News Weakly - 6/4/22

Clearly a Lie
Everyone knows that the Democratic Party is the party that supports black people, so this story can't be true. They say the White House is experiencing a "blaxit" (their term) where black White House staff are leaving in droves (or cars or whatever other transportation they can find). Complaining about "little support," 21+ have left or are leaving. It looks like the inverse of diversification. (I loved the line, "around 14% of current White House staffers identify as Black" like that's possible?)

More Mass Shootings
It feels, from the news cycle, that we're experiencing a "mass shooting" pandemic. They're everywhere. In South Carolina 10 people were "wounded in a mass shooting," one of 14 over the three day weekend. Oh, wait. Let's see. "Mass shooting." The definition varies, but it is typically "three or four deaths minimum." The federal government says at least four deaths. By that definition, there were no mass shootings over the holiday weekend. But, hey, there's no agenda here, right? No one is leading you on, right? You're certainly not gullible enough to buy all this "so many mass shootings!!!" nonsense ... right? Or, maybe they identify as mass shootings, so ...

What Could Go Wrong?
Canada, like so many other countries today, has a drug problem -- meth, opioids, cocaine, that sort of thing. So they're going to try a new tactic. They're going to temporarily decriminalize the possession of these drugs to destigmatize and allow them to approach law enforcement for help. Just for 3 years. Since people are basically good and don't want to be addicted to drugs, this should fix the problem ... right? I mean, what could go wrong?

And Why Not?
A California state court judge has ruled that bees can be legally classified as fish. The reasoning is that they want to classify some bees as endangered and there was no place for "bees" in the state Endangered Species Act. If a man can identify as a woman and White House staffers can "identify as Black," why not identify bees as fish? Makes perfect sense ... in a totally nonsensical way ... which hasn't bothered California for a long time, it seems.

Misinformation
CISA is the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency. They've determined that electronic voting machines in at least 16 states have software vulnerabilities. Which is NOT to say that any voting was tampered with ... or that the stolen election in 2020 was possibly stolen ... or any other obvious misinformation. Okay, look, let's just call this finding "misinformation" to start with just so we won't find ourselves, once again, discovering that what was declared misinformation previously turned out to be truth. "Oh, no; not again."

Didn't Get the Memo
Research published in Psychological Science says that androgens -- sex hormones such as testosterone -- play a role in the development of male-typical gender role behaviors. Now, we know that can't be true because gender is a social construct and this study suggests that it's a function of biology. Stupid science.

This Week's Bee
In the wake of Memorial Day, Democrats are proposing we replace Memorial Day with a day honoring all those who have been misgendered. That could be problematic, I suppose, because, despite attempts to add more genders, there still only appear to be 2 ... plus, maybe, 767 mental disorders. And in California news. Governor Newsom tested positive for COVID (no joke). He can't figure out how. He has been vaccinated and double-boosted, and all his servants wear masks. (Was that Newsom at the feed store buying Ivermectin?) We hope California enjoys the momentary peace as Newsom goes into isolation.

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

Testing

In his second epistle to the church at Corinth, Paul urges them

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)

There are a lot of Christians that don't much like that instruction. "Test myself? How am I supposed to do that?" Some say, "You can't know if you're in the faith." Others argue, "The only test is whether or not you have faith." But I would submit that Paul disagrees with both of those.

It's interesting that the examination is whether or not you are "in the faith." Not whether or not you have faith. Are you in "the faith"? What faith is that? I'd guess it is "the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 1:3). The Christian faith. The faith handed down to us in the Word of God. In this use of the term, it appears that this "faith" is something outside of us. It is an entity, a belief system, a set of doctrines that we can either be "in" or be "out" of. It is independent of us. The faith delivered once for all. This isn't something we vote on or modify or correct. It's what we find and align ourselves with. That faith. The same faith that Jesus gave us. The same faith that Peter had. Are you in that faith?

As for "you can't know," John wrote his first epistle specifically so you can know (1 John 5:13), so let's set that notion aside first off. So what was the test Paul was commanding? He told them. "You seek proof that Christ is speaking in me. He is not weak in dealing with you, but is powerful among you" (2 Cor 13:3). If you belong to Christ, there is a change, a transformation, an ongoing alteration of dead sinner to live saint. Jesus said, "If you love Me you will keep My commandments" (John 14:15) John wrote, "Whoever says 'I know Him' but does not keep His commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, but whoever keeps His word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may know that we are in Him: whoever says he abides in Him ought to walk in the same way in which He walked" (1 John 2:4-6). Jesus said His disciples would be known by their love for one another (John 13:35). We are indeed saved by grace through faith apart from works (Eph 2:8-9), but we are saved for good works (Eph 2:10). If there are no changes that occur in your actions, attitudes, and outlook, it's called dead faith (James 2:17).

There has ever been this condition. Lots of people believe they are "in the faith." They'll assure you that they do a lot for the Lord but don't realize they never had a relationship with Him (Matt 7:21-23). Paul's instructions to the Corinthians was timely for us as well. "Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves." We live in a day where "If he said he's a Christian, he is." We don't do ourselves or anyone else any favors by assuming "I identify as a Christian; therefore I am one." I will point out that the command is to "examine yourself," so while we might encourage others to do so, I am commanded to be sure I am in the faith, not you. Have you looked? We are commanded to examine ourselves to see if we're in the faith. We are provided the means of such an examination and assured we can know. Given the wiles of the devil, I'd hope it was something each of us would be dlligent to accomplish. Probably more than once.

A Real Inconvenient Truth

In 2006 Al Gore trotted out his film, An Inconvenient Truth, all about climate crisis. He was serious, too, flying around in private jets and driving around in SUVs and living in a 5,000 square foot home that consumed 20 times the national average for a house while he sought to spread the alarm in speaking tours. That was a questionable "inconvenient truth." There is a real inconvenient truth.

According to God's Word, all humans are sinners. No, hang on, that's not sufficient. We are conceived in sin -- sinners from birth (Psa 51:5). We are sinners from the heart from our youngest age (Gen 8:21). Mr. Gore worried about anthropogenic global warming -- man-caused climate change. God said the planet was cursed because of man (Gen 8:21). Scripture says we are rotten in our character (Rom 3:10-12), rotten in our speech (Rom 3:13-14), rotten in our behavior (Rom 3:16-17), and rotten in our core (Rom 3:18). All of this sin rots our brains (Rom 1:28), making us incapable of recognizing our own rot (Jer 17:9) and incapable of grasping God's truth (1 Cor 2:14). We are, in our natural state, spiritually dead (Eph 2:1-3). Now that is an inconvenient truth.

