting -- "justice" is shifting. Part of that is displayed in that simple first definition above, where "fair and reasonable" becomes purely "What I consider fair and reasonable." Instantly it becomes contrary and meaningless because too many of us would define "fair and reasonable" in a way that is neither. The biblical use of the word doesn't shift much, but our understanding does. In the biblical version it refers to "justice" or "righteousness" because in the biblical version they are synonymous. And now you can see, just as I said above, the "just" and "right" are the same. Justice is that which corresponds to what is right.
Still, we're up against another wall. Well, not another; the same one. Perhaps we can all nod and agree, "Yes! Justice is that which corresponds with what is right." Our agreement would end there because our definition of "what is right" varies ... sometimes wildly. So if we're going to use this biblical definition, perhaps we can determine something about "what is right" from the Bible as opposed to what we prefer.
The Bible seems to have a different perception of what is right than we naturally do. Take, for instance, the first violation of what is right. In Genesis we see God saying, "You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die" (Gen 2:16-17). At this point in time, then, all sin earned the death penalty. "But seriously, God, eating of that fruit deserves death?" God thought so. We wouldn't. Surely "death for eating fruit" wasn't ... just.
Perhaps you see, now, why simply "that which corresponds that what is right" is something of an unhelpful definition for "justice" when we are so deficient at knowing what is right. God considered adultery worthy of death (Lev 20:10); we don't. God considered murder worthy of death (Gen 9:6); we don't. Eve opted to eat the fruit she knew she wasn't supposed to eat so that she could "be like God" (Gen 3:5-6). Thus, God equates sin with "fall short of the glory of God" (Rom 3:23), and God is jealous over His glory. We can't really grasp God's glory. All that was made was made for His glory. The purpose of all creation is His glory. His infinite perfections, infinite greatness, and infinite worth are violated when we take it upon ourselves to circumvent Him. Thus, the penalty for failing to meet that all-encompassing glory must be equal to the size of the failure. That's what corresponds to what is right.
But, that's alright. "We aren't really interested in that justice. We aren't really deeply concerned about that version of 'what is right.' Hey, wasn't that first fruit something that endowed us with the knowledge of good and evil? Who needs God anyway?" And we walk with eyes open into explicit and radical idolatry with ourselves as the idol. And wonder about how unjust the God of the Bible could be. "If He would just line Himself up with our version of 'what's right' --our version of 'justice' -- we're pretty sure He'd do much better."
Here's the thing. If we understand sin like it is described in Scripture -- a violation of God's glory, an assault on God's holiness, treason against the Most High -- then lots of things change. Death for sin becomes reasonable. The magnitude of the crime is not measured in eating fruit or the adultery, but in the naked attack on God's greatness. When that is given the gravitas it deserves, God's grace becomes huge, His mercy unbelievable, and His love almost unbearably brilliant. Instead of our ever-popular "I'm the important one," we would ask, "Who am I, that You should show the slightest kindness to me?" The fact that He sent His Son to die for us would drive us to our knees in gratitude and worship. If we understood how much we were forgiven, we would love greatly, forgive others largely, and seek to never fail to serve Him. If, on the other hand, no such description of sin exists, then grace is small, mercy is mild, love is forgettable, and love for God is ... nice, but certainly not necessary, not a driving passion. God becomes a devil for passing a death sentence on a fruit-eater and Christians who believe that Christ redeemed us by His blood (Rom 3:25; Rom 5:9; Rev 1:5) are backwards, ignorant, and, basically, just as evil as this god they believe in. Or, as I started to explain, they believe in a different form of "what is right" and it is not consistent with Scripture, history, or Christian doctrine.
Friday, December 03, 2021
Thursday, December 02, 2021
When Worlds Collide
It doesn't take much, does it? An obvious "Did God really say?" moment.
Interesting, though. "Christ is the head of every man." Yes, okay, we're alright with that. "God is the head of Christ." Well, okay, takes a few minutes, perhaps. Jesus did say, "I must be about My Father's business" (Luke 2:49). He did say, "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of His own accord, but only what He sees the Father doing" (John 5:19). He did say, "I have not spoken on My own authority, but the Father who sent Me has Himself given Me a commandment –- what to say and what to speak ... What I say, therefore, I say as the Father has told Me" (John 12:49-50). Jesus was quite clear that He was subordinant to the Father. Okay, so if Jesus says it, it must be true. Thus, "Christ is the head of every man" and "God is the head of Christ" are both okay with us. Why, then, does that middle one catch in our throats? Why do we balk at that one?
That verse in Corinthians is not ambiguous. We all live in two spheres -- authority and submission. Men are in submission to Christ. Christ is submission to God. We all have bosses and we all exercise authority. I know we have this mistaken idea that "submission" equals "inferior." That's hard to sustain, however, when we read that God is the head of Christ. Is God the Son inferior to God the Father? No, of course not. It's not about inferiority or superiority. It's not about worth. It's not even about subjugation. It is about submission.
Notice the difference between those two words -- subjugation and submission. Subjugation is something an external force does to you. Submission is something you do. There is no command in Scripture for husbands, for instance, to make their wives submit to them. The command is to wives to submit. Submission, not subjugation. God isn't looking to make grovelers; He's hoping for willing servants. Beginning with His Son as our best example. He has roles for each of us that differ. These roles are not superior or inferior; they're just different. Paul describes the Body of Christ as a body where each part is different but important. In fact, "God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it" (1 Cor 12:24). Those with "lesser roles" are given "greater honor." So it's not about worth or inferiority, not about subjugation or less important. It's about roles and a willingness to submit ... to God. Because God is the head of Christ and Christ is the head of man. And man is the head of woman. That last, it seems, is a bridge too far.
We live in this world. Ours is a world that has pushed the Feminism routine farther than most others have. We're okay with Christ submitting to God and men submitting to Christ, but we will not tolerate women submitting to men. It's a bit of a schizophrenic way of thinking. "It's okay that Christ submits, but women never should." And, of course, it really boils down to something very simple. Do we get our definition of right and real from our culture and our own perceptions or do we submit to God's right and reality? I suppose that's a question only you can answer for yourself.
But I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. (1 Cor 11:3)Hurts just to read it. If you're opposed to God and/or opposed to Paul and/or opposed to the Bible, it's a red flag. "See?!! Misogyny in the Bible!" But for those of us who love God and believe the Bible is the Word of God, whether or not we agree with the text, you know there's going to be a fight. Commentators battle over it. "That wasn't Paul." "Paul hated women." On down to, "Paul was just expressing his opinion" or "It's just cultural and doesn't apply today." Mostly they shrug and say, "That's one we'll just ignore."
Interesting, though. "Christ is the head of every man." Yes, okay, we're alright with that. "God is the head of Christ." Well, okay, takes a few minutes, perhaps. Jesus did say, "I must be about My Father's business" (Luke 2:49). He did say, "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of His own accord, but only what He sees the Father doing" (John 5:19). He did say, "I have not spoken on My own authority, but the Father who sent Me has Himself given Me a commandment –- what to say and what to speak ... What I say, therefore, I say as the Father has told Me" (John 12:49-50). Jesus was quite clear that He was subordinant to the Father. Okay, so if Jesus says it, it must be true. Thus, "Christ is the head of every man" and "God is the head of Christ" are both okay with us. Why, then, does that middle one catch in our throats? Why do we balk at that one?
That verse in Corinthians is not ambiguous. We all live in two spheres -- authority and submission. Men are in submission to Christ. Christ is submission to God. We all have bosses and we all exercise authority. I know we have this mistaken idea that "submission" equals "inferior." That's hard to sustain, however, when we read that God is the head of Christ. Is God the Son inferior to God the Father? No, of course not. It's not about inferiority or superiority. It's not about worth. It's not even about subjugation. It is about submission.
Notice the difference between those two words -- subjugation and submission. Subjugation is something an external force does to you. Submission is something you do. There is no command in Scripture for husbands, for instance, to make their wives submit to them. The command is to wives to submit. Submission, not subjugation. God isn't looking to make grovelers; He's hoping for willing servants. Beginning with His Son as our best example. He has roles for each of us that differ. These roles are not superior or inferior; they're just different. Paul describes the Body of Christ as a body where each part is different but important. In fact, "God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it" (1 Cor 12:24). Those with "lesser roles" are given "greater honor." So it's not about worth or inferiority, not about subjugation or less important. It's about roles and a willingness to submit ... to God. Because God is the head of Christ and Christ is the head of man. And man is the head of woman. That last, it seems, is a bridge too far.
We live in this world. Ours is a world that has pushed the Feminism routine farther than most others have. We're okay with Christ submitting to God and men submitting to Christ, but we will not tolerate women submitting to men. It's a bit of a schizophrenic way of thinking. "It's okay that Christ submits, but women never should." And, of course, it really boils down to something very simple. Do we get our definition of right and real from our culture and our own perceptions or do we submit to God's right and reality? I suppose that's a question only you can answer for yourself.
Wednesday, December 01, 2021
Send in the Clowns
"Stand firm" we are told over and over. We are to "stand firm in the faith" (1 Cor 16:13) and, with God's armor, "stand firm against the schemes of the devil" (Eph 6:11-14). We are to "stand firm in the Lord" (Php 4:1; 1 Thess 3:8) and "stand firm and hold the traditions which you were taught" (2 Thess 2:15). Paul asks, "If God is for us, who is against us?" (Rom 8:31). He goes on to say, "In all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us" (Rom 8:37).
Feels like big talk these days. Americans in general (you know, "the land of the free and the home of the brave") and churches in particular seem to be folding rather than standing. We're not standing firm; we're scared to death. We're scared if we're white. We're scared if we're male. We're scared if we're Christians. There ... I think I just listed the Trinity of Evil today. So we cave. We surrender. "You're right; we're the cause of all known misery in the world today." Doesn't look a lot like "stand firm." A recent public service announcement I saw urged us, among other things, to "be sure to keep your family informed about the CDC guidelines for COVID" because, clearly they change often. But it doesn't matter. We're scared 1. "Do I need a mask? Two masks? An injection? Two? Three? Okay, just tell me how many because we are all gonna die." Doesn't sound like "stand firm" to me.
It does resemble a pattern we've liked to follow. "We've understood from the start that marriage was between a man and a woman and same-sex behavior was a sin. Oh, wait, you don't? Well, okay, then we don't either." "We believe that worship should be respectful and worshipful. Oh, you don't? Okay, neither do we." "We believe that God's Word is reliable and authoritative. Oh, hang on. Hold that thought. Nope, we're in the minority, now. Let's jettison that one, too." So instead of "stand firm," we go with "surrender often."
I'm wondering what's next. We're already the dupes of the media who tells us what to believe and we believe it. I can't imagine most American Christians will be able to stand against our new Techno-Masters. Orwell had nothing on this new thought-control society with our up-and-coming social credit system to keep our subversive thoughts (like "I serve Jesus" or "I can think for myself") under control. We're already mostly pleased with the new "Meta" concept where Zuckerberg's empire can make us all happy and whole again ... at the mere cost of freedom. If we've collapsed under the barrage of "you're white, so you're evil" (instead of the ideas of that early white supremacist, Martin Luther King Jr, who urged we judge people by their character rather than the color of their skin) and found the Dr. Fauci's of this world to be definitive even as they change their tune ... again, I suspect we'll soon arrive at the point where they can send in clowns to cow us into submission. "Oh, thank you, sir. No, we won't stand for Christ. We understand that can be offensive. Oh, yes, yes, you're right! Our Bibles tell us so (1 Cor 1:22-24). We don't want to offend. We'll stop. (Aside: You know, clowns are scary.)" And we'll call it "standing firm."
________
Feels like big talk these days. Americans in general (you know, "the land of the free and the home of the brave") and churches in particular seem to be folding rather than standing. We're not standing firm; we're scared to death. We're scared if we're white. We're scared if we're male. We're scared if we're Christians. There ... I think I just listed the Trinity of Evil today. So we cave. We surrender. "You're right; we're the cause of all known misery in the world today." Doesn't look a lot like "stand firm." A recent public service announcement I saw urged us, among other things, to "be sure to keep your family informed about the CDC guidelines for COVID" because, clearly they change often. But it doesn't matter. We're scared 1. "Do I need a mask? Two masks? An injection? Two? Three? Okay, just tell me how many because we are all gonna die." Doesn't sound like "stand firm" to me.
It does resemble a pattern we've liked to follow. "We've understood from the start that marriage was between a man and a woman and same-sex behavior was a sin. Oh, wait, you don't? Well, okay, then we don't either." "We believe that worship should be respectful and worshipful. Oh, you don't? Okay, neither do we." "We believe that God's Word is reliable and authoritative. Oh, hang on. Hold that thought. Nope, we're in the minority, now. Let's jettison that one, too." So instead of "stand firm," we go with "surrender often."
