Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has called for the impeachment of the Supreme Court justices who voted against Roe v Wade. That, of course, isn't perfectly accurate. She is claiming they lied under oath. She is not alone. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) told The New York Times that she feels Justice Kavanaugh misled her in a private meeting. Others are saying loudly that the three of the most recent appointees lied. Did they?
If you are paying attention, I don't think you can make that case. All three of the most recent appointees were heavily questioned in regard to their stance on Roe. All three of them recognized that it was "precedent." Their position is what is called in the legal field stare decisis. Stare decisis is the principle that precedent should determine legal decision-making in a case involving similar facts. That is, judges should lean toward agreement with prior judges in similar cases. You don't want to undermine the judicial system, right? But stare decisis is not law; it is a preference. And all three justice nominees where careful with their answers. Do they see Roe as precedent? Yes. Does that mean they cannot overturn it? That was never asked, but clearly that answer must be "No." In fact, Amy Coney Barrett had written a law review article that referenced the concept of a "super-precedent," a ruling with such precedence that it would demand subsequent rulings agree. Sen Amy Klobuchar asked her if Roe was a super-precedent. Barrett said, "I'm answering a lot of questions about Roe, which I think indicates that Roe doesn't fall in that category."
All the candidates recognized Roe as precedent. Precedent is not law. None of them claimed they would not vote against precedence. In fact, we shouldn't want a judge who would refuse to examine the facts and arguments in a case simply because a prior judge made a ruling. We should hope that stare decisis was a factor in their considerations, but certainly not the sole factor. They made statements that would likely lead the pro-abortion questioners to believe that Roe would be safe under their watch, but they were all lawyers and all gave lawyer answers -- completely true ... but not necessarily the conclusion you expected.
Here's what is disturbing to me. The almost single issue at stake in all three confirmation hearings was not ability or character; it was abortion. These congressional interrogators weren't looking for someone who would make rulings constitutionally, legally, or even wisely. They were looking for judges who would rule as they wanted them to. It was illegal for them to ask, "How would you rule?", but they sure tried. The highest concern of these agents of our democracy was not justice or law; it was the uninterrupted right to kill babies. To me, they carried out an interrogation under false pretenses and, in their own way, lied to the public doing so. They are not unimpeachable. (Before jumping to conclusions about what I just said, look it up.)
Wednesday, July 06, 2022
Tuesday, July 05, 2022
Personhood
Have you heard of the NRP (or NhRP)? It is the Nonhuman Rights Project. According to their website, "The Nonhuman Rights Project is the only civil rights organization in the United States dedicated solely to securing rights for nonhuman animals." That's right. We will not recognize any rights of the unborn human beings, but we will work hard for human rights for animals. "Nonhuman rights," they say, "are based on fundamental values and principles of justice such as liberty, autonomy, equality, and fairness." (Just take a moment to visualize what life becomes if all animals are given "equality" in the same sense that men, women, LGBTQ, all races, etc. are given. Equal pay? Just wondering, because an elephant or a horse can pull a lot more weight than you or I, for instance. But that would be moot because animals that aren't forced to work likely won't. Nor would any volunteer to be eaten. Oh, and all conservancy and protections (like preventing overpopulation of certain animals) would be right out, too.) The president of the organization says, "Our groundbreaking lawsuits in the US demand recognition of the legal personhood and fundamental right to bodily liberty of autonomous nonhuman animals living in captivity." Personhood? To a non-person? When we won't recognize the personhood of some humans? And why not? In 2017 New Zealand granted legal personhood to a river. In 2014 the Te Urewera park was recognized as a legal person. In 2018 a New Zealand volcano, Mount Taranaki, gained the same status. So why not animals? But my real question is why not humans? Insanity is spreading. It may already be at your door (Rom 1:22-23, 28).
Monday, July 04, 2022
Independence Day, 2022
Today we Americans celebrate our "Independence Day." We celebrate our struggle against the tyranny of King George III and Great Britain. We celebrate becoming our own nation and all that has been accomplished because of that struggle. Independence. On this day we celebrate the events of 1776 when we declared independence from Great Britain and became dependent only on ourselves.
That is, as it turns out, not entirely accurate. Perhaps it is more so today, but it wasn't in 1776. The Declaration of Independence was finally revised and signed on July 4, 1776. In it our forefathers declared that the purpose of government on earth was intended to secure rights that the Creator had given people. They presented a long list of violations of that obligation. So, they said, they were dissolving their connection to the failed authority of the king and turning to the authority derived from the people.
"See," you may say. "Independence meant self-governance." Sort of. The Declaration ends with "And 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." It started with the endowment of "unalienable Rights" by the Creator, and it ended with "firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence." Yes, they were intending to derive their governing power from the people, but their ultimate reliance wasn't the people; it was God.
We've moved on, haven't we? We've achieved ultimate self-reliance. We've ruled God out of government. We're offended if someone wants to pray on the 50-yard line at a school football game. Someone in government suggests that we need God in government and they're tagged as "no different than the Taliban" (by someone who classifies themselves as "Christian"). There is a common belief that you can be a Christian and you can be in government, but don't bring your Christian beliefs into government. This is, of course, utter nonsense. Following Christ engages all aspects of life and you can't turn it off. Beyond that, we shouldn't. We ought not (where "ought" carries a sense of moral obligation).