There is a solution to this most serious problem. God sent His Son. God provides new birth (John 3:3; 1 John 5:1). God supplies saving repentance (2 Tim 2:24-25) and faith (Php 1:29; Acts 13:48). God forgives sin based on Christ's sacrifice (Rom 3:24-25; Rom 5:9; Eph 2:13; Col 1:20). As an outcome, the one who is born of God cannot make a practice of sin (1 John 3:9) and God saves all who are His (John 10:27-29). He forgives all their unrighteousness (1 John 1:9) and supplies them with Christ's righteousness (2 Cor 5:21). He saves and adopts (Eph 1:5) angry rebels (Rom 8:7) and blesses them with every spiritual blessing (Eph 1:3).

Here's the problem. Natural Man's sin condition makes it impossible for him to detect his sin condition. That takes divine intervention. Divine intervention is the only solution. Jesus said that the problem with bad people is not bad behavior, but bad character. They produce "bad fruit" because they are "bad trees" (Matt 7:17-19). Fixing bad behavior is not the answer; the problem is the bad character. The Bible says that sin touches us to the very core and we don't see it. That's why the Christian life is a life long renewing of the mind (Rom 12:2) and renewal by the Spirit (Titus 3:5). So if you are a Christian and you find in the pages of your Bible a constant affirmation of everything you've always believed to be true, you can be pretty sure you're not getting it. If you are not finding yourself constantly corrected by God's Word, you may not be grasping God's Word. And the solution is not to read it better. The solution is to repent ... if perhaps God should grant repentance. Otherwise this really is a majorly inconvenient truth.

An Answer

I just came across this. Maybe it's the 24-hour news feed or maybe it's just really relevant, but this seems to be extremely applicable to our current events.

Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord. (Eph 6:4)

"Umm ... okay," I can hear you saying, "what exactly does that have to do with current events?" Fair question. What's the big news? Twenty-one (plus, including the husband who died of a heart attack afterward) people died in Texas. It was swift. It was brutal. And the solution, they tell us, is gun control. Really? Gun control?? You're not serious, are you? I would argue that this text offers an actual solution. And, along the same lines, I would expect that our society would have a greater reluctance to this solution than to mere "gun control."

What's the solution here? First, "Fathers." Notice that Scripture places the onus on fathers. They are the ones held responsible for the kids. Now, that doesn't mean they are the only ones doing thet work there, but they are certainly involved and absolutely, ultimately responsible. In society, it is undeniable that fatherlessness tends to produce greater crime. It would appear that God knew that in advance. So, fathers, we are responsible for our kids.

Second, what must we avoid? "Do not provoke your children to anger." Interesting that this would be the big concern. Not "misbehaving" or "get along with others" or "be kind" (let alone "be yourself"). The big concern is angry children. Well, isn't that what we're seeing with these school shootings? I've heard about Salvador Ramos's grandmother raising him and his mother defending him. Where is his father? And why was he so angry? Anger is a critical issue in raising children.

Okay, so dads are responsible and anger is to be avoided, but what is the solution? "Bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord." "Bring them up" is a process. It takes time. It takes work. It is hands on. Literally "rear to maturity", which is a bit telling given that modern studies indicate that maturity is coming later and later. Bring them up in discipline and instruction. Oh, no. Not discipline. We won't do that. In some countries it is illegal. But they need to be tutored and rebuked, trained and taught. Practice, practice, practice. From birth to maturity. And not just any discipline or instruction. The discipline and instruction of the Lord. Godly discipline. Godly instruction. Not the world's instuction. Not the culture's discipline. The actual, objectively good version -- God's.

You go ahead and pass new laws to stop people from breaking laws. You go ahead and limit "assault weapons" -- weapons of any kind with which we can assault one another -- to just handguns ... which, as it turns out kill by far more people than "assault rifles." Make "no gun zones" and put up fences and lock doors. Do what you can. But the Maker says that fathers are responsible. The Creator says that we are to avoid growing angry children. God's Word says that they need discipline and instruction, and the right version is God's version. The solution to angry kids is fathers raising them in the discipline and instruction of the Lord. I can't call on my country to do the right thing. I do call on Christians. Especially Christian fathers. Don't let yourself be guilty of failing your kids that way.

Side note
This isn't a blanket statement, but it is far broader than in prior times. I believe that parents today ought to be seriously concerned about sending their kids to schools that are openly hostile to Christ. Like I said, not all are, but there are far more now than in the past. Something to consider, dads, when considering your responsibility to bring up your children.

Common Sense Gun Control

Number one story on the Bing news line the other day was that "Ted Cruz can't handle the grilling." A British reporter asked him only one question. "Why do mass shootings only happen in America?" And Ted ran. Couldn't handle it. Loser. Of course, that's not what happened; that's just what the media is reporting. The reporter asked one (primary) question, but he continued to ask it repeatedly, hounding him long after the interview was over. If Cruz couldn't handle the grilling, I suspect it was simply his temper that he was managing.

What are the facts? You know, the facts that the media doesn't want to tell you. For instance, mass murders don't only happen in America. One study found that the U.S. ranked 11th in death rate per million people from mass shootings. Another ranked the U.S. 64th in the world in terms of mass shooting rates per capita. And this is without considering those countries with militants that go through and wipe out entire villages. Russia just had a school shooting in April of this year and another in September of last year. It's simply not true that these things only happen in America.

For instance, Switzerland has one of the highest rates of gun ownership in the world, yet they haven't had a mass shooting since 2001. Odd, since "more guns = more deaths" has been the mantra for so long. For instance, gun ownership in America has been a given practically forever. According to Statista.com, gun ownership rates in America between 1972 and 2021 has varied between a high of 47% in 1990 and 37% as late as 2019. No more than 10% difference for 50 years. Yet, "the toll of mass shootings has risen steadily." Again, Statista.com shows a rise from 0 in 2002 to 12 in 2018 and we're clearly on track to blow that record away this year.

"Gun control!" they cry, and I'm not opposed to controls. In fact, we have quite a few. There are restrictions on suppressors and explosives, automatic weapons and concealed weapons, background checks and interstate trade restrictions, on and on. Still, gun control laws, they assure us, are the answer. I'm actually fascinated by this position given that people who commit these kinds of crimes are knowingly breaking the law, yet making the obtaining of guns illegal is expected to diminish the law breaking. How about the fact that, on the very day that a crazed killer was killing 29 victims at Sandy Hook Elementary School, a crazed man stabbed 28 school children in China? Nope, don't report that fact. Then we'll be calling for "knife control."