I'm wondering what's next. We're already the dupes of the media who tells us what to believe and we believe it. I can't imagine most American Christians will be able to stand against our new Techno-Masters. Orwell had nothing on this new thought-control society with our up-and-coming social credit system to keep our subversive thoughts (like "I serve Jesus" or "I can think for myself") under control. We're already mostly pleased with the new "Meta" concept where Zuckerberg's empire can make us all happy and whole again ... at the mere cost of freedom. If we've collapsed under the barrage of "you're white, so you're evil" (instead of the ideas of that early white supremacist, Martin Luther King Jr, who urged we judge people by their character rather than the color of their skin) and found the Dr. Fauci's of this world to be definitive even as they change their tune ... again, I suspect we'll soon arrive at the point where they can send in clowns to cow us into submission. "Oh, thank you, sir. No, we won't stand for Christ. We understand that can be offensive. Oh, yes, yes, you're right! Our Bibles tell us so (1 Cor 1:22-24). We don't want to offend. We'll stop. (Aside: You know, clowns are scary.)" And we'll call it "standing firm."
________
1 You think we're not scared? The governor of New York has declared an emergency for the Omicron variant ... even though no cases have been detected in the U.S. and they don't think the vaccine will handle it.
Tuesday, November 30, 2021
The Problem of Liberty
There is a principle known as Christian Liberty, the idea that we are free to submit to our own conscience on matters not commanded or forbidden by God. Paul addresses this concept in Romans 14, but covers it much more completely in 1 Corinthians. From chapter 8 through chapter 10 (and most argue up to chapter 11 verse 1), Paul lays out the truth and danger of Christian Liberty. We're pretty familiar, it seems, with the first part -- "meat sacrificed to idols." Paul explains on one hand that idols are nothing so eating meat sacrificed to nothing isn't a problem. Go ahead. But he warns, "If food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble" (1 Cor 8:13). That is, if we use our Christian Liberty and it causes a problem for a fellow believer, we must limit our own liberty. In the next chapter, Paul uses himself as a prime example. As an Apostle, shouldn't he have all these rights? And, yet, he limited himself (1 Cor 9:15). "For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them" (1 Cor 9:19).
A lot of us miss the fact that chapter 10 is still on this same topic -- Christian Liberty -- but Paul takes it from a different direction. The idea he offers in 1 Corinthians 8 and 9 (and, for that matter, Romans 14) is that we should limit our freedoms for the sake of others. We shouldn't cause other people problems because we're exercising our liberty. In chapter 10, though, he offers another concern. There he describes Israel in the Exodus. They had many of the same characteristics that we do. They had "baptism" (1 Cor 10:1-2) and "Communion" (1 Cor 10:3-4), but they failed. Why? They had problems with idolatry and sexual immorallity, with testing Christ and complaining (1 Cor 10:6-11). Paul is warning about the other side of our liberty. It is possible, by pressing our liberty, to press too far. It is possible to push the borders across the border, so to speak. He says, "Let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall" (1 Cor 10:12).
How? He uses the story of the Golden Calf as one example. The people wanted a reminder of God (Exo 32:1), so Aaron made them a golden calf (Exo 32:2-4) and declared feast to YHWH (Exo 32:5). The result, the linguists tell me, was an orgy (Exo 32:6). You see, worshiping God was good, but how they did it was not, and, pushing that boundary, they plummeted off the edge of sin. Three thousand people died from that (Exo 32:28). Paul uses other examples. There was the merging of Israelite men with Moabite women that ended up with 23,000 dead (1 Cor 10:8; Num 25:1ff). They complained about God and died from serpents (1 Cor 10:9; Num 21:4-6). They complained about Moses and 14,700 died from a plague from God (1 Cor 10:10; Num 16:41-49). Israel pushed their borders and got caught in their own sin.
We often ask, "Is it okay for me to do such and such?" where "such and such" is a questionable behavior. Generally we ask because we don't see a clear command from God, but, also, generally we ask because we want our liberty. We don't want to do too much for God. We don't want to give up too much fun. We don't want to cut ourselves short from pleasure in life if we don't have to. Paul warns on two fronts. You may be free to do what you ask, but first ask yourself, is it profitable? Does it edify (1 Cor 10:23)? Is it beneficial for the people in my life (1 Cor 10:24)? Most importantly, does it glorify God (1 Cor 10:31)? Because it's easy for us to latch onto our own Christian Liberty, but it can be harmful to others ... and it can be harmful to ourselves. Beware of that liberty.
A lot of us miss the fact that chapter 10 is still on this same topic -- Christian Liberty -- but Paul takes it from a different direction. The idea he offers in 1 Corinthians 8 and 9 (and, for that matter, Romans 14) is that we should limit our freedoms for the sake of others. We shouldn't cause other people problems because we're exercising our liberty. In chapter 10, though, he offers another concern. There he describes Israel in the Exodus. They had many of the same characteristics that we do. They had "baptism" (1 Cor 10:1-2) and "Communion" (1 Cor 10:3-4), but they failed. Why? They had problems with idolatry and sexual immorallity, with testing Christ and complaining (1 Cor 10:6-11). Paul is warning about the other side of our liberty. It is possible, by pressing our liberty, to press too far. It is possible to push the borders across the border, so to speak. He says, "Let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall" (1 Cor 10:12).
How? He uses the story of the Golden Calf as one example. The people wanted a reminder of God (Exo 32:1), so Aaron made them a golden calf (Exo 32:2-4) and declared feast to YHWH (Exo 32:5). The result, the linguists tell me, was an orgy (Exo 32:6). You see, worshiping God was good, but how they did it was not, and, pushing that boundary, they plummeted off the edge of sin. Three thousand people died from that (Exo 32:28). Paul uses other examples. There was the merging of Israelite men with Moabite women that ended up with 23,000 dead (1 Cor 10:8; Num 25:1ff). They complained about God and died from serpents (1 Cor 10:9; Num 21:4-6). They complained about Moses and 14,700 died from a plague from God (1 Cor 10:10; Num 16:41-49). Israel pushed their borders and got caught in their own sin.
We often ask, "Is it okay for me to do such and such?" where "such and such" is a questionable behavior. Generally we ask because we don't see a clear command from God, but, also, generally we ask because we want our liberty. We don't want to do too much for God. We don't want to give up too much fun. We don't want to cut ourselves short from pleasure in life if we don't have to. Paul warns on two fronts. You may be free to do what you ask, but first ask yourself, is it profitable? Does it edify (1 Cor 10:23)? Is it beneficial for the people in my life (1 Cor 10:24)? Most importantly, does it glorify God (1 Cor 10:31)? Because it's easy for us to latch onto our own Christian Liberty, but it can be harmful to others ... and it can be harmful to ourselves. Beware of that liberty.
Monday, November 29, 2021
Key Question
If you've read my blog much, you know me; I'm concerned about words. Words are the symbols we use to transmit ideas from one brain to another. As such, we need to have shared symbols. If you say "bleevil" and I say "bleevil" and we mean something different by the term, we will not be communicating because we're thinking of something completely different. (I know, I know, some of you don't believe in "bleevil." That's not the point.) So we need to share symbols, whatever they may be, so we can exchange ideas and information. In the last year or more I've been aware of a prime example of this concept thanks to COVID. You would think that we'd all be clear and in agreement on this, but, as it turns out, we aren't. The question is "immunity." What does it mean? Turns out we are not in agreement.
Immunity refers to being protected from something. It might be disease or legal action or even emotional response. (Think, "Sticks and stones ...") So in terms of COVID immunity it means you can't get COVID ... right? And the correct answer to that is "Not right." In fact, science can't even figure out how to measure immunity, let alone just what they mean by it. In the U.S. the prevalent definition currently is "the presence of COVID antibodies." Mind you, if you, like most of us, are immune to, say, measles or polio after all these years, it is not because you have antibodies for those diseases. That immunity is elsewhere. And it is measured primarily by you not getting measles or polio. But for COVID they check to see if you have antibodies, declare you immune if you do, then warn that you can surely still get, spread, and even die from this antigen to which you are "immune."
Perhaps this wasn't the best example. I'm sure both sides will have an emotional response to that last paragraph, one way or another. But your strong emotional response illustrates the problem I'm talking about. We're not communicating. We all use "immunity" and we all assume we agree on what it means and we all draw conclusions and make decisions from that "agreement," all the while barely noticing that we don't agree. "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." That's us ... from both sides.
My point, then, is our failure to communicate. (Has anyone been keeping track of movie quotes I've used? I haven't.) I use "marriage" and you use "marriage" and it may not mean the same thing. I use "love" and you use "love" and we sound alike, but we might mean something totally different. I use "Christian" and you use "Christian" and we may mean radically different things. Hey, I use "Jesus" and you use "Jesus" and we may not even be talking about the same person ... even if we're talking about the same historical person. We aren't communicating. And we end up in disagreements. And we end up in fights. And we end up in hate. ("I wonder what he means by that word?" Very good question.)
All this to say we're missing the key question. All this to urge us all, including me, to start asking it. "What do you mean by that?" We think we're using the same terms in the same way and we think we're understanding each other and ... we're not. But, like the COVID "immunity" question, our emotional reaction to what is actually misunderstood terms is already kicking in before we ever find out that we simply don't understand each other. So this will not end well.
I've been trying to learn this myself in recent years. "They said something I think I understood, but what do they mean by it?" And I'm finding large gaps in our mutual understanding based largely on gaps in our mutual symbols for ideas. Don't misunderstand. I know that once we dig down and find out what I meant by "bleevil" and what you meant by "bleevil" actually means, we're still possibly going to have a disagreement over the whole "bleevil" concept, but wouldn't it be better if we were discussing our actual disagreements rather than our red herrings and rabbit trails that ... oh, wait, perhaps I'd better better define those terms. Oh, well, you get what I mean, right? Sadly, I can't be sure you do. Not because you're stupid, but because none of us are really accomplished at figuring it out, at asking the key question, "What do you mean?".
Immunity refers to being protected from something. It might be disease or legal action or even emotional response. (Think, "Sticks and stones ...") So in terms of COVID immunity it means you can't get COVID ... right? And the correct answer to that is "Not right." In fact, science can't even figure out how to measure immunity, let alone just what they mean by it. In the U.S. the prevalent definition currently is "the presence of COVID antibodies." Mind you, if you, like most of us, are immune to, say, measles or polio after all these years, it is not because you have antibodies for those diseases. That immunity is elsewhere. And it is measured primarily by you not getting measles or polio. But for COVID they check to see if you have antibodies, declare you immune if you do, then warn that you can surely still get, spread, and even die from this antigen to which you are "immune."
Perhaps this wasn't the best example. I'm sure both sides will have an emotional response to that last paragraph, one way or another. But your strong emotional response illustrates the problem I'm talking about. We're not communicating. We all use "immunity" and we all assume we agree on what it means and we all draw conclusions and make decisions from that "agreement," all the while barely noticing that we don't agree. "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." That's us ... from both sides.
My point, then, is our failure to communicate. (Has anyone been keeping track of movie quotes I've used? I haven't.) I use "marriage" and you use "marriage" and it may not mean the same thing. I use "love" and you use "love" and we sound alike, but we might mean something totally different. I use "Christian" and you use "Christian" and we may mean radically different things. Hey, I use "Jesus" and you use "Jesus" and we may not even be talking about the same person ... even if we're talking about the same historical person. We aren't communicating. And we end up in disagreements. And we end up in fights. And we end up in hate. ("I wonder what he means by that word?" Very good question.)
All this to say we're missing the key question. All this to urge us all, including me, to start asking it. "What do you mean by that?" We think we're using the same terms in the same way and we think we're understanding each other and ... we're not. But, like the COVID "immunity" question, our emotional reaction to what is actually misunderstood terms is already kicking in before we ever find out that we simply don't understand each other. So this will not end well.
I've been trying to learn this myself in recent years. "They said something I think I understood, but what do they mean by it?" And I'm finding large gaps in our mutual understanding based largely on gaps in our mutual symbols for ideas. Don't misunderstand. I know that once we dig down and find out what I meant by "bleevil" and what you meant by "bleevil" actually means, we're still possibly going to have a disagreement over the whole "bleevil" concept, but wouldn't it be better if we were discussing our actual disagreements rather than our red herrings and rabbit trails that ... oh, wait, perhaps I'd better better define those terms. Oh, well, you get what I mean, right? Sadly, I can't be sure you do. Not because you're stupid, but because none of us are really accomplished at figuring it out, at asking the key question, "What do you mean?".
Sunday, November 28, 2021
Faithful
One of God's characteristics is faithfulness (Deut 7:9; 1 Thess 5:23-24; 1 Cor 1:9; 2 Tim 2:13; 1 Cor 10:13; 1 John 1:9; 2 Thess 3:3; Lam 3:22-23; Psa 36:5; Psa 86:15; 1 Peter 4:19 and more). Faithfulness. He is constant. He is completely trustworthy. He always does the right thing ... every time.
Most Christians will nod and agree. In theory. We'll sing along with songs about His faithfulness and be glad. In theory. We will extol the virtues of God's faithfulness. In theory. I say "in theory" because we're pretty good at it right up until something occurs that causes us to question it. He is faithful ... until something unpleasant happens. I use "unpleasant" there when most will use "bad" because if God is faithful, nothing actually "bad" can happen to us (Rom 8:28). So the simple fact that we refer to these types of things as "bad" argues against our confidence in His faithfulness.