I don't believe that God has called for a theocracy. I believe that will happen when He makes it happen at the end. But as we celebrate our independence from an oppressive government while we live in a nation that is tending toward removing God-given rights instead of defending them, I would like to remind you (Christians) of two things. First, the founders of this nation did not believe in actual independence. They sought independence from Great Britain and from oppressive government, but they held to ongoing dependence on God. So should we. Second, while we are not called to be the government of this world, we are told to make "supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings ... for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way" (1 Tim 2:1-2). Let's do that. Often.
That is, as it turns out, not entirely accurate. Perhaps it is more so today, but it wasn't in 1776. The Declaration of Independence was finally revised and signed on July 4, 1776. In it our forefathers declared that the purpose of government on earth was intended to secure rights that the Creator had given people. They presented a long list of violations of that obligation. So, they said, they were dissolving their connection to the failed authority of the king and turning to the authority derived from the people.
"See," you may say. "Independence meant self-governance." Sort of. The Declaration ends with "And 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." It started with the endowment of "unalienable Rights" by the Creator, and it ended with "firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence." Yes, they were intending to derive their governing power from the people, but their ultimate reliance wasn't the people; it was God.
We've moved on, haven't we? We've achieved ultimate self-reliance. We've ruled God out of government. We're offended if someone wants to pray on the 50-yard line at a school football game. Someone in government suggests that we need God in government and they're tagged as "no different than the Taliban" (by someone who classifies themselves as "Christian"). There is a common belief that you can be a Christian and you can be in government, but don't bring your Christian beliefs into government. This is, of course, utter nonsense. Following Christ engages all aspects of life and you can't turn it off. Beyond that, we shouldn't. We ought not (where "ought" carries a sense of moral obligation).
I don't believe that God has called for a theocracy. I believe that will happen when He makes it happen at the end. But as we celebrate our independence from an oppressive government while we live in a nation that is tending toward removing God-given rights instead of defending them, I would like to remind you (Christians) of two things. First, the founders of this nation did not believe in actual independence. They sought independence from Great Britain and from oppressive government, but they held to ongoing dependence on God. So should we. Second, while we are not called to be the government of this world, we are told to make "supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings ... for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way" (1 Tim 2:1-2). Let's do that. Often.
Sunday, July 03, 2022
Closer and Closer
In Matthew 24 Jesus prophesied that not one stone of the temple would remain on another at some point in time. The end of time. The "end of the age" (Matt 24:3). So the disciples asked when (which Jesus already told them He didn't know) and what the signs would be. He proceeded to answer the second question. In amongst the things He lists, He included this:
Regardless of where you fall on that, when I read that text above, it feels like I'm reading about current events. There is a growing hatred for Christians in the world. Many are falling away. So-called Christians hate other Christians. False prophets are abounding. Many are being led astray. Note the phrase, "because lawlessness will be increased." In the mid 20th century in America, I don't suppose there were more genuine followers of Christ (percentage-wise), but there was certainly a greater sense of obligation to Christian morality. As a society we valued marital fidelity and opposed sexual immorality. We sought to be a community and tried to continue in Christian values. Today, "lawlessness" in that sense has increased. And because of that, the love of many has grown cold. Sure sounds a lot like today.
Jesus taught He would return. Therefore, genuine followers of Christ must believe that He will return. There is a point in time when it all ends and a new age begins where sin is no more and God is physically on the throne. Since that is true, it is not speculation that we are closer to that today than human beings have ever been before. I have no doubt that it can get worse. I have no doubt that it will. And I can't say that this present tumble into immorality ("lawlessness") and hate for believers is the last or worse to come. I'm not saying this is the end. In fact, I'm pretty sure it will get a lot worse before that happens. I'm just saying that you, true followers of Christ, ought to be aware that Jesus promised that it would get worse for His followers. Be prepared. Be confident. Don't be among those who hate Christians, who fall away, who betray one another, who follow false prophets or pursue lawlessness or whose love grows cold. "The one who endures to the end will be saved." (See 1 John 2:18-20)
Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and put you to death, and you will be hated by all nations for My name's sake. And then many will fall away and betray one another and hate one another. And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray. And because lawlessness will be increased, the love of many will grow cold. But the one who endures to the end will be saved. (Matt 24:9-13)There is debate about when Jesus is talking about. Does "the end of the age" refer to their current age which would be replaced by the "age of grace" -- the "church age"? There are plenty of accounts that suggest that Matthew 24 occurred in 70 A.D. Others are quite sure that this is a reference to the very end, a time (obviously) yet to come, but getting closer and closer every day. Which is it? I'm one that typically answers "Yes" to that question. Both/and. Like the question "Was the Messiah going to be the Great King or the Suffering Servant?" "Yes." I suspect that much of Jesus's prophecy occurred in their day and will occur again in the final days. It's my way of making sense of "coming quickly," "this generation will not pass away before" kind of language. Others disagree. And since it's my suspicion and not any sort of certainty, I'm okay with that.