"Oh, ignore this guy," some are going to say. "He's just a gun lover." No, not at all. "He doesn't care that all this is going on." Couldn't be farther from the truth. My problem is that I agree that there is a big problem. In fact, I might think it's a bigger problem than you do. Most people these days think it's a problem of guns. I'd say that's factually stupid. Guns have been around in America and elsewhere a long time. A very long time. And before that we had all sorts of "assault weapons" -- weapons available to use to assault other humans. From rocks to baseball bats to knives to guns and beyond. Killing has existed since Cain killed Abel. Gun control didn't stop that murder. No, the problem is much bigger than guns. Restricting guns, then, might decrease the gun violence (duh), but it won't restrict the killings. According to one study, of all the mass murders from 2006 to 2017, nearly a quarter were done without guns. In 1973 in New Orleans 32 people were killed at a gay bar when a disgruntled customer bought a can of lighter fluid and burned the place down. Lots of those kinds of stories. Remember Japan's sarin gas attack that killed 13 in 1995? No guns.

"Oh, no, of course guns aren't the only way to kill people, but it sure makes it easier to kill a lot!" Missing the point. Look, schools are almost entirely "gun free zones" and yet guns are used to kill children in schools. Guns are banned everywhere from murdering innocent people and, yet, they are used to murder innocent people. Countries that have no qualms banning guns entirely still have mass murders. The problem is not the laws. The problem is people. The problem is individuals and the problem is society. Individuals who have no moral compass, no compassion, no empathy, certainly no relationship with God. And a society that has fed and nurtured and encouraged those individuals ... and produced a marvelous system -- let's call it "social media" -- where people can vent rage and feed hate all without accountability ... and engendered an entire "news" media that isn't nearly as concerned about news as propaganda and an entertainment industry that makes its most lucrative products celebrations of evil. We've made this problem. The original problem is sin. Some societies work at curbing sin. They develop "community" and cultures with common courtesy and common values with strong moral bounds. Not us. "Be true to yourself" and "Don't let anyone tell you you can't" are our highest values today without regard to the very real possibility that "be true to yourself" just might mean killing people. And, of course, bottom line, asking corrupt sinners to harness corrupt sinners is just asking the fox to guard the hen house. What is really needed is Christ. The real problem is the god of this world and the real solution is Jesus, but the current culture is not interested in the actual solution. And Christians in America today lean more toward moral autonomy and rely less on "thus saith the Lord." We can't address it because we've set aside God's Word. So we'll bind Christ and call Him "hate" when the Word disagrees with our personal view and make sure that religion, especially the Christian religion, has no voice in our public market. No, we'll do just fine limiting guns. That'll fix it. And, like the finger pointing to the moon, we get fixated on the finger and miss the point. By focusing on "gun laws" we miss the point that the heart of man is desperately sick and new rules won't fix that.

Memorial Day, 2022

We all enjoy a good holiday, but too many of us don't quite know what it's about. Memorial Day is one of those. Many are not quite clear on the difference between Veterans Day and Memorial Day. Veterans Day celebrates all who served, and we thank them. None of those we honor on Memorial Day are around to be thanked. This day we set aside to appreciate those who gave their lives for our freedom. On this day, I like to pull out Congressional Medal of Honor stories. Some are remarkable. Here are two of them.

William Hawkins was a Marine at the Battle of Tarawa in 1943. His platoon was pinned down on Betio Island. Wounded by shrapnel, Hawkins advanced to single-handedly take out six machine gun nests. When he ran out of ammunition, he threw grenades and satchel charges. On the seventh nest he was wounded in the chest but managed to destroy it. A medic patched him up and told him to leave, but he refused. He was shot and killed hurling a grenade into the eighth machine gun nest. His last words were, "Boys, I sure hate to leave you like this."

Jason Dunham was a Marine corporal serving in Iraq in 2004. His patrol was ordered to intercept some cars exiting a fire fight. As he approached a vehicle to search it, an insurgent jumped out and wrestled with him. He took him to the ground, then saw that the insurgent had pulled the pin on a grenade and dropped it. Without hesitation, Cpl Dunham put his helmet over it and covered it with his body. He saved the lives of the two Marines with him, but died from his wounds eight days later.

People have done extraordinary things in defense of the country they love and the people with whom they serve. These things serve as rare glimpses into people who can put themselves behind others in importance and seek their best instead, sometimes at the cost of their own lives. These are the people we honor on Memorial Day. Not all Medal of Honor recipients died in action. These did. All of them went above and beyond, but not all went so far as to die for their cause. These did. We appreciate that level of sacrifice. Or, at least, we ought to.

Win-Win

In Manitoba, Canada, a grandmother went to church one last time ... to die. They called it her "crossing-over ceremony." She had ALS and Canada has legalized euthanasia, so she wanted to die, and she wanted to die in church. They accomodated her. Simply stunning. They sang "How Great Thou Art" and surrounded her with family and friends and executed her in the sanctuary. All very "Christian" ... even though it wasn't at all.

In this country we're debating the value of life. Canada doesn't anymore. They allow people to die by choice for just about anything. At any age. Because life has no value, just "my choice." So while we ask, "What is the value of an unborn human life?" they exhibit the rational conclusions we will eventually have to come to. Either we are intrinsically valuable -- made in the image of God -- or we are not, and, if not, terminating life at any age should be no big deal.

For me, however, this comes closer to home. You see, I'm one who agrees with Paul that to live is Christ and to die is gain. For me, going home is the preferred choice. So, wouldn't I favor this "let me die" approach? Funny thing. In a world like Canada's "what I want" version of human worth, I should be seeking to die because what I want is to be with Christ. But I believe that we are made in the image of God and, as such, have great value in His eyes. I do not belong to me. I don't believe in "my body, my choice" because I deny the first claim. So I don't seek to die. I don't wish to end it all. I look forward to the day that He calls me home, but I don't aim to hasten it. Because, for me, to live is Christ, and as long as He has use for me here, this is where I want to be. I know where I'll end up when the work is done, so I can wait. I concur with Paul.

So we are always of good courage. We know that while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord, for we walk by faith, not by sight. Yes, we are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord. So whether we are at home or away, we make it our aim to please Him. (2 Cor 5:6-9)

In the presence of Christ or pleasing Him in this life -- at home with the Lord or not -- we win.

News Weakly - 5/28/22

Note to my readers
Yes, the biggest news of the week was the children and teachers killed in Texas. My aim in this weekly entry is to point out the odd, the strange, the crazy news items that are, at the same time, misguided. I try to point out some inconsistencies or errors, hopefully with some humor. So, while there is no doubt that it was the critical story of the week, I don't have any satire or ridicule to throw at it. While there are lots of points to discuss -- shootings, murder, why is it okay to murder the unborn but not 3rd graders, gun control and the futility thereof, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera -- I can't and won't do it here on my News Weakly installment. Note, also, that I couldn't bring myself to put up humorous Bee stuff this week. My apologies.

Surprise, Surprise, Surprise!
I really was surprised when I read that the archbishop of San Francisco banned Nancy Pelosi from receiving Communion because of her stand on abortion. I was surprised again when I saw that Catholic bishops across the country concurred. Mind you, I think it is the only consistent thing to conclude, and I will be further surprised if they actually carry through on the ban, but we'll see.