The Bible argues that we aren't always clear thinkers. We aren't always truthful, aren't always understanding, aren't always aligned with God's truth. As such, we are constantly in need of "remodeling" -- being transformed by the renewing of our minds (Rom 12:2). So we have to try to figure out some standard of what is True and then align ourselves with that rather than vice versa. We need to recognize, "Regardless of what else I see or feel or think, this is true, so I can rely on this."
So the question now becomes, "Is God truly faithful?" If we say, "Yes," then we also need to adjust our thinking to align with that. We need to be evaluating all of life from that Truth. We need to shape our understanding of reality to Truth rather than perception. We all suffer hardships. We all endure trials. We all have doubts, large and small. We need to find an anchor with which we can weather the storms. I'm convinced that the character of God as revealed in His Word is the best anchor you can find. One of the best links in the chain on that anchor is His faithfulness. Hold on to that one.
Most Christians will nod and agree. In theory. We'll sing along with songs about His faithfulness and be glad. In theory. We will extol the virtues of God's faithfulness. In theory. I say "in theory" because we're pretty good at it right up until something occurs that causes us to question it. He is faithful ... until something unpleasant happens. I use "unpleasant" there when most will use "bad" because if God is faithful, nothing actually "bad" can happen to us (Rom 8:28). So the simple fact that we refer to these types of things as "bad" argues against our confidence in His faithfulness.
The Bible argues that we aren't always clear thinkers. We aren't always truthful, aren't always understanding, aren't always aligned with God's truth. As such, we are constantly in need of "remodeling" -- being transformed by the renewing of our minds (Rom 12:2). So we have to try to figure out some standard of what is True and then align ourselves with that rather than vice versa. We need to recognize, "Regardless of what else I see or feel or think, this is true, so I can rely on this."
So the question now becomes, "Is God truly faithful?" If we say, "Yes," then we also need to adjust our thinking to align with that. We need to be evaluating all of life from that Truth. We need to shape our understanding of reality to Truth rather than perception. We all suffer hardships. We all endure trials. We all have doubts, large and small. We need to find an anchor with which we can weather the storms. I'm convinced that the character of God as revealed in His Word is the best anchor you can find. One of the best links in the chain on that anchor is His faithfulness. Hold on to that one.
Saturday, November 27, 2021
News Weakly - 11/27/2021
No Justice
Kamala Harris is miffed about the Rittenhouse verdict. A jury of his peers decided that the facts of the case would not allow them to convict him because it was reasonable to assume he was defending himself. Please note: This case was not a case about race. There were no race charges, no hate charges. No person of color was injured in the making of this case. It was one white kid shooting a few other white folk in what might have been construed as an emotionally-charged (on both sides) self-defense situation. The question before the court was not, "Was Rittenhouse a white supremacist?", but "Did he shoot and kill these people as an act of malicious murder or in self-defense?" See? The vice president thinks we've got a long way to go to make the justice system more equitable (her word). The only way that this case could have been more "equitable" would be if he was convicted ... likely with a largely multiracial jury ... mostly because he was white and armed and present in the vicinity of a racial protest, apparently. That would be "equitable." You keep using that word; I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Redefined
Dr. Fauci answered a pending question this week. "What is 'fully vaccinated'?" He said that "fully vaccinated" still means two shots (or one if J&J) ... while indications are that the immunity can drop to 58% (for the two-shot forms) to 13% (in the case of J&J). So he didn't redefine "fully vaccinated" as we thought ... but did redefine "immune." Now, don't you feel safer? I suppose it could be worse.
I Think Not
They're building a new school a short distance from where I live. The sign says, "Building a foundation for inclusion." And I thought schools would be a foundation for education. Silly me. So I guess I shouldn't be surprised abou the story that relates, "'This is horrible,' wrote Olympia Stroud, a program coordinator at the Massachusetts department of elementary and secondary education (DESE). 'How long have these books been in the curriculum?'" What horrible book has been in the cirriculum? Well, that awful The Adventures of Tom Sawyer classic, of course. How long indeed! Our current aim is to be sure to repeat history by refusing to learn from it. If we can't teach our kids how to evaluate literature, we should probably not be teaching our kids. Schools like those that ask for such awful reading as Tom Sawyer are "unsafe environments," so I'd suggest they close them. All schools. Because we won't teach our kids to think. (Interesting note. The "evil" school in question is known for serving "disproportionately lower-income kids from communities of color, yet its test scores and graduation rates routinely rank among the state's best." Definitely gotta go.)
Cover Up
It's not just California, but a county near San Francisco has mandated masks again for all indoor spaces ... including your home. California has one of the lowest infections rates and one of the highest vaccination rates, but Thanksgiving is upon us, so Santa Cruz County residents will need to wear masks to eat their Thanksgiving meals if they have it with anyone who doesn't normally live there. After all, you can't trust them to not have COVID and you certainly can't trust the vaccine to keep you or others safe, so ... Happy Thanksgiving! Keep masked. (Good luck enforcing that one.)
Fixation
If it worked, I might get it. It doesn't. So why is the president so fixated on vaccines? He is asking the court to reinstate his employer mandate and now requiring all border crossers to get vaccinated. If the science didn't show that the vaccinated are 6 to 13 times more likely to get COVID than the naturally immune or that COVID is on the rise among the vaccinated, perhaps I'd see the point. If the constant increase in the number of people vaccinated equated to a drop in COVID cases, I'd understand. None of this is the case. It looks like an irrational fixation ... at best.
TMI -- Too Much Information
They tell us that the polyp in Biden's colon was benign. Too much information. We don't care. They didn't mention that 85,000 Trump votes were also found there. Again, TMI.
Must be true; I read it on the internet.
Kamala Harris is miffed about the Rittenhouse verdict. A jury of his peers decided that the facts of the case would not allow them to convict him because it was reasonable to assume he was defending himself. Please note: This case was not a case about race. There were no race charges, no hate charges. No person of color was injured in the making of this case. It was one white kid shooting a few other white folk in what might have been construed as an emotionally-charged (on both sides) self-defense situation. The question before the court was not, "Was Rittenhouse a white supremacist?", but "Did he shoot and kill these people as an act of malicious murder or in self-defense?" See? The vice president thinks we've got a long way to go to make the justice system more equitable (her word). The only way that this case could have been more "equitable" would be if he was convicted ... likely with a largely multiracial jury ... mostly because he was white and armed and present in the vicinity of a racial protest, apparently. That would be "equitable." You keep using that word; I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Redefined
Dr. Fauci answered a pending question this week. "What is 'fully vaccinated'?" He said that "fully vaccinated" still means two shots (or one if J&J) ... while indications are that the immunity can drop to 58% (for the two-shot forms) to 13% (in the case of J&J). So he didn't redefine "fully vaccinated" as we thought ... but did redefine "immune." Now, don't you feel safer? I suppose it could be worse.
I Think Not
They're building a new school a short distance from where I live. The sign says, "Building a foundation for inclusion." And I thought schools would be a foundation for education. Silly me. So I guess I shouldn't be surprised abou the story that relates, "'This is horrible,' wrote Olympia Stroud, a program coordinator at the Massachusetts department of elementary and secondary education (DESE). 'How long have these books been in the curriculum?'" What horrible book has been in the cirriculum? Well, that awful The Adventures of Tom Sawyer classic, of course. How long indeed! Our current aim is to be sure to repeat history by refusing to learn from it. If we can't teach our kids how to evaluate literature, we should probably not be teaching our kids. Schools like those that ask for such awful reading as Tom Sawyer are "unsafe environments," so I'd suggest they close them. All schools. Because we won't teach our kids to think. (Interesting note. The "evil" school in question is known for serving "disproportionately lower-income kids from communities of color, yet its test scores and graduation rates routinely rank among the state's best." Definitely gotta go.)
Cover Up
It's not just California, but a county near San Francisco has mandated masks again for all indoor spaces ... including your home. California has one of the lowest infections rates and one of the highest vaccination rates, but Thanksgiving is upon us, so Santa Cruz County residents will need to wear masks to eat their Thanksgiving meals if they have it with anyone who doesn't normally live there. After all, you can't trust them to not have COVID and you certainly can't trust the vaccine to keep you or others safe, so ... Happy Thanksgiving! Keep masked. (Good luck enforcing that one.)
Fixation
If it worked, I might get it. It doesn't. So why is the president so fixated on vaccines? He is asking the court to reinstate his employer mandate and now requiring all border crossers to get vaccinated. If the science didn't show that the vaccinated are 6 to 13 times more likely to get COVID than the naturally immune or that COVID is on the rise among the vaccinated, perhaps I'd see the point. If the constant increase in the number of people vaccinated equated to a drop in COVID cases, I'd understand. None of this is the case. It looks like an irrational fixation ... at best.
TMI -- Too Much Information
They tell us that the polyp in Biden's colon was benign. Too much information. We don't care. They didn't mention that 85,000 Trump votes were also found there. Again, TMI.
Must be true; I read it on the internet.
Friday, November 26, 2021
Humble
We know that a fundamental Christian virtue is humility. We know that Christ humbled Himself and we ought to do the same. And, if we're honest, we admit that we think that it's a lousy command and we aren't really interested in following that one. It is a violation of basic human nature that tells us to look out for #1 and a contradiction of everything we see around us. Few there are that are truly humble and, while we almost universally admire those few, we'd prefer not to be one of them. Here's the problem. If it is true that "whoever says he abides in Him ought to walk in the same way in which He walked" (1 John 2:6), we're going to need to pick a different attitude.
Paul says, "Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus" and goes on to describe a particular mindset -- humility (Php 2:5-8). Jesus said, "Take My yoke upon you, and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls" (Matt 11:29). He was the Lamb of God who went meekly to His death, the personification of humility. If we are show ourselves to be His followers, humility is not an option; it is a mandate.
So how do we do that?
Jesus said, "Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls" (Matt 11:29). What do we learn about humility from that? First, Jesus -- our Lord and Savior, our guide, our example, the One we follow -- is humble in heart. If we want to be Christians -- Christ followers -- so should we. But He doesn't simply make a statement about Himself. He gives a direction. 1) "Take My yoke upon you" and 2) "Learn from Me." So, it takes work (yoke) but we learn it from Him. Just as important, a yoke is a tool that binds two together to do a task. Jesus is there. We learn from Him by doing for Him with Him. So it's not ME doing it, it's WE, and it's not on my own. He aids and guides. The outcome is a bit odd to the natural ear. "You will find rest for your souls." "Come and work," Jesus says. "Learn from Me how to be humble and gentle. It will give you rest."
Jesus said, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me" (Matt 16:24). That is, if we want to be a Jesus follower ("come after Me"), this is necessary. Step One: Deny yourself. There you have it; the first step to humility. The primary mindset. Deny self. Step Two: Take up your cross. Die to self. Now, with self denied and self crucified, where do we go? Wherever He leads.
This theme -- humility -- is throughout Scripture, but perhaps the clearest description is in Philippians.
Can you imagine? How would our relationships change if we lived that way? What would our marriages look like if we lived that way? What would our conversation sound like if we thought that way? How would our priorities change? How would our motivations change? How would our conflicts change? How would our entire mode of operation change?
We Christians look around and see things we know to be wrong among ourselves. There are divorces and conflicts, hard feelings and anger, selfishness and dissension, greediness and division. None of that makes any sense in light of Jesus's clear commands to learn humility from Him. Not one iota is reasonable for followers of Christ if we're supposed to have the mind of Christ in ourselves. Humility is hard, no doubt, but it's not optional. We need to learn it. We need to team up with Christ and practice it. We need to deny self, die to self, and be living examples of our Savior. Too much of the time it doesn't look like we're doing well with that, and Jesus seems to consider it basic, fundamental. We need to turn (repent) and pursue His command and His example. And, look, isn't "rest for your souls" at a premium in today's world?
Paul says, "Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus" and goes on to describe a particular mindset -- humility (Php 2:5-8). Jesus said, "Take My yoke upon you, and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls" (Matt 11:29). He was the Lamb of God who went meekly to His death, the personification of humility. If we are show ourselves to be His followers, humility is not an option; it is a mandate.
So how do we do that?
Jesus said, "Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls" (Matt 11:29). What do we learn about humility from that? First, Jesus -- our Lord and Savior, our guide, our example, the One we follow -- is humble in heart. If we want to be Christians -- Christ followers -- so should we. But He doesn't simply make a statement about Himself. He gives a direction. 1) "Take My yoke upon you" and 2) "Learn from Me." So, it takes work (yoke) but we learn it from Him. Just as important, a yoke is a tool that binds two together to do a task. Jesus is there. We learn from Him by doing for Him with Him. So it's not ME doing it, it's WE, and it's not on my own. He aids and guides. The outcome is a bit odd to the natural ear. "You will find rest for your souls." "Come and work," Jesus says. "Learn from Me how to be humble and gentle. It will give you rest."
Jesus said, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me" (Matt 16:24). That is, if we want to be a Jesus follower ("come after Me"), this is necessary. Step One: Deny yourself. There you have it; the first step to humility. The primary mindset. Deny self. Step Two: Take up your cross. Die to self. Now, with self denied and self crucified, where do we go? Wherever He leads.