Regardless of where you fall on that, when I read that text above, it feels like I'm reading about current events. There is a growing hatred for Christians in the world. Many are falling away. So-called Christians hate other Christians. False prophets are abounding. Many are being led astray. Note the phrase, "because lawlessness will be increased." In the mid 20th century in America, I don't suppose there were more genuine followers of Christ (percentage-wise), but there was certainly a greater sense of obligation to Christian morality. As a society we valued marital fidelity and opposed sexual immorality. We sought to be a community and tried to continue in Christian values. Today, "lawlessness" in that sense has increased. And because of that, the love of many has grown cold. Sure sounds a lot like today.
Jesus taught He would return. Therefore, genuine followers of Christ must believe that He will return. There is a point in time when it all ends and a new age begins where sin is no more and God is physically on the throne. Since that is true, it is not speculation that we are closer to that today than human beings have ever been before. I have no doubt that it can get worse. I have no doubt that it will. And I can't say that this present tumble into immorality ("lawlessness") and hate for believers is the last or worse to come. I'm not saying this is the end. In fact, I'm pretty sure it will get a lot worse before that happens. I'm just saying that you, true followers of Christ, ought to be aware that Jesus promised that it would get worse for His followers. Be prepared. Be confident. Don't be among those who hate Christians, who fall away, who betray one another, who follow false prophets or pursue lawlessness or whose love grows cold. "The one who endures to the end will be saved." (See 1 John 2:18-20)
Saturday, July 02, 2022
News Weakly - 7/2/22
Measured Response
On June 24, SCOTUS shot down New York's concealed carry law and Roe v Wade. In response, Biden signed a "landmark gun measure." Background checks, blocking domestic violence offenders, and "red flag" laws. Oh, and $13 billion. An "historic achievement." That ought to do it.
The other newsworthy response was violent protests breaking out over the SCOTUS ruling on Roe v Wade. Sorry ... "mostly peaceful" rock throwing, flag burning, property damage, and "violent altercations" protests. They blocked Los Angeles freeways and closed streets in cities around the country. One sign read, "No uterus, no opinion." Another said, "Kurt Cobain believed in womens rights so you should too." So which is it? Rapper Kendrick Lamar donned a "crown of thorns" and called for "women's rights." He's not allowed to do that, is he? Or can men only have the opinions women give them? I know that women who disagree with pro-abortion women don't get a say. So which is it? One sign read, "No abortion bans, not now, not ever!" ... much like the laws in Washington D.C. that allow abortion into the third trimester or Maryland that aims to allow post-partum abortion. One sign said, "I dream one day women will have the same rights as guns." None of them appear to be dreaming of a day when all humans will have rights. One protester said today they were letting their voices be known, and "Next is revolution." Mostly peaceful; mostly reasonable. Or ... not.
As a side note, apparently no one realizes that federal law considers killing a baby in the womb a homicide -- killing a human being. The federal government classifies the unborn as a "child, who is in utero", not "potential humans."
More Faux Outrage
As if guns and abortion weren't enough, now the Supreme Court has ruled that people can pray! Oh, the injustice!! Of course, it's not merely praying in view. This high school coach would pray on the field after games. The school district told him he couldn't. Mind you, it wasn't sanctioned by the school. Notice that no one was coerced to pray with him. He didn't do it as a school representative. So, in effect, the court did rule that this guy could pray. His actions do not constitute "establishment of religion" since it was voluntary and to fail to allow him to do it did constitute supression of free exercise of his religion. But, hey, that's not how the minority dissent nor the overwhelming media presence will paint it.
Unclear on the Concept
Climate protesters in Sydney blocked roads and a tunnel with "violent" and "erratic" protests ... stopping traffic all over the city and producing more greenhouse gases that would have been if they hadn't stopped traffic all over the city. They're planning to keep it up until the people take their message seriously. Message ... yes ... that must be "We don't care how much we interrupt lives or damage the environment as long as we can save the environment." Got it.
People are Outraged!
Well, of course, that's not news. However, the reason is. In a speech delivered on the 25th of May, one day after the Uvalde, Texas, shooting, Sarah Huckabee Sanders said she wanted to make children in a mother's womb as "as safe as they are in a classroom ..." Oh, that's bad. That's tone deaf. What an idiot! Oh, wait ... hang on. Since 1973, over 65 million babies have been killed by abortion. In the same amount of time, 220 children have been killed in school shootings. Both are bad, but clearly not on the same level. You know, if abortions killed only 300 kids in 50 years, I'm not sure pro-life people would be nearly as concerned.
Ah! There it is!
Previously the Archbishop of San Francisco barred Nancy Pelosi from receiving communion for her stance on abortion and multiple archbishops concurred. When I reported on it I said, "I will be further surprised if they actually carry through on the ban." As expected, Pelosi violated the church order and took communion at the Vatican presided over by the Pope, thus repudiating the Catechsim of the Catholic Church. Is this another abortion death?
A Travesty of Justice
A New York judge cleared Trump of contempt charges. I'm sure the whole "We hate Trump for merely breathing" crowd will call that a travesty of justice. I'd suggest that that level of hate is a travesty as well.