Appropriately Named
They are introducing a new Power Ranger to kids. This one is "nonbinary," using "they/them pronouns", and the character is called the Death Ranger. I wonder just how appropriate that might be, given that we are fighting about "women's rights" in a world where "women" can't really be defined anymore. I'm sure introducing confusion to kids is a great teaching tool ... if only to kill any intellectual honesty.

Double Standard
Oklahoma state representative Mickey Dollens (D) is proposing a bill that would require all young men to have vasectomies when they hit puberty. From the party that brought you, "My body, my choice."

Feeding Pharma
Pfizer says that children under 5 need to receive three COVID-19 vaccinations for it to be 80% effective. Now, of the 83 million COVID cases, less than 2 million were under the age of 5. So, statistically, they can take a shot that for the last three years has not been deemed safe enough for them -- and they must get three of them -- and be 80% safe or they can simply be 0 to 5-year-olds and be better than 98% safe. Who's benefiting here? I'd say, playing off parents' unfounded fears, it's Big Pharma, not kids.

Wait For It
Here's the story. "The Church of Scotland has voted to allow clergy to conduct same-sex marriages for the first time." Nothing new there. Churches in America and elsewhere show no concern about ejecting biblical views in favor of contemporary sexual views. The story goes on to say, "Members of the General Assembly in Edinburgh voted to change church law following years of campaigning." Ah, there it is! What changed their minds? Eminent reason? Clear Scripture? No, "campaigning," as if God's truth is a matter of "campaigning" and if you mount a good enough campaign, God has to change His mind. Even more arrogant than "the Supreme Court doesn't care about the will of the people."

Hypocrisy on Display
"The White House is considering waiving U.S. gasoline environmental rules aimed at reducing summertime smog, hoping the waiver will combat rising pump prices." The hypocrisy continues. Biden included "fix climate change at all cost" in his campaign and we're paying for it at the pump, but now he wants to increase summertime smog to ease the price hikes ... that his "eliminate fossil fuels" policies caused. (No, it's not the war in Ukraine.) They have nowhere to stand.

That Word Doesn't Mean What You Think It Means
The court has ruled. Candidates who take part in an insurrection may be barred from holding public office under the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. Okay. Fine. Why do you ask? Madison Cawthorn lost his election. No issue. Marjorie Taylor Greene was cleared to run. No issue. There was no insurrection. No issue there. Why is this an issue? Oh, yeah, because the Democrats and the media keep using that word. That word does not mean what they think it means. The fact that it has traction simply illustrates that too many Americans have drunk the liberals' Kool-Aid.

The Next Big Thing
Big Pharma, the CDC, the government, and the media are all sounding the alarm over the new pandemic on the horizon -- monkeypox. More than 250 cases across 16 countries, a whole 9 in the U.S. Note that the "k" in "monkeypox" is silent.

Out of Touch
Nancy Pelosi claimed on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" that the president is doing a lot of good and we need to know that. "But," the host noted, "75% of the American's believe the country is headed in the wrong direction." Oh, no. The president is lowering inflation. Gas prices are up, but that's primarily because of the Russian war. His $2 trillion spending bill is "reducing the national debt." It's all Putin's fault. Just as the news breaks that the economy shrank another 1.5% in the first quarter of 2022. Too bad the Disinformation Board quit. Pelosi is full of it.

Yes, Your Majesty
Guess who makes the rules? Last week Nature magazine, a prime scientific journal, planned to require future study authors to regulate what they report based on how it might "perpetuate gender stereotypes." They, without study or evidence, assume that sex is biological and gender is "socially constructed." They pre-define "misinformation" as "what we tell you to believe about gender" and then limit misinformation ... and consider that good science. Today the LGBTQetc. rules, dictating law even as far as how science must work.

Acceptable Sins

Any genuine Christian is concerned about sin. No, not just the sin of others (like the rest of the world seems to think), but our own especially. John wrote, "No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him; and he cannot keep on sinning, because he has been born of God" (1 John 3:9). Note the "cannot." It is outside of the nature of one born of God to be comfortable with sin. So we are concerned for others, sure, but we are concerned more about our own sin. It seems strange, then, that we seem to miss some of them. We tolerate gossip much better than homosexual behavior. We overlook greed while not giving an inch to sexual immorality. Murder is clearly a sin, but what about those times when we don't glorify God?

"Hang on a second," some will say, "are you saying that's an issue?" Well, Jesus defined His life and ministry solely in terms of what His Father told Him to say and do. He exemplified a life aimed at glorifying God. Paul wrote, "Whatever you do, do all to the glory of God" (1 Cor 10:31). The question is do you, in "whatever you do," seek to glorify God? If the answer is "No" at some point, it is a failure to follow a biblical command -- a sin. "That's okay," we tend to think. "It's not a bad one. It's not real evil." Except that it is. It is, in fact, a primary evil. It is ... an "acceptable sin" for those of us who would like to think that there is no such thing.

We're good with "specks" but miss "logs" (Matt 7:3-4). We often assign "speck" status to our own "logs." But, if we are truly Christ-followers, our number one priority ought to be the glory of God as it was to the One we are following. And now that I've brought it to your attention -- and you're a Christian -- that ought to bother you about yourself. You're welcome.

The Gospel

In his letter to Rome Paul told them he was obligated to bring them the gospel and he tells why.

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

Now you and I could discuss a variety of reasons that Paul might not be ashamed of the gospel, but I'd imagine that "In it the righteousness of God is revealed" probably wouldn't have been our first guess. The mystery only deepens when Paul explains how the gospel reveals the righteousness of God with "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth" (Rom 1:18). Note the word "for" at the beginning there. Paul explains how the gospel reveals God's righteousness by telling us that God's wrath is revealed against those who suppress the truth about God. Now, Paul, how in the world does that reveal God's righteousness?

The first answer I came up with was that Paul was explaining the bad news before he offered the good news. The worse the bad news, the bigger the good news, and Paul certainly lays on bad news. From chapter 1 verse 18 all the way through chapter 3 verse 20 Paul goes on and on about the sin problem. In chapter one, it's about natural man, the rebel. "That's okay," some might answer, "we're pretty good." The first half of chapter 2 is about the "pretty good." You know, the nice people, the well-behaved, the socially acceptable, the basically moral. Yeah, they're all sinners, too. "Sure," another group might answer, "but we're religious, so we're okay." Sorry. The last half of chapter 2 is about how even religious folks are sinners. Strike three, as it were. We're all out.

In chapter 3 Paul responds to the anticipated objections. 1) "Isn't there advantage to being one of God's chosen people, the Jews?" Yes. You have God's Word. 2) Doesn't the fact that people sin nullify the faithlessnes of God? No. God is faithfully keeping His promises. Then the third objection.