This theme -- humility -- is throughout Scripture, but perhaps the clearest description is in Philippians.
Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,who, though He was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, He humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. (Php 2:3-8)Unity is the goal (Php 2:1-2). Humility is the theme. Humility is described as no selfish ambitions or conceit. Humility is described as "count others more significant than yourselves." That's interesting. It does not say, "Count yourself as worthless." It doesn't demean you; it elevates them. "I'm important; they are more." Humility is described as looking out for the interests of others. But, ultimately, our prime description of humility is our Lord Jesus. "Be like Him," Paul urges. What did He surrender to be humble? The immediate presence of the Father. The unmitigated glory of being God the Son. And how far did He go to do it? He became a servant to the point of death. "Have that mind in yourself," Paul urges. "Follow Christ in that way."
Can you imagine? How would our relationships change if we lived that way? What would our marriages look like if we lived that way? What would our conversation sound like if we thought that way? How would our priorities change? How would our motivations change? How would our conflicts change? How would our entire mode of operation change?
We Christians look around and see things we know to be wrong among ourselves. There are divorces and conflicts, hard feelings and anger, selfishness and dissension, greediness and division. None of that makes any sense in light of Jesus's clear commands to learn humility from Him. Not one iota is reasonable for followers of Christ if we're supposed to have the mind of Christ in ourselves. Humility is hard, no doubt, but it's not optional. We need to learn it. We need to team up with Christ and practice it. We need to deny self, die to self, and be living examples of our Savior. Too much of the time it doesn't look like we're doing well with that, and Jesus seems to consider it basic, fundamental. We need to turn (repent) and pursue His command and His example. And, look, isn't "rest for your souls" at a premium in today's world?
Thursday, November 25, 2021
Thanksgiving
It's Thanksgiving Day and a significant number of us will gather with family and friends to be ... thankful. The real question is "Will we?"
One of the primary problems of the sinful human is the fundamental condition of ingratitude (Rom 1:21). Oh, we might be grateful. (I say "might.") We might be grateful that a friend did something nice or a loved one was kind. It's not that gratitude that's lacking so much. It's gratitude towards God, from whom and through whom and to whom are all things (Rom 11:36).
"Being a little over-dramatic, Stan?" some may ask. No, not really. The sin nature does not acknowledge God. So we have atheists who celebrate "Thanksgiving" without giving thanks to God. Now, that's a given; atheists by definition can't give thanks to God. But, just as prevalent, we have people who do claim to believe in God giving too little thanks to the God in whom they believe. We're grateful to friends and family. We're grateful for "warm and pleasant." We're less aware of the vast, overarching reality of all that God supplies and how really good it is -- how really good He is. We rarely say, "The Lord gives and the Lord takes away; may the name of the Lord be praised" (Job 1:20).
James tells us, "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights" (James 1:17). And Paul assures us that "for those who love God all things work together for good" (Rom 8:28). Therefore, on this Thanksgiving Day, let us recognize and thank God for every good and perfect gift we have and for all things (1 Thess 5:18). May we today and every day be truly grateful.
One of the primary problems of the sinful human is the fundamental condition of ingratitude (Rom 1:21). Oh, we might be grateful. (I say "might.") We might be grateful that a friend did something nice or a loved one was kind. It's not that gratitude that's lacking so much. It's gratitude towards God, from whom and through whom and to whom are all things (Rom 11:36).
"Being a little over-dramatic, Stan?" some may ask. No, not really. The sin nature does not acknowledge God. So we have atheists who celebrate "Thanksgiving" without giving thanks to God. Now, that's a given; atheists by definition can't give thanks to God. But, just as prevalent, we have people who do claim to believe in God giving too little thanks to the God in whom they believe. We're grateful to friends and family. We're grateful for "warm and pleasant." We're less aware of the vast, overarching reality of all that God supplies and how really good it is -- how really good He is. We rarely say, "The Lord gives and the Lord takes away; may the name of the Lord be praised" (Job 1:20).
James tells us, "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights" (James 1:17). And Paul assures us that "for those who love God all things work together for good" (Rom 8:28). Therefore, on this Thanksgiving Day, let us recognize and thank God for every good and perfect gift we have and for all things (1 Thess 5:18). May we today and every day be truly grateful.
Wednesday, November 24, 2021
Heretical
Our word, "heresy," comes originally from the Greek hairesis which referred primarily to "choice." The word (in some form) occurs most famously in the Bible in Titus when Paul warns Titus to "Reject a factious man after a first and second warning" (Titus 3:10 NAS), translated in the King James Version as "heretic" (or "heretick") but as something like "a man that stirs up division" in other translations. Paul uses a similar term in 1 Corinthians 11:19 and Galatians 5:20, translated "heresies" in King James and something like "divisions" or "factions" in more modern versions. The idea, then, is one of personal choice. It refers primarily to positions taken as a matter of self-chosen opinion or that of a sect. (I so much wanted to use "sectual," but, alas, the word doesn't actually exist.) So the Bible has multiple warnings against taking positions defined by personal choice rather than ... what? Biblical truth? Sure, but how much of that is "personal choice"? "God's truth"? Sure, but I think we all agree that we can't all agree on what that is. "Historical orthodoxy"? Maybe better, but still ... perhaps you begin to see the problem. So perhaps we ought to try to eliminate the obvious.
Heresies have existed in the Church from the beginning. Indeed, much of the New Testament was written to counter such heresies, such divisions, such personal choices. Paul's first epistle to the church at Corinth dealt with division, sexual immorality, Christian liberty, complementarianism, the Lord's Supper, spiritual gifts, those who argued that resurrection was a myth, and more. His letter to Galatians took on those who argued for salvation by works. His letter to the Colossians dealt with the Gnostics with their "special knowledge." And so on. Lots of deviations from God's truth. So while we 21st century Christians may see plain "heresies" in the church today, be assured that they're not new. Deviation by personal or sectual (I just like the word) choice has always been the case. Gnosticism, Montanism, Docetism, Arianism, Marcionism, Pelagianism, and so on. Historical heresies. Deviations from God's truth.
The decline of truth among those who claim to be believers is not new. In fact, it is common and often hard to detect. The origin of these deviations is disturbing. John says they come "from us" (1 John 2:19). They can be identified because they "went out from us." They "left the beaten path," so to speak. John says we know the truth because we have the Spirit, but, of course, they claim the same, so objectively fighting it can be difficult. Why? Because the standard of truth in our case -- the Bible -- is not an acceptable standard to too many of us. So we can run into problems by taking Scripture in a personal way to mean this when it has historically always meant that but we're pretty sure we've figured out this "new and improved" approach and we "go out."
It's the same today. Within the church we have those who lean away from biblical truth. They lean toward "systemic racism" or "woke theology" or "the new sexual morality" that would include the concept of "gay Christians" or whatever else is new and "forward thinking." They will warn that you are on "the wrong side of history" and caution that "your view will end" and tell you theirs is a better way. Jesus warned about it (Matt 7:15-16). Paul predicted it (Acts 20:29-30). And we have two possible directions we can take on these things that are not the best options. One is to ignore it. When the church at Corinth ignored the sin in their midst, Paul was dismayed (1 Cor 5:1-2). Ignoring it won't make it better. The other is the opposite. "Here is the way!" some declare and then start picking targets and plinking away. "Well, that Christian leader isn't a Christian." Why? "Because he didn't vote the way I think he should have." Really? "And this guy is clearly a false teacher." Oh? Why? "Because he didn't say it the way he should have." And rather than seeking to restore people (Gal 6:1), we seek to cut them off ... at the neck. So ignoring it isn't right and neither is head-hunting.
We do need to be aware of wolves in sheep's clothing. (You know we get that idiom from Jesus Himself, don't you?) We need to watch from within. We need to stick to the truth, stand by the standard, and avoid personal interpretations -- "my truth" theology. The decline and fall of Israel in the Exodus came from within Israel in the Exodus, but keep in mind -- God always keeps a remant. We don't have to worry about being on "the wrong side of history" or "being left behind" when we stand on God's truth and God's Word following God's Spirit. We can count on being ridiculed, but that's not our problem, is it. When those within the church stand and declare to be good that which God's Word clearly declares to be sin, "you shall know them by their fruits" (Matt 7:16). When we are making "progress" by declaring to be true what Scripture calls false and false what God's Word declares to be true, we should know that it is not progress. And, dear readers, we ought to know our bibles well enough to recognize the difference.
Heresies have existed in the Church from the beginning. Indeed, much of the New Testament was written to counter such heresies, such divisions, such personal choices. Paul's first epistle to the church at Corinth dealt with division, sexual immorality, Christian liberty, complementarianism, the Lord's Supper, spiritual gifts, those who argued that resurrection was a myth, and more. His letter to Galatians took on those who argued for salvation by works. His letter to the Colossians dealt with the Gnostics with their "special knowledge." And so on. Lots of deviations from God's truth. So while we 21st century Christians may see plain "heresies" in the church today, be assured that they're not new. Deviation by personal or sectual (I just like the word) choice has always been the case. Gnosticism, Montanism, Docetism, Arianism, Marcionism, Pelagianism, and so on. Historical heresies. Deviations from God's truth.
The decline of truth among those who claim to be believers is not new. In fact, it is common and often hard to detect. The origin of these deviations is disturbing. John says they come "from us" (1 John 2:19). They can be identified because they "went out from us." They "left the beaten path," so to speak. John says we know the truth because we have the Spirit, but, of course, they claim the same, so objectively fighting it can be difficult. Why? Because the standard of truth in our case -- the Bible -- is not an acceptable standard to too many of us. So we can run into problems by taking Scripture in a personal way to mean this when it has historically always meant that but we're pretty sure we've figured out this "new and improved" approach and we "go out."
It's the same today. Within the church we have those who lean away from biblical truth. They lean toward "systemic racism" or "woke theology" or "the new sexual morality" that would include the concept of "gay Christians" or whatever else is new and "forward thinking." They will warn that you are on "the wrong side of history" and caution that "your view will end" and tell you theirs is a better way. Jesus warned about it (Matt 7:15-16). Paul predicted it (Acts 20:29-30). And we have two possible directions we can take on these things that are not the best options. One is to ignore it. When the church at Corinth ignored the sin in their midst, Paul was dismayed (1 Cor 5:1-2). Ignoring it won't make it better. The other is the opposite. "Here is the way!" some declare and then start picking targets and plinking away. "Well, that Christian leader isn't a Christian." Why? "Because he didn't vote the way I think he should have." Really? "And this guy is clearly a false teacher." Oh? Why? "Because he didn't say it the way he should have." And rather than seeking to restore people (Gal 6:1), we seek to cut them off ... at the neck. So ignoring it isn't right and neither is head-hunting.
We do need to be aware of wolves in sheep's clothing. (You know we get that idiom from Jesus Himself, don't you?) We need to watch from within. We need to stick to the truth, stand by the standard, and avoid personal interpretations -- "my truth" theology. The decline and fall of Israel in the Exodus came from within Israel in the Exodus, but keep in mind -- God always keeps a remant. We don't have to worry about being on "the wrong side of history" or "being left behind" when we stand on God's truth and God's Word following God's Spirit. We can count on being ridiculed, but that's not our problem, is it. When those within the church stand and declare to be good that which God's Word clearly declares to be sin, "you shall know them by their fruits" (Matt 7:16). When we are making "progress" by declaring to be true what Scripture calls false and false what God's Word declares to be true, we should know that it is not progress. And, dear readers, we ought to know our bibles well enough to recognize the difference.
Deviant
There's a word. Try that on for size. "Deviant." Just makes you shiver a little, doesn't it? "Ewww, deviant." Not a positive thing. Funny how some words produce a gut response like that. So when I say that homosexual behavior or transgender stuff is "sexually deviant," I manage to produce just such a response, right? For one side, it's "Hey! Who are you calling 'sexually deviant'?" For the other it's "Oh, yeah, that is seriously deviant." And it's a little bit funny because all I actually said was that homosexual behavior or transgender behavior are things that are "differing from a norm." If "norm" is the general level or average and less than 5% of the population are homosexual or transgender, it is an unavoidable conclusion that 5% falls outside of "average" and must be said to be differing from the norm. And since both are sexual in nature, they should be understood as "sexually deviant." So it's only that gut response of ours that makes it a point of contention.
Of course, whether or not LGBT(etc) is regarded as "sexually deviant" is not my point. My point is that "deviant," while almost universally regarded as "evil," is not, by definition, the case. If "deviant" simply means "outside the norm," I would argue that in some cases it would actually be good. I believe it would even commanded by God.
"Uh, oh," I can hear some saying, "Stan has gone around the bend. God commands us to be sexually deviant?" Well, no, that's not what I said. And, yes, He commands us to be deviant. Jesus said, "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the way that leads to life, and only a few find it" (Matt 7:13-14). Do you see that word "few"? That equates to "not average; not normal." "Many" means that a large number go one way while "few" says that a small number go the other. That is a deviation from the norm. Be deviant. Paul, quoting God in the Old Testament, told the Corinthians, "Go out from their midst, and be separate from them" (2 Cor 6:17). That's not the norm; that's a deviation from the norm. Be deviant. Jesus said, "If anyone would come after Me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow Me" (Matt 16:24). That is definitely not normal. Be deviant. John warned, "Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him" (1 John 2:15). That is definitely not mainstream. Be deviant. We are commanded, "Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves" (Php 2:3). That's barely even human. Humans are by nature all about "looking out for #1." Well, don't. Be deviant.