It's Only Wrong If You Do It
SCOTUS ruled Thursday to limit the president's authority to implement regulations under the Clean Air Act to reduce carbon emissions. Justice Elena Kagan delivered the dissenting opinion. She was concerned that the Court was making decisions that Executive and Legislative branches should make. I'm pretty sure she wasn't equally concerned when SCOTUS made abortion the law of the land or the courts made "same-sex marriage" the law of the land. I actually agree with Kagan that legislating from the bench is wrong for the court. However, it has happened a lot and appears to only be a problem for some when it is in opposition to their view. (Note: SCOTUS's ruling on abortion was not such legislation. It did not ban abortion; it put the laws where they should have been ... in the hands of the states.)
Got to Bee True
There was the story about the Democrats pausing the January 6 hearings after the Roe v Wade ruling to call for insurrection. Word is out that the restrooms in the Supreme Court have now been change to gender neutral so Ketanji Brown Jackson can avoid any embarrassing confusion. And the Bee was shocked at the sentence handed down to Ghislaine Maxwell considering the years of faithful service she provided to our nation's leaders.
Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
On June 24, SCOTUS shot down New York's concealed carry law and Roe v Wade. In response, Biden signed a "landmark gun measure." Background checks, blocking domestic violence offenders, and "red flag" laws. Oh, and $13 billion. An "historic achievement." That ought to do it.
The other newsworthy response was violent protests breaking out over the SCOTUS ruling on Roe v Wade. Sorry ... "mostly peaceful" rock throwing, flag burning, property damage, and "violent altercations" protests. They blocked Los Angeles freeways and closed streets in cities around the country. One sign read, "No uterus, no opinion." Another said, "Kurt Cobain believed in womens rights so you should too." So which is it? Rapper Kendrick Lamar donned a "crown of thorns" and called for "women's rights." He's not allowed to do that, is he? Or can men only have the opinions women give them? I know that women who disagree with pro-abortion women don't get a say. So which is it? One sign read, "No abortion bans, not now, not ever!" ... much like the laws in Washington D.C. that allow abortion into the third trimester or Maryland that aims to allow post-partum abortion. One sign said, "I dream one day women will have the same rights as guns." None of them appear to be dreaming of a day when all humans will have rights. One protester said today they were letting their voices be known, and "Next is revolution." Mostly peaceful; mostly reasonable. Or ... not.
As a side note, apparently no one realizes that federal law considers killing a baby in the womb a homicide -- killing a human being. The federal government classifies the unborn as a "child, who is in utero", not "potential humans."
More Faux Outrage
As if guns and abortion weren't enough, now the Supreme Court has ruled that people can pray! Oh, the injustice!! Of course, it's not merely praying in view. This high school coach would pray on the field after games. The school district told him he couldn't. Mind you, it wasn't sanctioned by the school. Notice that no one was coerced to pray with him. He didn't do it as a school representative. So, in effect, the court did rule that this guy could pray. His actions do not constitute "establishment of religion" since it was voluntary and to fail to allow him to do it did constitute supression of free exercise of his religion. But, hey, that's not how the minority dissent nor the overwhelming media presence will paint it.
Unclear on the Concept
Climate protesters in Sydney blocked roads and a tunnel with "violent" and "erratic" protests ... stopping traffic all over the city and producing more greenhouse gases that would have been if they hadn't stopped traffic all over the city. They're planning to keep it up until the people take their message seriously. Message ... yes ... that must be "We don't care how much we interrupt lives or damage the environment as long as we can save the environment." Got it.
People are Outraged!
Well, of course, that's not news. However, the reason is. In a speech delivered on the 25th of May, one day after the Uvalde, Texas, shooting, Sarah Huckabee Sanders said she wanted to make children in a mother's womb as "as safe as they are in a classroom ..." Oh, that's bad. That's tone deaf. What an idiot! Oh, wait ... hang on. Since 1973, over 65 million babies have been killed by abortion. In the same amount of time, 220 children have been killed in school shootings. Both are bad, but clearly not on the same level. You know, if abortions killed only 300 kids in 50 years, I'm not sure pro-life people would be nearly as concerned.
Ah! There it is!
Previously the Archbishop of San Francisco barred Nancy Pelosi from receiving communion for her stance on abortion and multiple archbishops concurred. When I reported on it I said, "I will be further surprised if they actually carry through on the ban." As expected, Pelosi violated the church order and took communion at the Vatican presided over by the Pope, thus repudiating the Catechsim of the Catholic Church. Is this another abortion death?
A Travesty of Justice
A New York judge cleared Trump of contempt charges. I'm sure the whole "We hate Trump for merely breathing" crowd will call that a travesty of justice. I'd suggest that that level of hate is a travesty as well.
It's Only Wrong If You Do It
SCOTUS ruled Thursday to limit the president's authority to implement regulations under the Clean Air Act to reduce carbon emissions. Justice Elena Kagan delivered the dissenting opinion. She was concerned that the Court was making decisions that Executive and Legislative branches should make. I'm pretty sure she wasn't equally concerned when SCOTUS made abortion the law of the land or the courts made "same-sex marriage" the law of the land. I actually agree with Kagan that legislating from the bench is wrong for the court. However, it has happened a lot and appears to only be a problem for some when it is in opposition to their view. (Note: SCOTUS's ruling on abortion was not such legislation. It did not ban abortion; it put the laws where they should have been ... in the hands of the states.)