But if our unrighteousness serves to show the righteousness of God, what shall we say? That God is unrighteous to inflict wrath on us? (I speak in a human way.) By no means! For then how could God judge the world? (Rom 3:5-6)

And there, dear reader, is Paul's first explanation of how the sin problem reveals God's righteousness. Yes, it's in the bad news. Yes, that bad news is about as bad as it gets. How is God's righteousness revealed in that? God judges sin. God judges the world. God does what is right. God does what is just. The wrath that is revealed is actually the righteousness of God, revealed in the bad news, with more good news to follow -- there is salvation through the propitiation of Christ's blood, making God both just and justifier (Rom 3:21-26). Now that is good news -- the gospel.

We think of the gospel as "good news" in the sense that we're saved. Paul thinks of the gospel as God's righteousness on full display. For some that righteousness, that justice, that "do what is right" is demonstrated in the judgment of sin. For others that righteousness is manifested in grace and forgiveness apart from works. Both are part of God's righteousness. Both are revealed in the gospel. The gospel, in brief, says, "We've all sinned and are under God's judgment, but we can be saved by faith in Christ's shed blood on our behalf." Both parts are right there. Both parts show God as right ... every time.

Syncretism

Syncretism is the amalgamation of different religions, cultures, or schools of thought. It is most commonly used in religious terms, the merging of different religions. When Spanish Catholics invaded pagan America, they produced a syncretism of religions. Santeria is probably the best known syncretism, where African mysticism merged with Roman Catholicism to produce a religion that incorporated both voodoo and Catholicism. So they recognize divine beings -- Yoruba orishas -- and Catholic saints. They pray to Jesus and call on demons. It's an irrational mishmash (or mismatch) that joins together to nullify both while affirming both. We're much more sophisticated today. We don't do that. Really? Mix the Spirit with spirits? Don't be silly! And then we go on to be equally silly albeit a bit more subtle.

I think the most common syncretism in the American church today is the joining of American patriotism and Christian beliefs, landing somewhere around the notion that America is "God's chosen people." This becomes problematic to Christians. When the early Christians became "bad Romans" because they opposed the deity of Caesar, they were "unpatriotic." When modern Christians oppose the evils perpetrated by the government, we are unpatriotic. That's because people fail to ask Whose kingdom we serve. The other most popular syncretism today is among the so-called Christians who hang on to the label while disposing of the content. They'll tell you, "I believe in Jesus," but they've discarded the sole source on who Jesus is and what He taught and what "Christian" is. They set aside God's Word and substitute ... syncretism. Maybe it's some science or some philosophy. Maybe it's "social justice" or just "what I like." (You may think I'm being glib. I've actually been told that by some. "That can't be right. It doesn't feel right.") Instead, then, of receiving "the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 1:3), they customize their own version. The "red letter" Christians who claim to follow just what Jesus said do so with care, dropping or modifying what they don't much like, forgetting that Jesus was "the Word" (John 1:1) and all that we have in our Bibles is from Him. So they cannot teach others "to observe all that I have commanded you" (Matt 28:20) since they've strictly trimmed, pared, skinned, and mitigated "all that I have commanded you" down to "all that you accept that I have commanded you."

Syncretism is a problem. Always has been, from the early days of judaizers and legalists importing laws for Israel into laws for God's people through the missionary work that brought us Santeria up to our day where "Christian" often barely resembles "Christian" as the Scriptures present it. "But we know better today," they tell me, a decidely dangerous position to take when it is in opposition to the Word. From "theistic Evolution" to "Jesus as a Social Justice Warrior and not a savior" to "America is God's favorite" and beyond, it is all around us. It may be a lot of things, but it is not following Christ.

Just Apologize

Most of us are fairly confident that we have a common understanding of the word "apologize." We mean, "Say you're sorry." Okay, maybe that's a little vague. The dictionary says it is to "make excuse for or regretful acknowledgment of a fault or offense." Okay, now, hang on. Is "make excuse" part of our definition? I mean, isn't that wrong? How about "express regret." Yes, we like that. But, of course, we all know that making said expression -- apologizing -- doesn't necessarily mean that the person is actually sorry. Or exactly for what they are sorry. Are they sorry for the fault "(I'm sorry I did that.") or offense ("I'm sorry you took that wrong."), or are they sorry they got caught? Or is it just words and they're not sorry at all?

It is interesting. The Bible has nothing to say about apologizing. The Greek word from which we get our word "apology" is apologia (go figure) and means, "a speech in defense." Closer to the "make an excuse" than "express regret." So the biblical "apology" was to "make a defense" (1 Peter 3:15). What, then, is the biblical equivalent of "apologize"? What do we do when we offend? The Bible offers two obvious terms -- confession and repentance. To confess in the vernacular is to "say with" (James 5:16; 1 John 1:9). David confessed to God with the phrase, "I know my transgressions, and my sin is ever before me" (Psa 51:3). You see the idea. "Yes, God, you're right; I'm wrong." But agreeing that you are wrong is just half of the needed response. Jesus preached repentance (e.g., Matt 4:17; Luke 13:3). The Apostles followed suit (e.g., Acts 2:38; Acts 3:19; 2 Cor 7:10). Jesus said, "If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him, and if he sins against you seven times in the day, and turns to you seven times, saying, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive him" (Luke 17:3-4). That's repentance for an offense given. Biblically, repent means to turn around mentally, to change directions, to think differently. So what would that look like? Well, John warned the Pharisees to repent and told them to "Bear fruit in keeping with repentance" (Matt 3:8). So repentance has "fruit." Jesus said, "If you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift" (Matt 5:23-24). "Be reconciled" is a good expression of repentance.

We live in a dry-brush world where the slightest spark can create a real conflagration. Our social media, our anonymous and interconnected-without-consequence world, our pile of political and social flashpoints without any shared grace, leaves us with the near certainty that we will offend. The proper response if we offend is confession -- "Yes, I did the wrong thing" -- and repentance. Not apology. We are to "be reconciled," not merely sorry. Our repentance should look like repentance, a change of direction. Love may mean you never have to say you're sorry (I would argue it doesn't), but that's only because we need to do a lot more than that if we offend.

Codifying Roe

With the fear that the Supreme Court might possibly overturn Roe v Wade, the Democrats are pushing hard for the passage of the Women's Health Protection Act, which, as it turns out, is a really odd duck.