There is so much of this in Scripture that it's impossible to avoid. We who follow Christ are not supposed to be like everyone else. We're supposed to be distinct, different. We're supposed to be deviant ... in a good way. We're supposed to not be like the world that hates God (Rom 8:7). We're supposed to deviate from those norms of sin and depravity. So, it doesn't always hold true that "deviant" means "evil." Christians, if they follow Christ, must be deviant. If you're not, you're not following Christ.
Of course, whether or not LGBT(etc) is regarded as "sexually deviant" is not my point. My point is that "deviant," while almost universally regarded as "evil," is not, by definition, the case. If "deviant" simply means "outside the norm," I would argue that in some cases it would actually be good. I believe it would even commanded by God.
"Uh, oh," I can hear some saying, "Stan has gone around the bend. God commands us to be sexually deviant?" Well, no, that's not what I said. And, yes, He commands us to be deviant. Jesus said, "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the way that leads to life, and only a few find it" (Matt 7:13-14). Do you see that word "few"? That equates to "not average; not normal." "Many" means that a large number go one way while "few" says that a small number go the other. That is a deviation from the norm. Be deviant. Paul, quoting God in the Old Testament, told the Corinthians, "Go out from their midst, and be separate from them" (2 Cor 6:17). That's not the norm; that's a deviation from the norm. Be deviant. Jesus said, "If anyone would come after Me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow Me" (Matt 16:24). That is definitely not normal. Be deviant. John warned, "Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him" (1 John 2:15). That is definitely not mainstream. Be deviant. We are commanded, "Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves" (Php 2:3). That's barely even human. Humans are by nature all about "looking out for #1." Well, don't. Be deviant.
There is so much of this in Scripture that it's impossible to avoid. We who follow Christ are not supposed to be like everyone else. We're supposed to be distinct, different. We're supposed to be deviant ... in a good way. We're supposed to not be like the world that hates God (Rom 8:7). We're supposed to deviate from those norms of sin and depravity. So, it doesn't always hold true that "deviant" means "evil." Christians, if they follow Christ, must be deviant. If you're not, you're not following Christ.
Tuesday, November 23, 2021
Tricky God
Just to clear something up at the outset, that title is not about God, the Most High. It refers to the god of this world (2 Cor 4:4), the prince of the power of the air (Eph 2:2), the spiritual forces of evil (Eph 6:12), your adversary, the devil (1 Peter 5:8).
Think about it for a minute. Have you noticed how just about every virtue that God established is now regarded as evil? Let's look at some examples.
The Bible repeatedly extols the virtue of humility. Jesus blessed the poor in spirit (Matt 5:3) and the meek (Matt 5:5). He said, "Everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted" (Luke 14:11). "He said, "Take My yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls" (Matt 11:29). He told His disciples, "If anyone would be first, he must be last of all and servant of all" (Mark 9:35). He said, "The Son of Man came not to be served but to serve" (Mark 10:45). Jesus was abundantly clear that He was under the Father. And so much more. Proverbs is full of the call for humility (Prov 22:4; Prov 11:2; Prov 15:3; Prov 18:12; Prov 3:34; Prov 29:23; Prov 16:19, etc.). We are told "Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves" (Php 2:3) followed by "Have this mind among yourselves" -- humility (Php 2:5-8). Over and over, and, yet, the virtue of the day is pride, not humility. The god of this world has managed to convince us that humility is humiliation (a lie) and pride is a lofty goal. Pride was the cause of the first sin (Gen 3:5) and continues to be our primary motivation for sin. But humility is looked down on and pride is exalted.
How about love? Everyone thinks that love is a virtue ... until you look at definitions. Love once meant being concerned for the well-being and best interests of another. We've managed to shift it to warm feelings and mainly a sexual content, as if it is no possible to love someone without having sex with them. Nonsense when I put it here in print, but it appears to be the general concensus in practial living. So "love" shifts to "lust" and we've made that a primary good.
It is an interesting fact that just about everything that we recognize as sin can be viewed as not sin. Here's what I mean. Food is not sin, but gluttony is. Taking things is not sin, but stealing is. Sex as God intended it is not sin, but sex outside of marriage is. All the good things that God has provided are good right up until we take them beyond their intended purpose. We make them idols or masters or passions. We allow them to replace God in our hearts. It can be a spouse or a child, a job, a possession, an ambition ... just about anything at all. These things are not evil in and of themselves; we just make them that way when they become more than God is. Years ago someone asked me, "Do dogs go to heaven?" followed by "Because, if my dog isn't going to be in heaven, I don't want to go." More recently, a parent told me, "If my child isn't in heaven, I don't want to be there." Dogs and children are good, but when they become more important than God, they are idols. The god of this world is very adept at turning the good things of God into idols.
These are just examples. The prince of the power of the air is keen on turning that which God describes as good into that which is evil and vice versa. And even we Christians can have a hard time recognizing it. God said that He designed men to be the responsible party in a marriage (1 Cor 11:3) and we're outraged. God tells us to bear one anothers burdens (Gal 6:2) and we're lackadaisical. God commands humility and we see it as an offense. God limits our sexual expressions and we think maybe He's on "the wrong side of history." That's because we have a tricky god, and he's no friend of God. He's also no friend of those of us who wish to worship the true God. Watch out (1 Peter 5:8).
Think about it for a minute. Have you noticed how just about every virtue that God established is now regarded as evil? Let's look at some examples.
The Bible repeatedly extols the virtue of humility. Jesus blessed the poor in spirit (Matt 5:3) and the meek (Matt 5:5). He said, "Everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted" (Luke 14:11). "He said, "Take My yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls" (Matt 11:29). He told His disciples, "If anyone would be first, he must be last of all and servant of all" (Mark 9:35). He said, "The Son of Man came not to be served but to serve" (Mark 10:45). Jesus was abundantly clear that He was under the Father. And so much more. Proverbs is full of the call for humility (Prov 22:4; Prov 11:2; Prov 15:3; Prov 18:12; Prov 3:34; Prov 29:23; Prov 16:19, etc.). We are told "Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves" (Php 2:3) followed by "Have this mind among yourselves" -- humility (Php 2:5-8). Over and over, and, yet, the virtue of the day is pride, not humility. The god of this world has managed to convince us that humility is humiliation (a lie) and pride is a lofty goal. Pride was the cause of the first sin (Gen 3:5) and continues to be our primary motivation for sin. But humility is looked down on and pride is exalted.
How about love? Everyone thinks that love is a virtue ... until you look at definitions. Love once meant being concerned for the well-being and best interests of another. We've managed to shift it to warm feelings and mainly a sexual content, as if it is no possible to love someone without having sex with them. Nonsense when I put it here in print, but it appears to be the general concensus in practial living. So "love" shifts to "lust" and we've made that a primary good.
It is an interesting fact that just about everything that we recognize as sin can be viewed as not sin. Here's what I mean. Food is not sin, but gluttony is. Taking things is not sin, but stealing is. Sex as God intended it is not sin, but sex outside of marriage is. All the good things that God has provided are good right up until we take them beyond their intended purpose. We make them idols or masters or passions. We allow them to replace God in our hearts. It can be a spouse or a child, a job, a possession, an ambition ... just about anything at all. These things are not evil in and of themselves; we just make them that way when they become more than God is. Years ago someone asked me, "Do dogs go to heaven?" followed by "Because, if my dog isn't going to be in heaven, I don't want to go." More recently, a parent told me, "If my child isn't in heaven, I don't want to be there." Dogs and children are good, but when they become more important than God, they are idols. The god of this world is very adept at turning the good things of God into idols.
These are just examples. The prince of the power of the air is keen on turning that which God describes as good into that which is evil and vice versa. And even we Christians can have a hard time recognizing it. God said that He designed men to be the responsible party in a marriage (1 Cor 11:3) and we're outraged. God tells us to bear one anothers burdens (Gal 6:2) and we're lackadaisical. God commands humility and we see it as an offense. God limits our sexual expressions and we think maybe He's on "the wrong side of history." That's because we have a tricky god, and he's no friend of God. He's also no friend of those of us who wish to worship the true God. Watch out (1 Peter 5:8).
Monday, November 22, 2021
The Exam
Paul wrote to the church at Corinth,
What are we supposed to test for? "To see whether you are in the faith." Notice the definite article, "the." There is a difference between "faith" and "the faith." "Faith" simply refers to belief, confident assurance, "to be convinced." "The faith" refers to a specific body of beliefs -- the beliefs that constitute genuine Christianity. Jude uses the phrase when he writes, "I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 1:3).
Scripture speaks of faith as a gift (2 Peter 1:1; Php 1:29; Acts 3:16; Rom 12:3). Paul said, "The gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable" (Rom 11:29), so it is not possible to lose a gift from God. Clearly, then, the verse in 2nd Corinthians is not a warning about losing your faith. It's a warning about failing to remain in the faith -- the true Christian doctrine.
So, what do we know about "the faith"? We know "the faith" is the body of doctrine and practices we get from God's Word. If your version of the Christian faith differs from God's Word, I'm concerned that it might be off base. We know it is what was provided "once for all" to the saints (Jude 1:3). If you're version of the Christian faith differs from the original, you can be pretty sure there is a problem. We know that the faith is predicated on "saved by grace through faith" and not of works (Eph 2:8-9), so if your Christian faith is based on works or any other method, you are certainly in the realm of "another gospel" which is not a gospel (Gal 1:6-8) and that's a dangerous place to be (Gal 1:8-9).
We each need to examine ourselves to see if we're in the faith. Not "Do I have faith?", but "Is my theology in line with 'the faith once for all delivered to the saints'?" A little bit out of that can be harmful. Very far out of that can be spiritually fatal (if Christ Jesus is not in you). It's an important question to ask yourself.
Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Or do you not realize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?—unless indeed you fail to meet the test! (2 Cor 13:5)First, we must note the personal nature of this text. "Examine yourselves," it says. Not "Check out your neighbor" or anything like that. "Test yourselves." Not someone else.
What are we supposed to test for? "To see whether you are in the faith." Notice the definite article, "the." There is a difference between "faith" and "the faith." "Faith" simply refers to belief, confident assurance, "to be convinced." "The faith" refers to a specific body of beliefs -- the beliefs that constitute genuine Christianity. Jude uses the phrase when he writes, "I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 1:3).
Scripture speaks of faith as a gift (2 Peter 1:1; Php 1:29; Acts 3:16; Rom 12:3). Paul said, "The gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable" (Rom 11:29), so it is not possible to lose a gift from God. Clearly, then, the verse in 2nd Corinthians is not a warning about losing your faith. It's a warning about failing to remain in the faith -- the true Christian doctrine.
So, what do we know about "the faith"? We know "the faith" is the body of doctrine and practices we get from God's Word. If your version of the Christian faith differs from God's Word, I'm concerned that it might be off base. We know it is what was provided "once for all" to the saints (Jude 1:3). If you're version of the Christian faith differs from the original, you can be pretty sure there is a problem. We know that the faith is predicated on "saved by grace through faith" and not of works (Eph 2:8-9), so if your Christian faith is based on works or any other method, you are certainly in the realm of "another gospel" which is not a gospel (Gal 1:6-8) and that's a dangerous place to be (Gal 1:8-9).
We each need to examine ourselves to see if we're in the faith. Not "Do I have faith?", but "Is my theology in line with 'the faith once for all delivered to the saints'?" A little bit out of that can be harmful. Very far out of that can be spiritually fatal (if Christ Jesus is not in you). It's an important question to ask yourself.
Sunday, November 21, 2021
When My People Pray
That verse in 2nd Chronicles is easy to misuse.
Here's the thing. The text as it is commonly understood urges us to humble ourselves, pray, and seek His face, and those are good things for us. More to the point, shouldn't they be primary, basic, ongoing? Shouldn't we people whose lives are marked by this continually? If we serve our Lord Jesus Christ, shouldn't we be humble, prayerful seekers of His face.
We are God's people. We are joint heirs with Christ. We are His holy ones, His saints. Why is it that Christianity is not memorable for the humility of its adherents? Our primary leader -- Jesus Christ -- was the model of humility, and we are constantly reminded in Scripture to be humble ... like Him. How is it that we are not primarily pray-ers? Why would it be that prayer comes hard to us? "No, it doesn't," some might object, but look at the facts. Prayer meetings in churches, once a staple, have been largely discontinued ... for poor attendance. Why would we not be marked as people seeking God's face? But, we're not. We're pretty well known as the keepers of morality or the self-righteous (an actual contradiction of Christianity) or the like, but we are not best known for our devotion to all things "God." Why not?
The verse in 2nd Chronicles is easily misunderstood, but it's a good one. No, we don't get a promise we can save America if we pray. No, our forgiveness is not contingent on our humility. But if we are His people, we ought to be pursuing humility, ought to be praying, ought to be seeking His face. A good reminder, then. Direction is helpful. Conviction, too, if necessary.