Got to Bee True
There was the story about the Democrats pausing the January 6 hearings after the Roe v Wade ruling to call for insurrection. Word is out that the restrooms in the Supreme Court have now been change to gender neutral so Ketanji Brown Jackson can avoid any embarrassing confusion. And the Bee was shocked at the sentence handed down to Ghislaine Maxwell considering the years of faithful service she provided to our nation's leaders.
Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
Friday, July 01, 2022
God is Good
A lttle lesson in etymology. Okay, two. First, "etymology" is the study of words. Now, the real one. Did you know that, in English, the origin of the word, "good," is the word, "God"? Interesting, eh? "Good" in the sense of "kind or benevolent" was attributed to God, so it was the origin of the word.
It is, in fact, fitting. Jesus said, "No one is good except God alone" (Luke 18:19). David challenges his readers, "Oh, taste and see that the LORD is good!" (Psa 34:8). He assures us, "The LORD is good to all, and His mercy is over all that He has made" (Psa 145:9). The prophet Nahum wrote, "The LORD is good, a stronghold in the day of trouble; He knows those who take refuge in Him" (Nah 1:7). James says, "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with Whom there is no variation or shadow due to change" (James 1:17). We have it on good biblical authority that God is good. More than simply being good, He defines good. No one is good except God alone. "The LORD is good; His steadfast love endures forever, and His faithfulness to all generations" (Psa 100:5). Based on this unassailable truth, "We know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to His purpose" (Rom 8:28).
Knowing this, then, should inform our entire lives. When uncomfortable, painful, even disastrous things occur, aside from the understandable response to pain that makes us human, do we rest in the certainty that God is good, or do we respond with anger at God? Do we believe that only God is good, or do we believe that sometimes -- sometimes -- we probably have a better idea of what is good than He does? When God told Saul, "Go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey" (1 Sam 15:3), do we suggest that God would have been wrong for doing so? Do we argue that God is mistaken when He claims, "I form light and create darkness; I make well-being and create calamity; I am the LORD, who does all these things" (Isa 45:7)?
We who believe in God, who believe He is good, who appreciate His promises and His power and His presence ... do we believe all that? Or do we pass judgment? If He meets our expectations of what is or is not good, then He's alright. If not, either the information is faulty or God Himself is wrong. Either Scripture is mistaken or God is. We are people blessed by a God who defines good and with His breathed Word. Are we going to trust His Word that He is good, or will we presume to judge them? Will we believe the Savior that there is no one good except God, or will we prefer our own standards of "good" against which to measure God?
It is, in fact, fitting. Jesus said, "No one is good except God alone" (Luke 18:19). David challenges his readers, "Oh, taste and see that the LORD is good!" (Psa 34:8). He assures us, "The LORD is good to all, and His mercy is over all that He has made" (Psa 145:9). The prophet Nahum wrote, "The LORD is good, a stronghold in the day of trouble; He knows those who take refuge in Him" (Nah 1:7). James says, "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with Whom there is no variation or shadow due to change" (James 1:17). We have it on good biblical authority that God is good. More than simply being good, He defines good. No one is good except God alone. "The LORD is good; His steadfast love endures forever, and His faithfulness to all generations" (Psa 100:5). Based on this unassailable truth, "We know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to His purpose" (Rom 8:28).
Knowing this, then, should inform our entire lives. When uncomfortable, painful, even disastrous things occur, aside from the understandable response to pain that makes us human, do we rest in the certainty that God is good, or do we respond with anger at God? Do we believe that only God is good, or do we believe that sometimes -- sometimes -- we probably have a better idea of what is good than He does? When God told Saul, "Go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey" (1 Sam 15:3), do we suggest that God would have been wrong for doing so? Do we argue that God is mistaken when He claims, "I form light and create darkness; I make well-being and create calamity; I am the LORD, who does all these things" (Isa 45:7)?
We who believe in God, who believe He is good, who appreciate His promises and His power and His presence ... do we believe all that? Or do we pass judgment? If He meets our expectations of what is or is not good, then He's alright. If not, either the information is faulty or God Himself is wrong. Either Scripture is mistaken or God is. We are people blessed by a God who defines good and with His breathed Word. Are we going to trust His Word that He is good, or will we presume to judge them? Will we believe the Savior that there is no one good except God, or will we prefer our own standards of "good" against which to measure God?
Thursday, June 30, 2022
It's Not Rocket Science
Our world has been in an uproar since June 24, 2022, when the Supreme Court finally recognized that the precedent of the Roe v Wade ruling was not constitutional after all. Women have gone crazy. Men have gone crazy. The vitriol and outrage are palpable. "It's you men," they accuse, although there are plenty of women (including one on the Supreme Court) who would disagree. "It's you religious people," they assure us. It's a lot of things, they're sure, but what it is not is moral or rational. The only moral, rational thing to do is to allow women to kill their babies on demand.