The opening "finding" begins, "Abortion services are essential to health care and access to those services is central to people’s ability to participate equally in the economic and social life of the United States." So the first concern is economic, apparently. But it gets much worse. The 10th Amendment leaves all things not covered in the original Constitution to the States, but the federal government has managed to find a loophole by placing things in the category of "interstate commerce," so a key argument to make abortion a matter of federal law is that "Abortion restrictions substantially affect interstate commerce." Thus, the federal government must intervene over the States. More disturbing is the clear intention of removing all restrictions on abortion. Under "Section 4. Permitted Services," they aim to eliminate full disclosure to women and any viability restrictions on when abortion can occur and more. Their "Limits and Requirements" are a removal of all limits or requirements. Even more disturbing is the position that argues that "Reproductive justice seeks to address restrictions on reproductive health, including abortion, that perpetuate systems of oppression, lack of bodily autonomy, white supremacy, and anti-Black racism." If you oppose abortion, you're a racist. This from a group of people who struggle to define "women" (as in "women's rights") and have to slip into "all people with the capacity for pregnancy."

There is no question. There is much more at stake here than whether or not (actual) women can terminate the lives of their babies as a birth control technique. The up-front concern is "reproductive justice," but the real thinking behind this is primarily economic and ideological as a means to castigate pro-life people, labeling them as sexist, racist, white supremacists. The Democrats would like to allow you to kill your babies after birth and to make your notion that human life is valuable a hate crime if possible. It is not compassion they're offering. It is control and hate. And they hope to make you pay for it ... financially and/or otherwise. Don't be fooled by their calls to "codify Roe." It is something else they intend to codify.
__________
You may have noticed that I didn't put the "Abortion/Pro-life" label on this post. I didn't by choice. This isn't really about abortion. It's about control and ideology, about government overreach and plots from the Left -- from the world. Abortion just happens to be the entry point.

Avoidance

In his second letter to Timothy, Paul urges him to "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God" by "accurately handling the word of truth" (2 Tim 2:15). Then he says,

But avoid worldly and empty chatter, for it will lead to further ungodliness. (2 Tim 2:16)

Ain't that the truth?

Look at that for a moment. He starts with "but," contrasting with the previous instruction. "Handle the word of truth accurately" is in contrast to "worldly and empty chatter." Avoid those. The NASB translates "bebēlos" as "worldly." The KJV goes with "profane." I think the ESV's "babble" sounds the closest, but the word really refers to crossing a threshold, and, given the instruction to rightly handle the word of truth, this is probably what he's referring to -- that which violates the truth. "Empty chatter" is a single compound word -- kenophōnia -- where "kenos" means "empty, vain" and "phōnē" is "sound" or "voice." So, in contrast to being a good workman and rightly handling the word of truth, give empty conversation that opposes the truth a wide berth; it's just a lot of hot air. Literally "walk around it." Why? It will lead to further ungodliness.

Note, first, there, the word "further," because, apparently, worldly and empty chatter is the first step into ungodliness and standing in it will take you further into ungodliness. But what is this "ungodliness" thing? The word is literally impiety, one of the two things God's wrath is toward (Rom 1:18). Unrighteousness refers to the bad things we do, but ungodliness is about a lack of reverence, specifically against God. It is a lack of devotion to God. In that Romans 1 reference all mankind suffers from it. You and I suffer from it to varying degrees. No one does not suffer from it. And mere worldly and empty chatter promotes it.

Mind you, Paul is specific here. In the next verse he says, "Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus" (2 Tim 2:17). Odd that he refers to "worldly and empty chatter" as "them." Clearly Paul is referring to false teachers. Avoid them. "Their talk will spread like gangrene" (2 Tim 2:17). Avoid them. They "have gone astray from the truth" (2 Tim 2:18). Avoid them. You don't need the gangrene. You certainly do not need further ungodliness. I can find it on my own, thank you very much.

Proverbs says, "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself" (Prov 26:4) and this sounds a lot like that. However, the very next verse says, "Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes" (Prov 26:5). Apparently, then, it is good to avoid worldly and empty chatter -- the teaching of false teachers -- and it is most often wise not to answer a fool or you might become one yourself. You might find yourself stepping further into ungodliness. I've seen it. I'm sure you have, too. Good Christians bravely taking on false teachers and succumbing to bad manners and "righteous indignation" instead of "gentleness and respect" (1 Peter 3:15). Sometimes we are called to address it, to "make a defense," to answer a fool according to his folly. Just be aware that it is dangerous ground. You need to be aware of the fundamental problem -- ungodliness -- and guard yourself against it. Ungodliness on their part and the ungodliness that it can spawn in you. As we become perturbed about their war on truth, we may lose sight of the Truth we are to defend -- godliness. A right relationship with God. Too often I think we lose sight of these kinds of warnings.

News Weakly - 5/21/2022

A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World
Three 8th graders in Wisconsin are facing sexual harassment charges for "calling a classmate by the wrong pronouns." Lawyers are involved. They claim that using "biologically correct pronouns" does not constitute sexual harassment. The school says they prohibit "all forms of bullying and harassment" except, of course, for the bullying and harassment of charging an 8th grader with sexual harassment for using biologically correct pronouns. That harassment is good, you see. At least, that's the kind of arguments one has to make in a world gone completely mad.

Deplorable
That's what people are saying about a Christian Academy in Louisville, KY, because they regard homosexual behavior as sin and were teaching their students to "lovingly and compassionately speak truth to the person" in a way that "does not approve of any sin." Now, I'm stunned that anyone is stunned that a Christian academy would hold a Christian view on a topic like that. And the double standard is fascinating. "I think it's a sin for you to think that it's a sin for someone to engage in homosexual behavior. Of course, I won't be changing my view on your sin, but you will need to change your view."

Another Pandemic
VP Harris on the Buffalo shooting: "We are seeing an epidemic of hate." The White House recommends conical white head coverings and social distancing. Yes, there is far too much hate around our nation ... and our world today. "We must call it out and condemn it." That oughta do it. It's a shame that this is the best a once "Christian nation" can now offer.

Complicity

18 U.S. Code § 1507 - Picketing or parading
"Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both."

A pro-abortion group was banned from Twitter after supplying the addresses of Supreme Court Justices for the purpose of protest. The White House encourages "peaceful protests" in direct violation of federal law. Doesn't that constitute complicity (especially considering what "mostly peaceful protests" have come to look like these days)?

That's a Relief
Disney+ says they won't take ads for alcohol or politics because they want to keep it "family friendly." That's a relief. Meanwhile, Disney is pushing a solid LGBTQ+ agenda aimed specifically at children while they protest Florida's law that forbids sexual grooming of children. Mixed messages, Disney. Just like so many others whose messages and behaviors don't match. (Think, think, think ... what do we call that ... oh, yeah ... hypocrisy.)

Squirrel!
The House Intelligence subcommittee (Is that an oxymoron?) is having public hearings on UFOs ... because it would be good to have anything to distract the public from the insanity that is currently the American government, media, and culture.