If My people who are called by My name humble themselves and pray and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land" (2 Chron 7:14)"Misuse?" you may ask. Yes. The text was to Israel who had a Promised Land. We don't. "I will ... heal their land" is a promise to Israel, not us. Further, Israel was promised here that if they did what He said, "then I ... will forgive their sin," and we have a better promise. Our sin is forgiven already (Rom 6:10; Heb 10:10). If we -- believers -- fail to humble ourselves, pray, and seek His face, we're still forgiven.
Here's the thing. The text as it is commonly understood urges us to humble ourselves, pray, and seek His face, and those are good things for us. More to the point, shouldn't they be primary, basic, ongoing? Shouldn't we people whose lives are marked by this continually? If we serve our Lord Jesus Christ, shouldn't we be humble, prayerful seekers of His face.
We are God's people. We are joint heirs with Christ. We are His holy ones, His saints. Why is it that Christianity is not memorable for the humility of its adherents? Our primary leader -- Jesus Christ -- was the model of humility, and we are constantly reminded in Scripture to be humble ... like Him. How is it that we are not primarily pray-ers? Why would it be that prayer comes hard to us? "No, it doesn't," some might object, but look at the facts. Prayer meetings in churches, once a staple, have been largely discontinued ... for poor attendance. Why would we not be marked as people seeking God's face? But, we're not. We're pretty well known as the keepers of morality or the self-righteous (an actual contradiction of Christianity) or the like, but we are not best known for our devotion to all things "God." Why not?
The verse in 2nd Chronicles is easily misunderstood, but it's a good one. No, we don't get a promise we can save America if we pray. No, our forgiveness is not contingent on our humility. But if we are His people, we ought to be pursuing humility, ought to be praying, ought to be seeking His face. A good reminder, then. Direction is helpful. Conviction, too, if necessary.
Saturday, November 20, 2021
News Weakly - 11/20/21
Big Enough
Former presidential candidate Beto O'Rourke has decided to run for governor of Texas. "Together," he says, "we can push past the small and divisive politics ... and get back to a big, bold vision ... A Texas big enough for all of us." All of us unless you're a gun owner, not inclined to get vaccinated, make your money from oil, or anything else he doesn't approve. So ... small ... a small Texas will work.
The Devil You Say
Reuters has a story on the upcoming hearing on multiple lawsuits filed against OSHA's vaccine mandate for employers of more than 100 people. All well and good. We'll see how that comes out. The bias in the story is interesting, though. In the story it says, "There are 13 federal appeals courts and the rule has been challenged in at least 10 of them by business groups, Republican-led states, employers and unions." (Emphasis mine.) Now, according to Business Insider, more than half the states are suing and "three Democrat-led states are among the 26." And Forbes offered a story declaring, "Here are the GOP-led states fighting the Biden Administration." Time also offers just "Republican-led states." There are plenty of voices declaring opposition to the mandate to be "Republican" and "political" as if there are no other reasons. That, dear reader, is what we call a lie. Now, who was it that said, "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."?
New Math
It just doesn't add up. In all nations around the world more and more people are getting vaccinated for COVID or even have had it. If the "math" is right, that should mean less people available to get COVID. But after the vaccinations took off at the beginning of 2020, a surge cranked out more COVID cases. Now, as we edge up above the 70% vaccinated range, Dr. Fauci is warning, as case rates are rising again even among the vaccinated, that we may see a "double whammy" affecting "even the vaccinated people." Now, hang on! I thought this vaccine was our salvation. I thought that the only real threat was the unvaccinated. I thought ... okay, I suppose I didn't. The math isn't adding up. Vaccinations at an all-time high and surging COVID even among the vaccinated do not add up to a good solution. What they do add up to is someone is lying to us.
Unjust
Why do we bother anymore? Why even try? When the judge in the Ahmaud Arbery trial allowed a nearly all white jury, the public was assured there would be no fair trial. White people cannot give fair rulings. Now Time is reporting that Biden may lose his vaccine mandate because the case will be heard by "the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, where a majority of the justices have been appointed by Republican presidents." And everyone knows you can't expect Republican-appointed judges to give a fair ruling. These days politics and polemics rule even the courts and, it seems, we all believe that the court will rule by its bias rather than by law. So why bother? If "No justice, no peace" is a real thing and we can expect no real justice, it doesn't look good for our future.
Strange Standards
In this world where "same-sex" can be an adjective for "marriage" and women should have the right to kill babies if it means they can have sex whenever they want and using the wrong pronouns can be a jailable offense, we find this objection. An assistant professor at Old Dominion University used the term "minor-attracted persons" to suggest that we shouldn't stigmatize adults who are sexually attracted to children. "Pedophile," you see, is an insult. The school distanced themselves from the (transexual) professor and people are miffed because that kind of sexual deviation* is protected and ought to be embraced, but this kind is evil and wrong. I want to know who is making the standards.
*Groan all you want about my use of the term "sexual deviation," but you know that "same-sex attraction" is by far not the statistical norm. That is, it is undoubtedly a deviation from the norm.
Don't Bother Me With Facts
A Florida teacher died of COVID after her husband sued the hospital to treat her with ivermectin. They refused. Ivermectin, as we all know, has no effect on COVID. It is misinformation that has produced some interest in using the drug to treat COVID. In 2015 the Nobel Committee for Physiology or Medicine awarded the prize to the discoverers of ivermectin for treating some of the most devastating tropical diseases. In March of 2020, researchers tracked patients treated with ivermectin for COVID. "Six of seven meta-analyses of IVM treatment RCTs reporting in 2021 found notable reductions in COVID-19 fatalities." The researchers believed "that the evidence to date supports the worldwide extension of IVM treatments for COVID-19, complementary to immunizations." But, look, if we're not going to listen to science, neither should science listen to science.
Making No Sense
So, in light of the court putting OSHA's "Employers over 100 employees" vaccination rule on hold, OSHA is suspending enforcement pending the next ruling (which was what the court required). But employment attorneys are recommending complying immediately just in case. In effect, then, the court will have nothing to rule on because the deed will be done. Nicely played, employment attorneys. "Non-compliance is not an option ... even if the court rules otherwise."
Good News!
Well, it's not a surprise, I suppose, but this just in from the media. The Democrats have approved another $1.75 trillion to throw at our problems. The CBO (Congressional Budget Office) says it's going to cost us all in taxes, inflation, national debt ... you name it. (And by "all" I include future generations. (The White House told Democcrats, "Just ignore them; they don't know what they're talking about.") The government is promising that all the people and corporations that pay people to work will be losing more money for this, and you know that won't hurt anyone in the bottom rungs, right? Given the current price increases for everyday things, no, that's not right. This won't be good.
The Cost of Believing in Science
According to People magazine, J.K. Rowling, the author of the Harry Potter series, has not been invited to take part in a Harry Potter reunion. Why? She believes that males and females are different. Nice. Canceled for believing the science.
Bee Low
We had some interesting news this week from the Babylon Bee. One headline read, "Fauci: 'Individual Rights Are Not As Important As The Needs Of The Borg Collective'," but you'd have to be a fan of Star Trek to get that. Another stated, "Kyle Rittenhouse Asked To Step Outside And Defend The Courthouse While Verdict Is Being Read," but that only works if you're up on the Kyle Rittenhouse case. I laughed at this one, too. The Babylon Bee reported that Kenosha residents were painting their doorposts with "Black Lives Matter" in preparation for the verdict. I guess you'd have to know about the original Passover to get that (Exo 12:22). Maybe it has been a more specialized news week?
Former presidential candidate Beto O'Rourke has decided to run for governor of Texas. "Together," he says, "we can push past the small and divisive politics ... and get back to a big, bold vision ... A Texas big enough for all of us." All of us unless you're a gun owner, not inclined to get vaccinated, make your money from oil, or anything else he doesn't approve. So ... small ... a small Texas will work.
The Devil You Say
Reuters has a story on the upcoming hearing on multiple lawsuits filed against OSHA's vaccine mandate for employers of more than 100 people. All well and good. We'll see how that comes out. The bias in the story is interesting, though. In the story it says, "There are 13 federal appeals courts and the rule has been challenged in at least 10 of them by business groups, Republican-led states, employers and unions." (Emphasis mine.) Now, according to Business Insider, more than half the states are suing and "three Democrat-led states are among the 26." And Forbes offered a story declaring, "Here are the GOP-led states fighting the Biden Administration." Time also offers just "Republican-led states." There are plenty of voices declaring opposition to the mandate to be "Republican" and "political" as if there are no other reasons. That, dear reader, is what we call a lie. Now, who was it that said, "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."?
New Math
It just doesn't add up. In all nations around the world more and more people are getting vaccinated for COVID or even have had it. If the "math" is right, that should mean less people available to get COVID. But after the vaccinations took off at the beginning of 2020, a surge cranked out more COVID cases. Now, as we edge up above the 70% vaccinated range, Dr. Fauci is warning, as case rates are rising again even among the vaccinated, that we may see a "double whammy" affecting "even the vaccinated people." Now, hang on! I thought this vaccine was our salvation. I thought that the only real threat was the unvaccinated. I thought ... okay, I suppose I didn't. The math isn't adding up. Vaccinations at an all-time high and surging COVID even among the vaccinated do not add up to a good solution. What they do add up to is someone is lying to us.
Unjust
Why do we bother anymore? Why even try? When the judge in the Ahmaud Arbery trial allowed a nearly all white jury, the public was assured there would be no fair trial. White people cannot give fair rulings. Now Time is reporting that Biden may lose his vaccine mandate because the case will be heard by "the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, where a majority of the justices have been appointed by Republican presidents." And everyone knows you can't expect Republican-appointed judges to give a fair ruling. These days politics and polemics rule even the courts and, it seems, we all believe that the court will rule by its bias rather than by law. So why bother? If "No justice, no peace" is a real thing and we can expect no real justice, it doesn't look good for our future.
Strange Standards
In this world where "same-sex" can be an adjective for "marriage" and women should have the right to kill babies if it means they can have sex whenever they want and using the wrong pronouns can be a jailable offense, we find this objection. An assistant professor at Old Dominion University used the term "minor-attracted persons" to suggest that we shouldn't stigmatize adults who are sexually attracted to children. "Pedophile," you see, is an insult. The school distanced themselves from the (transexual) professor and people are miffed because that kind of sexual deviation* is protected and ought to be embraced, but this kind is evil and wrong. I want to know who is making the standards.
*Groan all you want about my use of the term "sexual deviation," but you know that "same-sex attraction" is by far not the statistical norm. That is, it is undoubtedly a deviation from the norm.
Don't Bother Me With Facts
A Florida teacher died of COVID after her husband sued the hospital to treat her with ivermectin. They refused. Ivermectin, as we all know, has no effect on COVID. It is misinformation that has produced some interest in using the drug to treat COVID. In 2015 the Nobel Committee for Physiology or Medicine awarded the prize to the discoverers of ivermectin for treating some of the most devastating tropical diseases. In March of 2020, researchers tracked patients treated with ivermectin for COVID. "Six of seven meta-analyses of IVM treatment RCTs reporting in 2021 found notable reductions in COVID-19 fatalities." The researchers believed "that the evidence to date supports the worldwide extension of IVM treatments for COVID-19, complementary to immunizations." But, look, if we're not going to listen to science, neither should science listen to science.
Making No Sense
So, in light of the court putting OSHA's "Employers over 100 employees" vaccination rule on hold, OSHA is suspending enforcement pending the next ruling (which was what the court required). But employment attorneys are recommending complying immediately just in case. In effect, then, the court will have nothing to rule on because the deed will be done. Nicely played, employment attorneys. "Non-compliance is not an option ... even if the court rules otherwise."
Good News!
Well, it's not a surprise, I suppose, but this just in from the media. The Democrats have approved another $1.75 trillion to throw at our problems. The CBO (Congressional Budget Office) says it's going to cost us all in taxes, inflation, national debt ... you name it. (And by "all" I include future generations. (The White House told Democcrats, "Just ignore them; they don't know what they're talking about.") The government is promising that all the people and corporations that pay people to work will be losing more money for this, and you know that won't hurt anyone in the bottom rungs, right? Given the current price increases for everyday things, no, that's not right. This won't be good.
The Cost of Believing in Science
According to People magazine, J.K. Rowling, the author of the Harry Potter series, has not been invited to take part in a Harry Potter reunion. Why? She believes that males and females are different. Nice. Canceled for believing the science.
Bee Low
We had some interesting news this week from the Babylon Bee. One headline read, "Fauci: 'Individual Rights Are Not As Important As The Needs Of The Borg Collective'," but you'd have to be a fan of Star Trek to get that. Another stated, "Kyle Rittenhouse Asked To Step Outside And Defend The Courthouse While Verdict Is Being Read," but that only works if you're up on the Kyle Rittenhouse case. I laughed at this one, too. The Babylon Bee reported that Kenosha residents were painting their doorposts with "Black Lives Matter" in preparation for the verdict. I guess you'd have to know about the original Passover to get that (Exo 12:22). Maybe it has been a more specialized news week?