To me, it's not rocket science. It's not even religious. I cannot, sincerely, grasp how this is so elusive to so many. Here it is. I believe, whether you are atheist or religious, male or female, any race you may choose, that there is a common moral position that says, "It is immoral to kill innocent human beings." I know! Revolutionary, right? I would hope not. I would hope that we could all agree on that. I would hope that something as heinous as killing innocent humans would be universally classified as evil. But if we're all agreed on this, why is this so contentious?
It doesn't require biblical insight to understand that what is growing in the womb of every mother is a human being. Science clearly tells us that it can be no other. Standard biology demonstrates that the one that occupies the uterus is simply the first stage of all the stages of human life.
A middle-aged man is no less a human than a senior citizen. A teenager is no less a human than a 20-something. An infant is just as much a human being as that teenager. This earlier stage -- the fetal stage -- is just as human as any other stage. It possesses its own unique DNA. It contains its own heart and lungs and brain and the rest. It is not mother's tissue; it is a human being. Beyond the science, federal law says "an embryo or fetus" is defined as a "child in utero" who, if injured or killed, is classified as a "legal victim." The law defines a fetus as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb." Science and law agree. The unborn are human beings.
It's as simple as that. It doesn't require a Bible. You don't need a seminary. You don't even need a pastor. Atheists and religious people alike would agree. It is morally wrong to kill an innocent human being. Science and law agree. The unborn are human beings. It would seem beyond reason to conclude, "Therefore, we should let people choose to kill these innocent human beings." So why is it that my stand in favor of innocent human beings is considered immoral, racist, sexist, and all sorts of other unrelated things and "Let 'em kill 'em if they want" is the moral view? Rhetorical question. The only answers would have to be from bias rather than reason.
_______________
Postscript
"So, religion has nothing to do with it, eh?" Oh, to be sure, all of my worldview is informed by my faith. We can arrive at a common moral perspective that it is wrong to kill innocent human beings without religion, but the value of human life is better informed by religion (Gen 9:6). And it is quite clear that God is opposed to abortion: "Choose life, that you and your children may live" (Deut 30:19). However, the pro-life perspective that killing innocent humans is not necessarily or exclusively a religious one.
To me, it's not rocket science. It's not even religious. I cannot, sincerely, grasp how this is so elusive to so many. Here it is. I believe, whether you are atheist or religious, male or female, any race you may choose, that there is a common moral position that says, "It is immoral to kill innocent human beings." I know! Revolutionary, right? I would hope not. I would hope that we could all agree on that. I would hope that something as heinous as killing innocent humans would be universally classified as evil. But if we're all agreed on this, why is this so contentious?
It doesn't require biblical insight to understand that what is growing in the womb of every mother is a human being. Science clearly tells us that it can be no other. Standard biology demonstrates that the one that occupies the uterus is simply the first stage of all the stages of human life.
It's as simple as that. It doesn't require a Bible. You don't need a seminary. You don't even need a pastor. Atheists and religious people alike would agree. It is morally wrong to kill an innocent human being. Science and law agree. The unborn are human beings. It would seem beyond reason to conclude, "Therefore, we should let people choose to kill these innocent human beings." So why is it that my stand in favor of innocent human beings is considered immoral, racist, sexist, and all sorts of other unrelated things and "Let 'em kill 'em if they want" is the moral view? Rhetorical question. The only answers would have to be from bias rather than reason.
_______________
Postscript
"So, religion has nothing to do with it, eh?" Oh, to be sure, all of my worldview is informed by my faith. We can arrive at a common moral perspective that it is wrong to kill innocent human beings without religion, but the value of human life is better informed by religion (Gen 9:6). And it is quite clear that God is opposed to abortion: "Choose life, that you and your children may live" (Deut 30:19). However, the pro-life perspective that killing innocent humans is not necessarily or exclusively a religious one.
Wednesday, June 29, 2022
Worthy
Jesus said, "Whoever loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And whoever does not take his cross and follow Me is not worthy of Me" (Matt 10:37-38). Interesting. "Worthy of Me." In Ephesians Paul wrote, "I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called" (Eph 4:1). He told the Philippians, "Only let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ" (Php 1:27). His prayer for the Colossian Christians was they would "walk in a manner worthy of the Lord" (Col 1:10). He told the Thessalonians, "We exhorted each one of you and encouraged you and charged you to walk in a manner worthy of God" (1 Thess 2:12). I'm sensing a trend.
The term isn't hard to grasp. "Worthy" refers to being of equal worth. That is, "worthy" is "having worth" and being worthy of something or someone is having suitable worth. So Jesus considers "worthy of Me" to mean "loving me more than others." Paul wanted them to "walk in a manner worthy of the calling," meaning that their lives reflected the value of the call. These aren't complicated concepts on the surface, but just what do they mean in practice? We know, for instance, that sinners never attain "worthy of Me" and sinning saints never achieve "worthy of the Lord" -- a walk that rightly represents the value of God -- so how does this work? What does this look like?