Joke Gone Bad
It was a joke. "The beatings will continue until morale improves." The Fed missed it. In order to control inflation ... they're driving up the cost of borrowing money. That way we'll all buy less and demand will drop and price hikes will slow ... because everything got more expensive. "We'll keep increasing the cost of borrowing money until inflation slows." The current guess is they'll triple the current rate. Slow the economy to improve the economy. What could go wrong?

The Bee Roll
It looks like the government's Disinformation Board narrowly outlasted CNN+.

In the wake of the announcement that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is engaged, Ben Shapiro said he'd never love again.

With the outbreak of monkeypox, Fauci is recommending everyone cover their eyes, ears, and mouth.

And I really like this one, personally. The story is about a toddler who failed to see how his dad could be all-powerful and all-loving when he just took away the knife he was playing with.

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

The Bible on Life Before Birth

Note to readers: I know I've hit this topic pretty hard recently. Of course, that's because it has been in the news so much. I hope, however, that you'll be able to use some of this information. If the Supreme Court actually reverses Roe v Wade, you can count on it to get messy. You can expect to be "targeted" in some sense as believers, as people with biblical principles that violate the world's sense of right and wrong. You'll be blamed for this, and it will be because you're a hater or a supremacist of some kind or as many other reasons the god of this world -- the father of lies -- can come up with. So I'm hoping that I've provided you some answers, some armament, in preparation. You know, "ready to make a defense" (1 Peter 3:15). Because, ultimately, it isn't about you. It isn't even about women or choice. It's about the image of God, something the prince of the power of the air cannot tolerate.

"You religious nutcases seem to miss the point that the Bible teaches that life begins at first breath." Have you ever heard that? I expect you have. Where is that? Well, quite clearly, in (the mythical) Genesis 2:7 we read, "Then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature." Well, thank you very much for playing. You silly Bible people can go home now. But ... can we?

The text explains what happened when God made Adam. He formed him from dust and breathed life into him and he became a living creature. The Bible says that about no one ever again. In a parallel story God put Adam to sleep, took a rib from him, and made Eve (Gen 2:21-22). Shall we conclude, then, that women are always and henceforth made by making a man go to sleep and making her from a rib? Of course not. Genesis 2 describes events that we don't see anymore. It does not provide a definition of "life." It's a description of the first man.

So what does the Bible say about life before birth? Well, in Jeremiah God told Jeremiah, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations" (Jer 1:5). God, then, formed a non-human, consecrated the fetus, and appointed it to be a prophet, right? That, of course, makes little sense. Clearly God considered Jeremiah to be a person in the womb. David makes the same sort of claim.

For You formed my inward parts; You knitted me together in my mother's womb. I praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are Your works; my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from You, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in Your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them. (Psa 139:13-16)

All of that text is "preborn." God knitted and formed and wove together and wrote up the life of this "preborn" human. And we all know the story of Mary, newly pregnant with Jesus, visiting her cousin, Elizabeth. When Elizabeth saw Mary, "the baby leaped in her womb" (Luke 1:41). Elizabeth claimed, "When the sound of your greeting came to my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy" (Luke 1:44). A tissue blob does not experience "joy," does it? And, of course, there is the passage in Exodus, often used to excuse abortion, that actually argues that killing a baby before it is born is the same as murder (Exo 21:22-25).

There are lots of voices out there that don't much care what the Bible says, so this stuff won't matter to them. To their immediate peril they discard the biblical claim that we are made in the image of God (Gen 9:6) and carefully hold to a baseless claim that humans are of greater worth than other beings. They value "my choice" over all other concerns right up until it infringes on "my choice" and enable a line of reasoning that cannot help but end in the termination of life outside of the womb. (It's not a slippery slope fallacy when it is actually already happening.) I don't expect this to sway the minds of unbelievers. But you -- those who believe God and His Word -- should be able to see that Scripture opposes the killing of humans and that humans are human from conception. You, who believe that we are to love our neighbors as ourselves, should certainly be concerned for the welfare of the most innocent and defenseless human beings on the planet. So maybe this will bolster your confidence. The Bible agrees.

Biblical Submission

"Me? Submit to him? He doesn't know enough to come in out of the rain!" Someone I know said that, but I'm sure that the mere mention of the word "submission" will elicit a similar response from a lot of people. Even Christians. I say that because it should not be. I say that because a principle Christian virtue is submission. Jesus said, "If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also" (Matt 5:39). Paul listed things we ought to be doing including, "submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ" (Eph 5:21). Think of that. Submission to others out of reverence (literally "fear") of Christ.

Peter gives an interesting rundown on submission. In 1 Peter 2 he begins with "Be subject for the Lord's sake" (there it is again -- "for the Lord's sake") "to every human institution ..." (1 Peter 2:13-14) referring to governments. So our submission to others is first in submission to God and out of reverence (fear) of God. That's one. He goes on to say in that, "Live as people who are free" while also requiring "living as servants of God" (1 Peter 2:16). Peter's next submission command is to servants (literally "household servants" as opposed to Paul's "bondservant") whom he commands to "Be subject to your masters with all respect" (and, yes, that was that "fear" word again). This isn't the master-slave relationship, but simply a boss and subordinate. And it is explicitly not merely nice bosses -- "not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust" (1 Peter 2:18). Peter spends time on this one using Christ as his prime example who endured injustice without a peep (1 Peter 2:19-25). So in 1 Peter 3 he begins, "Likewise ..." (1 Peter 3:1). He also uses the same term in 1 Peter 3:7 -- "Likewise." That is, "In the same way that Christ endured false accusations and abuse without complaining and subjected Himself to the human masters He faced even though they were unjust ...", "Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives" (1 Peter 3:1). Wow! Wives, be subject. Wives, be subject to your husbands. Wives, be subject to your husbands even if they aren't good Christians. Just like Christ. That "subject" has some descriptions. It includes "respectful and pure conduct" (1 Peter 3:2). (Note that that "respectful" is, again, that "fear" word.) It includes the inner, imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit (1 Peter 3:3). Be that kind of "subject." And then, "likewise" -- just as Christ submitted and endured -- "husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered" (1 Peter 3:7). It kind of seems short for the husbands; don't let it fool you. Husbands, submit to your wives in this way. Be a student of your wife. Know her inside and out. And live according to that knowledge. Now, think about that for a moment. How much can a husband know about his wife? How understanding can he be? That's a tough command, but it is essential and it is submission and it doesn't matter if she's godly or not, gentle or unjust, nice or mean. Submit like Christ, doing what God has commanded without complaint. Recognize that she's not as physically strong as you and treat her with the honor that fine china or a fellow heir deserves -- as your equal deserves.