Friday, November 19, 2021
Building a Church
Overheard at church. "So, where is your daughter going to church now?" "Oh, they chose a bigger church. That way they don't feel any pressure to get involved with ministry or anything." Barna is reporting that something like 1/3 of those who attended worship in person quit during COVID restrictions and haven't returned, even to the electronic version. Gallup has tracked church attendance since the late 1930's. They report that up until 1999 it remained around 70%. At the turn of the century it started declining and, in 2020, it dropped to 47% -- the lowest ever.
Concerned Christians everywhere might wonder what they need to do to bring people in again. In 2017 Gallup reported that the thing that appeals most to churchgoers was good sermons. But you can get good sermons online and people are dropping out at church and online. If church is treated like most other things, most people will do at least a kind of cost-benefit analysis. "What does it cost us to go versus what do we get out of it." And apparently it costs (in some sense or another) more to go than what (whatever that might be) they get out of it. So what are concerned Christians to do?
I think the problem is elsewhere. I think the difficulty is that we no longer have a clue about what church is for. "I don't want to feel any pressure to get involved" misses the point entirely. "Good sermons" are a good thing, but that, too, misses the point entirely. "What I get out of it" is the wrong question. The fact that we don't see that says that we don't understand church.
The Bible describes the church as "the Body of Christ" (1 Cor 12:27; Eph 4:12). We often speak of those in our church as "family." "What I get out of it" doesn't seem to factor into these kinds of images. Not getting involved doesn't make any sense if church is a body, a family. Paul describes the church as an actual body with many members (1 Cor 12:12) where each of us is important and each of us plays a critical role and the body cannot afford to lose any of those inputs (1 Cor 12:14-25). The primary aim of this body is to glorify God and to edify each other (Eph 4:12). Indeed, John argues that love of fellow believers is the central, essential mark of a Christian (1 John 4:21). If we do not love God's people, we do not know God (1 John 4:7-8). And church is designed to be a place to exercise that love. "Everyone who loves the Father," John writes, "loves whoever has been born of Him" (1 John 5:1). If we're just not that keen on loving other believers, John is suggesting we're not too keen on loving the Father. The two are irrevocably linked.
Church is more about "what I get out of it." It is more than "attractional ministry" -- "What draws me in?" It is more than good preaching and good presentation and good programs. The church is designed to be the Body of Christ, the family of God. Both are a dynamic interrelationship that is hard to fathom. Neither of these two images can successfully operate when their composing parts don't connect. We need to see a more robust image of what God intended the church to be and we need to participate in building what we have toward that .. starting with ourselves.
Concerned Christians everywhere might wonder what they need to do to bring people in again. In 2017 Gallup reported that the thing that appeals most to churchgoers was good sermons. But you can get good sermons online and people are dropping out at church and online. If church is treated like most other things, most people will do at least a kind of cost-benefit analysis. "What does it cost us to go versus what do we get out of it." And apparently it costs (in some sense or another) more to go than what (whatever that might be) they get out of it. So what are concerned Christians to do?
I think the problem is elsewhere. I think the difficulty is that we no longer have a clue about what church is for. "I don't want to feel any pressure to get involved" misses the point entirely. "Good sermons" are a good thing, but that, too, misses the point entirely. "What I get out of it" is the wrong question. The fact that we don't see that says that we don't understand church.
The Bible describes the church as "the Body of Christ" (1 Cor 12:27; Eph 4:12). We often speak of those in our church as "family." "What I get out of it" doesn't seem to factor into these kinds of images. Not getting involved doesn't make any sense if church is a body, a family. Paul describes the church as an actual body with many members (1 Cor 12:12) where each of us is important and each of us plays a critical role and the body cannot afford to lose any of those inputs (1 Cor 12:14-25). The primary aim of this body is to glorify God and to edify each other (Eph 4:12). Indeed, John argues that love of fellow believers is the central, essential mark of a Christian (1 John 4:21). If we do not love God's people, we do not know God (1 John 4:7-8). And church is designed to be a place to exercise that love. "Everyone who loves the Father," John writes, "loves whoever has been born of Him" (1 John 5:1). If we're just not that keen on loving other believers, John is suggesting we're not too keen on loving the Father. The two are irrevocably linked.
Church is more about "what I get out of it." It is more than "attractional ministry" -- "What draws me in?" It is more than good preaching and good presentation and good programs. The church is designed to be the Body of Christ, the family of God. Both are a dynamic interrelationship that is hard to fathom. Neither of these two images can successfully operate when their composing parts don't connect. We need to see a more robust image of what God intended the church to be and we need to participate in building what we have toward that .. starting with ourselves.
Thursday, November 18, 2021
We Pledge
Let's face it. America stinks. I mean, look at the (current) history reports. All of our Founding Fathers were racist, white supremacist, sexist scum. White people came to this country to kill Native Americans and enslave black people. We are the grand Imperialists, the rich, white nation ... we are evil at the core. At least, that's what they're telling us ... while they assure us they love this nation. While voices call for the end of America in its entirety, we silence those who call for traditional American values. Because America, at its core, is rotten.
During World War II, America sent her men and women to war. Americans at home willingly sacrificed for defending freedom in Europe and protecting America from Japanese aggression. Mothers went to work. Fathers went to war. People sacrificed. Historians estimate that 420,000 Americans died in that war. But Americans thought that freedom was worth it. Something changed after that. We grudginly sent troops to defend South Korea against North Korean incursion and some 54,000 Americans died. But, we tolerated it. The subsequent generation, however, would have none of the same in Vietnam. Those that went to southeast Asia to stop the spread of Communism were labeled "baby killers." We wouldn't tolerate sacrifice for the freedom of others, and America tucked her tail and ran. Freedom was no longer worth the price.
The Founding Fathers considered human rights to be a divine right. They stood up to an overwhelming force and declared independence. They said, "For the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor." Today's society belittles them, erasing them from public view. We know better now. We know that freedom isn't worth the paper it's printed on. We know that the Bill of Rights is an outdated document. They pledged their lives, fortunes, and honor in defense of mutual freedom. The rise of individual over community has given us the attitude, "I'll pry my freedoms from your cold, dead fingers." But I think that the real difference between those who sacrificed for the freedom of others and our society today is found in that first phrase. They had "a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence." If you have reliance on the Divine, sacrifice comes much easier. Not for us. We've evicted the Divine. Now all we have us our own selves. We've built a scary world.
During World War II, America sent her men and women to war. Americans at home willingly sacrificed for defending freedom in Europe and protecting America from Japanese aggression. Mothers went to work. Fathers went to war. People sacrificed. Historians estimate that 420,000 Americans died in that war. But Americans thought that freedom was worth it. Something changed after that. We grudginly sent troops to defend South Korea against North Korean incursion and some 54,000 Americans died. But, we tolerated it. The subsequent generation, however, would have none of the same in Vietnam. Those that went to southeast Asia to stop the spread of Communism were labeled "baby killers." We wouldn't tolerate sacrifice for the freedom of others, and America tucked her tail and ran. Freedom was no longer worth the price.
The Founding Fathers considered human rights to be a divine right. They stood up to an overwhelming force and declared independence. They said, "For the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor." Today's society belittles them, erasing them from public view. We know better now. We know that freedom isn't worth the paper it's printed on. We know that the Bill of Rights is an outdated document. They pledged their lives, fortunes, and honor in defense of mutual freedom. The rise of individual over community has given us the attitude, "I'll pry my freedoms from your cold, dead fingers." But I think that the real difference between those who sacrificed for the freedom of others and our society today is found in that first phrase. They had "a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence." If you have reliance on the Divine, sacrifice comes much easier. Not for us. We've evicted the Divine. Now all we have us our own selves. We've built a scary world.
Wednesday, November 17, 2021
In the Broadest Sense
When I read Scripture, I'm finding it interesting to take the long view, so to speak. We are fairly comfortable with the "read a chapter" kind of approach. I think we're missing a lot when we do that. You may not know this, but chapter and verse distinctions are not the inspired Word of God. As such, there are ... errors, so to speak.
Take, for instance, the first 4 chapters of 1 Corinthians. Paul gives an intro (1 Cor 1:1-9) and then launches into his first topic -- division in the church. Paul covers that topic for 4 chapters. The breaks at the beginnings of chapter 2 and chapter 3 and chapter 4 are artificial. If you read chapter 1 and stop, you're only at the beginning of Paul's address to the church at Corinth regarding divisions in the church at Corinth. "Hold that thought," you are saying in essence. "We can pick this up tomorrow." Who does that?
A similar situation occurs starting at chapter 8. Paul talks from chapter 8 and following on the topic of our freedom in Christ -- the doctrine we call "Christian Liberty." All well and good. But he doesn't stop at the chapter break at 9. In chapter 8 he says not to abuse your freedom because you may cause a weaker brother to stumble. In chapter 9 he uses himself as a prime example. "Am I not an apostle?" he asks (1 Cor 9:1), goes on to list all the things that apostles have the right to expect, and then explains that he hasn't claimed those rights. He surrendered his freedoms as an apostle to bring them the gospel without charge (1 Cor 9:18). Okay, then, we're done, right? No. In chapter 10 he does not change subjects. He uses the example of Israel in the desert to warn his readers about the other danger of Christian Liberty. Before, he warned that we could harm others by exercising our liberty. Now he warns that we could harm ourselves by exercising our liberty. It's too easy, walking too close to sin, to fall into it. "Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry," he says (1 Cor 10:14). He ends the chapter with the round up, so to speak. On the topic of Christian Liberty, here's the fundamental guideline: "Whatever you do, do all to the glory of God" (1 Cor 10:31).
There. That's the end of that, right? If we're guided by chapter breaks, it would seem so. But, chapter 11 begins with "Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ" (1 Cor 11:1). Chapter 11 verse 2 begins with "now," a word that seems to indicate "moving to the next topic." And that first verse seems most naturally and correctly associated with the last thoughts of chapter 10. Here, you read it.
What's my point? I am urging you not to read a verse. I'm urging you to read a text. I'm urging you to read a verse, its subtext, its context, its entire surroundings. I'm encouraging you to be a rabid consumer of Scripture. A while back I taught on the Gospel of John. The group opted next to go on to 1 John. While we were there, we just went on to cover 2 John and 3 John. Now, I've read all of that more times than I can count, but never before had I recognized the continuity. John wrote the gospel and it spilled into his other writings over and over. Key things he picked up in his experiences with Jesus colored everything else and he repeated them often, sometimes word for word. My point is that if I simply did what I was used to -- read a bit and move on -- I would have missed the broader context ... which has a broader context in the rest of the New Testament ... which has a broader context in the Bible as a whole. That's what I'm hoping you'll see and try. Don't minimize your reading and studying. Broaden it. See how it all fits together. Let God's Word teach you God's Word. Let Scripture interpret Scripture. See it as a whole. I think it will be of great benefit to you and others.
Take, for instance, the first 4 chapters of 1 Corinthians. Paul gives an intro (1 Cor 1:1-9) and then launches into his first topic -- division in the church. Paul covers that topic for 4 chapters. The breaks at the beginnings of chapter 2 and chapter 3 and chapter 4 are artificial. If you read chapter 1 and stop, you're only at the beginning of Paul's address to the church at Corinth regarding divisions in the church at Corinth. "Hold that thought," you are saying in essence. "We can pick this up tomorrow." Who does that?
A similar situation occurs starting at chapter 8. Paul talks from chapter 8 and following on the topic of our freedom in Christ -- the doctrine we call "Christian Liberty." All well and good. But he doesn't stop at the chapter break at 9. In chapter 8 he says not to abuse your freedom because you may cause a weaker brother to stumble. In chapter 9 he uses himself as a prime example. "Am I not an apostle?" he asks (1 Cor 9:1), goes on to list all the things that apostles have the right to expect, and then explains that he hasn't claimed those rights. He surrendered his freedoms as an apostle to bring them the gospel without charge (1 Cor 9:18). Okay, then, we're done, right? No. In chapter 10 he does not change subjects. He uses the example of Israel in the desert to warn his readers about the other danger of Christian Liberty. Before, he warned that we could harm others by exercising our liberty. Now he warns that we could harm ourselves by exercising our liberty. It's too easy, walking too close to sin, to fall into it. "Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry," he says (1 Cor 10:14). He ends the chapter with the round up, so to speak. On the topic of Christian Liberty, here's the fundamental guideline: "Whatever you do, do all to the glory of God" (1 Cor 10:31).
There. That's the end of that, right? If we're guided by chapter breaks, it would seem so. But, chapter 11 begins with "Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ" (1 Cor 11:1). Chapter 11 verse 2 begins with "now," a word that seems to indicate "moving to the next topic." And that first verse seems most naturally and correctly associated with the last thoughts of chapter 10. Here, you read it.
So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God, just as I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved. Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ. (1 Cor 10:31-33, 11:1)Is that not the most natural reading of the text? "In everything you do, glorify God. Don't offend anyone, just as I try to please everyone in everything I do, that they may be saved. Follow my example as I follow Christ." That makes the most sense to me.