Paul goes on to expound on what this walk looks like. Predicated on knowing God's will deeply, the worthy walk is fully pleasing to Him. That's the aim (2 Cor 5:9). What is pleasing to Him? Bearing fruit. Not just any fruit; the fruit of "every good work." Leave no good work undone. Multiply them. What else? Increasing in the knowledge of God. We never "arrive" here. God is infinite; we are finite. We will never grasp God. So a lifelong pursuit of knowing God better is pleasing to Him. What else? Being strengthened with power. Not just any power; all power. Not just any power; power according to His glorious might. His power. The power that is "is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think, according to the power at work within us" (Eph 3:20). That power. It exceeds your requests, even your imagination. More than that, it is already at work within us. That power. That power is what provides endurance and patience. Notice that both of those require reasons to endure and be patient -- tough times. And not just endurance and patience. Also joy. This walk worthy of the Lord includes giving thanks to the Father. Why? Because while we don't qualify as saints and heirs, He has made us that.
I think, if we're honest, we don't make a practice of that worthy walk. We are not marked by "all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (Eph 4:2-3). Let's be honest. We don't love God with all our heart, soul, and mind. Part of our problem is that we don't grasp the extreme value of our calling (Eph 4:1), of the gospel of Christ (Php 1:27), or even the Lord (Col 1:10). Anything we put above Him and His grace and gifts diminishes the value of His grace and gifts and the value of knowing Him. So the repetition of the concept of the worthy walk is quite important, given that we don't typically do that and we aren't particularly concerned.
The term isn't hard to grasp. "Worthy" refers to being of equal worth. That is, "worthy" is "having worth" and being worthy of something or someone is having suitable worth. So Jesus considers "worthy of Me" to mean "loving me more than others." Paul wanted them to "walk in a manner worthy of the calling," meaning that their lives reflected the value of the call. These aren't complicated concepts on the surface, but just what do they mean in practice? We know, for instance, that sinners never attain "worthy of Me" and sinning saints never achieve "worthy of the Lord" -- a walk that rightly represents the value of God -- so how does this work? What does this look like?
And so, from the day we heard, we have not ceased to pray for you, asking that you may be filled with the knowledge of His will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, so as to walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to Him: bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God; being strengthened with all power, according to His glorious might, for all endurance and patience with joy; giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in light. (Col 1:9-12)Paul's primary point in this text is that "walk in a manner worthy of the Lord" phrase. Look at what surrounds it. First, prayer. Prayer for what? "That you may be filled with the knowledge of His will." He clarifies the quality of that knowledge. "In all spiritual wisdom and understanding." The purpose is to walk in a manner worthy of the Lord. How many of us do this? How many pray for knowledge of His will? Oh, I'd hope it is quite a few. How many pray for knowledge "in all spiritual wisdom and understanding"? Probably less. We might even use a phrase like "just a glimpse." Not enough.
Paul goes on to expound on what this walk looks like. Predicated on knowing God's will deeply, the worthy walk is fully pleasing to Him. That's the aim (2 Cor 5:9). What is pleasing to Him? Bearing fruit. Not just any fruit; the fruit of "every good work." Leave no good work undone. Multiply them. What else? Increasing in the knowledge of God. We never "arrive" here. God is infinite; we are finite. We will never grasp God. So a lifelong pursuit of knowing God better is pleasing to Him. What else? Being strengthened with power. Not just any power; all power. Not just any power; power according to His glorious might. His power. The power that is "is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think, according to the power at work within us" (Eph 3:20). That power. It exceeds your requests, even your imagination. More than that, it is already at work within us. That power. That power is what provides endurance and patience. Notice that both of those require reasons to endure and be patient -- tough times. And not just endurance and patience. Also joy. This walk worthy of the Lord includes giving thanks to the Father. Why? Because while we don't qualify as saints and heirs, He has made us that.
I think, if we're honest, we don't make a practice of that worthy walk. We are not marked by "all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (Eph 4:2-3). Let's be honest. We don't love God with all our heart, soul, and mind. Part of our problem is that we don't grasp the extreme value of our calling (Eph 4:1), of the gospel of Christ (Php 1:27), or even the Lord (Col 1:10). Anything we put above Him and His grace and gifts diminishes the value of His grace and gifts and the value of knowing Him. So the repetition of the concept of the worthy walk is quite important, given that we don't typically do that and we aren't particularly concerned.
Tuesday, June 28, 2022
Boys and Bears
In John 9 we learn a difficult lesson. The disciples asked Jesus the obvious question regarding the man who was born blind. "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents?" (John 9:2) Jesus gave an unexpected answer. "It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him" (John 9:3) That is, first, not all tragedy is the product of or judgment for sin. Second, it is so that "the works of God might be displayed." In other words, while we universally view hard times as bad, God appears to view them as necessary and for a good purpose.
In 2 Kings 2 we have two famous stories. The first is the origin of the song, Swing Low Sweet Chariot, where Elijah becomes only the second man in all of history to not die (2 Kings 2:1-12). At that event, Elijah's disciple, Elisha, asked for "a double portion of our spirit on me" (2 Kings 2:9) and received Elijah's mantle. That is, Elisha was given Elijah's job of calling Israel to repentance and twice Elijah's resources to do it. The second event isn't as much fun. Elisha was coming out of Bethel where he encountered some rude boys who jeered at him for being bald (2 Kings 2:23). The text says, "And he turned around, and when he saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. And two she-bears came out of the woods and tore forty-two of the boys"
(2 Kings 2:24). Okay ... what? Can we make any sense out of that?