It is an interesting concept -- submission. It is fundamental to the faith. We submit first and foremost to God. Our submission is a respect that includes and element of fear -- the fear of failing to please, of running off the rail, of missing the mark. And that submission out of respect leads us to submit elsewhere -- to government (Rom 13:1-2), to masters (Eph 6:5-8), wives to husbands (Eph 5:22-24, 33) and husbands to wives (Eph 5:25-33). Submission doesn't always look the same in every application, but it is ever present. It is, in the end, an elevation of others over self, an application of worth and respect to others not because they've earned it, but because we've been commanded and because our submission to God demands it. Definitely unAmerican. Definitely Christian.

Another "Another"

We looked last week at the idea of "another Jesus." We saw a variety of possibilities that are termed "Jesus" without being the Jesus of the Bible. So, what about God, the Father? Do we find the same thing with Him? Of course we do. It is the first thing we think of when we think of "idolatry" -- another god. The Bible tells us quite a bit about God ... more than I can list here. But, in spite of all that revelation from God Himself, it seems we're pretty good at manufacturing substitutes and fakes.

The Bible, for instance, tells us that He is "holy, holy, holy" (Isa 6:3; Rev 4:8). Is your God that holy? When we think of "holy" we think first of separation from sin. Is your God separate from sin? Or is He complicit, condoning? "Oh, it's okay; everyone makes mistakes." But holy is more. It is "other." Is your God just like you (Psa 50:21)? We are told that "God is not a man" (Num 23:19), but that tends to be our first evaluation of God ... just like us. That's not God; that's another god. We are told that "the wrath of God is revealed from heaven" (Rom 1:18). How about yours? Is He a God who is angry about unrighteousness and ungodliness, or just a friendly kind of god? Scripture says He intends "to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known" (Rom 9:22). Is your God angry at sin, or is He "okay" with it? "Ah, don't worry, I'll let it go." If the latter, that's not God; that's another god. A constantly repeated claim in Scripture is that God is Sovereign ... really Sovereign. The "only Sovereign" (1 Tim 6:15). He makes light and creates -- actually creates -- calamity (Isa 45:7). He causes people to walk in His statutes (Ezek 36:27). We plan our own plans, but He directs our steps (Prov 16:9). The heart of the king is in the hand of the Lord (Prov 21:1). We're talking really, actually Sovereign. If your god is dependent upon Man, stymied by our choices, stopped by our lack of faith, that's another god.

As I said, God's Word lists quite a bit about God. I've just brushed the surface. And we need to be in the Word to see what He says about Himself and to believe what He says about Himself. But since He is God and we are not, since He is holy and we are not, since He is above all and we are not, since He is infinite and we are finite, it is necessarily true that we won't understand Him fully. It is understandable that we would have misguided notions about Him. The problem is that too many of our misguided notions are not misguided, but blind -- missing or ignoring what He has revealed about Himself. That other version of God we have that ignores what He has told us is not God. That's another god. In biblical terms, that's idolatry. "Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry" (1 Cor 10:14).

What Would Jesus Pray For?

In the Matthew version, Jesus just blurted it out, so to speak, but in Luke's version the disciples asked Him an excellent question, a request Jesus was only too happy to fulfill. "Lord," they said, "teach us to pray." So He said, "Pray like this," and He told them how to pray (Matt 6:9-13; Luke 11:1-4). He told them to address their Father, a revolutionary concept at the time. He told them to pray that His kingdom would come, and we do, don't we? "Come quickly, Lord Jesus." He told them to pray that God's will would be done on earth. He taught them to pray for daily needs and forgiveness of sins and to help us to avoid temptation and to deliver us from evil. Yes, yes, we know all this.

Jesus taught His disciples to "pray like this." He taught them what was important to ask the Father for. Do you know what was at the very top of Jesus's prayer list? Do you see His very first request? A lot of people miss it. The first request, right after the address -- "Our Father in heaven" -- is often misunderstood as a further address ... to a holy God. "Hallowed be Your name." "Yes," you might say, "we are recognizing His holiness." But that's not how we'd say that. We'd say, "Holy is your name." Jesus didn't. "Holy" is a description; "hallowed" is an action. Jesus's #1 request was that the Father's name would be "hallowed" -- regarded as holy. Yes, He is holy. In fact, He is holy, holy, holy (Isa 6:3; Rev 4:8). He is "holy, holier, holiest." He is absolutely set apart. But the prayer is not that He would be holy, but that we would honor Him as such. We would recognize His holiness. Jesus wanted us to pray to the Father that we would, first and foremost, see Him as holy.

Holy is something that we don't quite get. That's okay. It means "other," "set apart," so you might see how we might not quite get that which is "other." That, in fact, is why we need divine revelation. It's why God has to reveal Himself to us. He is not us; He is "other." So He needs to fill us in on the things we can grasp. And we have His Word for that. But He is holy beyond our comprehension. So we need to pray that we regard Him as holy. And since that is the first thing Jesus taught us to pray, it must be important. It must be that we need to honor Him as holy in all that we ask, in all that we do, in all that we think. I suspect we don't do that very well ... which, of course, is why we need to pray for that, right?

Love Your Neighbor

We all know the command. I think even unbelievers can often quote it. "Love your neighbor as you love yourself." Yada, yada, yada. So some will try and some won't but what few ever do is ask, "What does that mean?" To be fair, it's because we think we know, but do we? The standard (in this command) for loving your neighbor is "as you love yourself." How do you love yourself? I mean, just what does that mean? Let's see if we can figure it out.

From the face of it, the whole thing seems a bit much. What if my neighbor is unlovable? What if my neighbor is a jerk? What if my neighbor does bad things? This isn't hard to imagine primarily because it's so common. So how am I supposed to have these warm feelings toward that jerk? The easy answer, of course, is that you're not. You're supposed to love your neighbor in the same sort of manner that you love yourself. How do you love yourself? Are you always lovable? Are you never a jerk? Do you ever do bad things? Of course you do. If you're honest, all the time. And you would know best because one of your traits (I only know this because it is common to us all) is that you can cover it up much of the time ... but not to you. So you know quite well your faults and foibles, sins and misdemeanors, your failures and deviations. And, still, you continue to seek your best. You continue to hope for good things for you. You continue to try to take care of, to tend to your needs. If you're honest, sometimes you don't like you very much, but that doesn't stop you from feeding and clothing and housing yourself. And that is what is meant by "as you love yourself."

We are commanded to love our neighbors -- and Jesus is quite clear that this includes anybody with whom you come in contact -- as you love yourself. That doesn't mean we are required to feel warmly toward everyone we encounter. It doesn't mean we like everyone we see. It doesn't mean we think well of them all at all times. To believe that is to buy a version of "love" not intended in Scripture. No, the idea is that we are to love them in the same way that we seek our own best. The idea is that "each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others" (Php 2:4). Love your neighbor that way. Then, of course, you can start loving your fellow believers as Christ has loved you. The ultimate love.