What's my point? I am urging you not to read a verse. I'm urging you to read a text. I'm urging you to read a verse, its subtext, its context, its entire surroundings. I'm encouraging you to be a rabid consumer of Scripture. A while back I taught on the Gospel of John. The group opted next to go on to 1 John. While we were there, we just went on to cover 2 John and 3 John. Now, I've read all of that more times than I can count, but never before had I recognized the continuity. John wrote the gospel and it spilled into his other writings over and over. Key things he picked up in his experiences with Jesus colored everything else and he repeated them often, sometimes word for word. My point is that if I simply did what I was used to -- read a bit and move on -- I would have missed the broader context ... which has a broader context in the rest of the New Testament ... which has a broader context in the Bible as a whole. That's what I'm hoping you'll see and try. Don't minimize your reading and studying. Broaden it. See how it all fits together. Let God's Word teach you God's Word. Let Scripture interpret Scripture. See it as a whole. I think it will be of great benefit to you and others.
Tuesday, November 16, 2021
Make a Difference
I'm sure it's familiar to you. I'm sure you even know the common term: "The Great Commission."
The premise of the Great Commission is the Risen Lord Jesus. "Because all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me ...," He says. "On that basis, do this." Do what? There is only one actual command in this commission: "make disciples." All the other verbs are simply modifiers to that command. There is "go" and "baptize" and "teach" that modify "make disciples," but the singular command is μαθητεύω -- mathēteuō -- to be or make a disciple of one. In this case it is clearly to make (as opposed to "to be") disciples since the rest of the context of the command points out, not in -- going, baptizing, teaching. So our prime directive here is to make others into disciples "of one." Of whom? Not you and me; of Christ. How do we know that? Again, it's in the context. Teaching them "to observe all that I have commanded you." Make them disciples of Christ. Make them followers of Christ. Most literally, make them learners of Christ. Note that it doesn't say, "Make converts." It doesn't say simply, "Lead them to Jesus." It says to make them followers -- disciples.
The command is clarified. Where do we do this? As you are going. Wherever you go. Clearly not just in your home or your neighborhood (by which I mean you do indeed do it there -- just not only there). Go. Maybe you're going yourself; maybe you're sending. But the "where" is extensive.
What is a disciple? First, a follower of Christ is baptized -- baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. "You mean, use those names?" No. We've discussed this before. "In the name of" doesn't mean "using that name." There are no examples in the New Testament of anyone ever baptizing someone "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." It was always "in the name of Jesus" (Acts 2:38; Acts 8:16; Acts 10:48; Acts 10:48; Acts 19:5). More accurately it means to baptize "into" the name. And "the name" means more at "the character." So it is "Immerse them into the character of our Trinitarian God -- into all that He is." That would be a physical and a spiritual baptism. Second, a disciple is taught -- taught not only all what Christ commanded, but taught to obey all that Christ commanded. And if John was accurate -- Jesus was "the Word" (John 1:1) -- then we're talking about all of Scripture; not just the red letters.
Perhaps you can begin see the immensity of this commission. Everywhere you go. Not merely converts. Immerse them into God. Teach them to know and keep the Word. Rinse and repeat. Teach them to make disciples. Continue to immerse them into God. Continue to teach ... it just keeps going. You can see why one pastor told me, "It's just too much work." And, yet ...
Jesus said why. "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me." And Jesus said how. "I am with you always, to the end of the age." So, no, it's not a lark, a game, a breeze. It's a lot of work. But it is a command from the highest authority and it is supported by the present Lord Jesus. It's a sure thing.
So, my question is "How is that going for you?" Are you making disciples? Are you being discipled? What's keeping you from it? If it's fear or laziness or false humility, it's time to move on. It is, after all, the Great Commission. Not just some downstream recommendation. And remember, "Whoever says he abides in Him ought to walk in the same way in which He walked" (1 John 2:6). That, dear readers, is one of the ways we can know we are in Him (1 John 2:5). Make a difference. Be a disciple. Make disciples. It's not about you, your knowledge, your skills, your abilities. It's about Him.
And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age." (Matt 28:18-20)We recognize it as the Great Commission, so why don't we practice it?
The premise of the Great Commission is the Risen Lord Jesus. "Because all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me ...," He says. "On that basis, do this." Do what? There is only one actual command in this commission: "make disciples." All the other verbs are simply modifiers to that command. There is "go" and "baptize" and "teach" that modify "make disciples," but the singular command is μαθητεύω -- mathēteuō -- to be or make a disciple of one. In this case it is clearly to make (as opposed to "to be") disciples since the rest of the context of the command points out, not in -- going, baptizing, teaching. So our prime directive here is to make others into disciples "of one." Of whom? Not you and me; of Christ. How do we know that? Again, it's in the context. Teaching them "to observe all that I have commanded you." Make them disciples of Christ. Make them followers of Christ. Most literally, make them learners of Christ. Note that it doesn't say, "Make converts." It doesn't say simply, "Lead them to Jesus." It says to make them followers -- disciples.
The command is clarified. Where do we do this? As you are going. Wherever you go. Clearly not just in your home or your neighborhood (by which I mean you do indeed do it there -- just not only there). Go. Maybe you're going yourself; maybe you're sending. But the "where" is extensive.
What is a disciple? First, a follower of Christ is baptized -- baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. "You mean, use those names?" No. We've discussed this before. "In the name of" doesn't mean "using that name." There are no examples in the New Testament of anyone ever baptizing someone "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." It was always "in the name of Jesus" (Acts 2:38; Acts 8:16; Acts 10:48; Acts 10:48; Acts 19:5). More accurately it means to baptize "into" the name. And "the name" means more at "the character." So it is "Immerse them into the character of our Trinitarian God -- into all that He is." That would be a physical and a spiritual baptism. Second, a disciple is taught -- taught not only all what Christ commanded, but taught to obey all that Christ commanded. And if John was accurate -- Jesus was "the Word" (John 1:1) -- then we're talking about all of Scripture; not just the red letters.
Perhaps you can begin see the immensity of this commission. Everywhere you go. Not merely converts. Immerse them into God. Teach them to know and keep the Word. Rinse and repeat. Teach them to make disciples. Continue to immerse them into God. Continue to teach ... it just keeps going. You can see why one pastor told me, "It's just too much work." And, yet ...
Jesus said why. "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me." And Jesus said how. "I am with you always, to the end of the age." So, no, it's not a lark, a game, a breeze. It's a lot of work. But it is a command from the highest authority and it is supported by the present Lord Jesus. It's a sure thing.
So, my question is "How is that going for you?" Are you making disciples? Are you being discipled? What's keeping you from it? If it's fear or laziness or false humility, it's time to move on. It is, after all, the Great Commission. Not just some downstream recommendation. And remember, "Whoever says he abides in Him ought to walk in the same way in which He walked" (1 John 2:6). That, dear readers, is one of the ways we can know we are in Him (1 John 2:5). Make a difference. Be a disciple. Make disciples. It's not about you, your knowledge, your skills, your abilities. It's about Him.
Monday, November 15, 2021
Danger, Will Robinson
In 2001, America got smacked ... hard. More than 3,000 people died in a multifaceted attack from Islamic terrorists. They took our own aircraft and flew them into buildings. Terrorism won that round; we were terrified. So, in the name of safety, we surrendered liberty. No, not all liberty, but neither was it an insignificant amount. New agencies sprung into existence. Long lines and travel restrictions at airports became the norm. The TSA assumed greater authority and prominence. People faced arrest and detention with much less protection if they fell in the "possible terrorist" category. "No fly lists" and other measures sprung into place. Clearly there were mistakes, like citizens who were never a threat might have ended up on a "no fly list" or that kind of thing. But, we were ever reminded that safety was paramount and, as such, personal freedoms took a lower place.
That was 20 years ago now, and we haven't had a serious terrorist event since. Success! But the effect wasn't just against terrorism. As we've seen in the last nearly two years, Americans are still willing, nay, eager to surrender freedoms for safety. COVID-19 vastly supplanted our terrorist concerns. We willingly locked ourselves in our homes, lost our jobs, closed our businesses, and endured other hardships because of COVID! "We're all going to die!" was not an uncommon cry. America once again surrendered freedom for safety, and it has not been without cost. Government overreach, in the name of safety, killed unknown numbers of people who, fearing the pandemic, neglected getting life-saving treatment for fear of a pandemic. Suicides, drug overdoses, cancer deaths ... all increased from our "safety measures." But it didn't matter. We feel safer.
Now we have vaccine mandates. It cannot be argued that this is not a violation of personal rights. No one is arguing that. They're arguing, "We must surrender our right to determining what is done to our bodies in favor of safety." Again. But with gusto. Some voices are clamoring for removing the unvaccinated from medical care, from employment, from access to food and clothing and other basic needs. That is, the rights we're willing to surrender are growing if we can just achieve safety!
"Yeah? So what? We'll get past this crisis and move on." I wonder. We have already acclimated ourselves to "The premise of the American dream -- freedom -- is far less important than ... most rights." We've imbibed the Kool-Aid and we're fine with it. Terror wins again. So now comes the Health Department (generic, not specific) with the next crisis. For instance, "Racism is a public health crisis." "Oh, no! We have another safety issue! Time to impose new rules for your safety." Inequity is a danger to health. Therefore, you folks with more health care than others will need to surrender yours to share with others. You may think you have a right to whatever health care you can buy, but think again. In the name of safety, you'll need to surrender that freedom and lower your expectations. Oh, no? On what grounds would you say no? We've already decided that safety is more important than personal freedom and now the powers that be are sure that racism is a matter of health safety, so ...
For all time, the question for any society has been, "Who gets to decide what's right, what's moral?" In a religious society, the dominant religion did. In a secular society, other means are used. In a totalitarian society, the government does it. In America, it's not easy to say. Clearly religion is out. Science isn't very helpful in determining moral questions. Since "harm" is considered a valid method of deciding what is moral, safety would likely be considered a good way. If it's unsafe, it's immoral, right? But that's an extremely squishy line. Cigarettes are unsafe. Ban them? What about Twinkies? Maybe. We understand the term "safe sex," but have opted not to address the legality or freedom of "unsafe sex." And so on. Today, then, if safety is our best determination of moral, the question becomes "Who gets to decide what's unsafe?" Because that will determine what's moral and that will determine our laws and that will determine just how much (or little) freedom you end up with. Beware! Safety can be a harsh task master. It depends on who gets to decide. But your freedoms are not a consideration.
That was 20 years ago now, and we haven't had a serious terrorist event since. Success! But the effect wasn't just against terrorism. As we've seen in the last nearly two years, Americans are still willing, nay, eager to surrender freedoms for safety. COVID-19 vastly supplanted our terrorist concerns. We willingly locked ourselves in our homes, lost our jobs, closed our businesses, and endured other hardships because of COVID! "We're all going to die!" was not an uncommon cry. America once again surrendered freedom for safety, and it has not been without cost. Government overreach, in the name of safety, killed unknown numbers of people who, fearing the pandemic, neglected getting life-saving treatment for fear of a pandemic. Suicides, drug overdoses, cancer deaths ... all increased from our "safety measures." But it didn't matter. We feel safer.
Now we have vaccine mandates. It cannot be argued that this is not a violation of personal rights. No one is arguing that. They're arguing, "We must surrender our right to determining what is done to our bodies in favor of safety." Again. But with gusto. Some voices are clamoring for removing the unvaccinated from medical care, from employment, from access to food and clothing and other basic needs. That is, the rights we're willing to surrender are growing if we can just achieve safety!
"Yeah? So what? We'll get past this crisis and move on." I wonder. We have already acclimated ourselves to "The premise of the American dream -- freedom -- is far less important than ... most rights." We've imbibed the Kool-Aid and we're fine with it. Terror wins again. So now comes the Health Department (generic, not specific) with the next crisis. For instance, "Racism is a public health crisis." "Oh, no! We have another safety issue! Time to impose new rules for your safety." Inequity is a danger to health. Therefore, you folks with more health care than others will need to surrender yours to share with others. You may think you have a right to whatever health care you can buy, but think again. In the name of safety, you'll need to surrender that freedom and lower your expectations. Oh, no? On what grounds would you say no? We've already decided that safety is more important than personal freedom and now the powers that be are sure that racism is a matter of health safety, so ...
For all time, the question for any society has been, "Who gets to decide what's right, what's moral?" In a religious society, the dominant religion did. In a secular society, other means are used. In a totalitarian society, the government does it. In America, it's not easy to say. Clearly religion is out. Science isn't very helpful in determining moral questions. Since "harm" is considered a valid method of deciding what is moral, safety would likely be considered a good way. If it's unsafe, it's immoral, right? But that's an extremely squishy line. Cigarettes are unsafe. Ban them? What about Twinkies? Maybe. We understand the term "safe sex," but have opted not to address the legality or freedom of "unsafe sex." And so on. Today, then, if safety is our best determination of moral, the question becomes "Who gets to decide what's unsafe?" Because that will determine what's moral and that will determine our laws and that will determine just how much (or little) freedom you end up with. Beware! Safety can be a harsh task master. It depends on who gets to decide. But your freedoms are not a consideration.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)