Remembering that the Bible is God's Word, not simple lies or mere myth, and that God "works all things after the counsel of His will" (Eph 1:11), what can we derive from this? Behind the scenes, keep in mind that Bethel was a particular city of idolatry (1 Kings 12:29), just for background. So, first, the boys were jeering the man known to be Elijah's successor (2 Kings 2:15). Second, they were disregarding God's appointed prophet by ridiculing God's work. "Go up, baldy" was a reference to Elijah's going up. It was a taunt similar to the one they gave Jesus -- "If you are the Son of God, come down from the cross" (Matt 27:40) -- except it included the sense of "and be gone from here." That is, "Get out of here, you messenger from God, because we reject you entirely." Third, it is a mistake on the part of many moderns to think, "But these were innocent children!" Modern thinking says so; Scripture denies it. God said, "The intention of man's heart is evil from his youth" (Gen 8:21). David said we are conceived in sin (Psa 51:5). There are no innocents. Beyond this, the words translated "little children" (KJV), "small boys" (ESV), or "young lads" (NASB) isn't as clear as you might like to think. "Young" comes from qatan meaning small, young, or unimportant. "Boys" is naar referring to youths, servants, or even young men (71 times). The same wording appears in 1 Kings 11:17 referring to Hadad the Edomite who was an enemy of Solomon and fled to Egypt while he was "young." The term may refer to age or maturity or social stature. Either way, then, we have condemned sinners in full rebellion forming a mob (more than 42 of them) (2 Kings 2:24) against God and His known prophet.
Opponents of God and His Word would like you to believe that this is clearly an injustice. It is not Scripture or even Elisha on trial here. It is God. If the account was in error, it wouldn't have been included. If Elisha was in error, God wouldn't have allowed the "injustice" of two bears malling the kids. So the outcome appears to be God's intention for God's glory and God's purposes. Those who are hostile to God (Rom 8:7) will continue to use it to blaspheme. You who are not need not.
________
One other side comment here. I want to point out that the text does not say that any of the boys died. We all know that not all bear attacks result in death. The text says the bears "tore" the boys; it does not say they killed them.
Remembering that the Bible is God's Word, not simple lies or mere myth, and that God "works all things after the counsel of His will" (Eph 1:11), what can we derive from this? Behind the scenes, keep in mind that Bethel was a particular city of idolatry (1 Kings 12:29), just for background. So, first, the boys were jeering the man known to be Elijah's successor (2 Kings 2:15). Second, they were disregarding God's appointed prophet by ridiculing God's work. "Go up, baldy" was a reference to Elijah's going up. It was a taunt similar to the one they gave Jesus -- "If you are the Son of God, come down from the cross" (Matt 27:40) -- except it included the sense of "and be gone from here." That is, "Get out of here, you messenger from God, because we reject you entirely." Third, it is a mistake on the part of many moderns to think, "But these were innocent children!" Modern thinking says so; Scripture denies it. God said, "The intention of man's heart is evil from his youth" (Gen 8:21). David said we are conceived in sin (Psa 51:5). There are no innocents. Beyond this, the words translated "little children" (KJV), "small boys" (ESV), or "young lads" (NASB) isn't as clear as you might like to think. "Young" comes from qatan meaning small, young, or unimportant. "Boys" is naar referring to youths, servants, or even young men (71 times). The same wording appears in 1 Kings 11:17 referring to Hadad the Edomite who was an enemy of Solomon and fled to Egypt while he was "young." The term may refer to age or maturity or social stature. Either way, then, we have condemned sinners in full rebellion forming a mob (more than 42 of them) (2 Kings 2:24) against God and His known prophet.
Opponents of God and His Word would like you to believe that this is clearly an injustice. It is not Scripture or even Elisha on trial here. It is God. If the account was in error, it wouldn't have been included. If Elisha was in error, God wouldn't have allowed the "injustice" of two bears malling the kids. So the outcome appears to be God's intention for God's glory and God's purposes. Those who are hostile to God (Rom 8:7) will continue to use it to blaspheme. You who are not need not.
________
One other side comment here. I want to point out that the text does not say that any of the boys died. We all know that not all bear attacks result in death. The text says the bears "tore" the boys; it does not say they killed them.
Monday, June 27, 2022
Vengeance is Mine
Jane's Revenge is on the march. They claim to be "not one group but many" and they claim to have attacked pro-life entities (churches, crisis pregancy centers, individuals, etc.) all over the country. "You know that we are serious." They offered an ultimatum. Get out or else. If you run a crisis pregnancy center aimed at helping women have their babies, you had 30 days to close your doors. They were not surprised that the time has passed "with no sign of consilience."
"Consilience"? Really?? I had to look it up. Consilience is the principle that evidence from various sources can converge. It is the linking of principles from different disciplines to form a comprehensive theory. It is compatibility, harmony, consensus. So what does this "consilience" look like to Jane's Revenge? Walk away. "You quit and we win." Strange. That doesn't sound anything at all like consilience.
So now "the leash is off." They say they have demonstrated "How easy and fun it is to attack." They warned "We answer to no one but ourselves." They promise "increasingly drastic measures." What is the "crime"? What is the wrong they wish to right ... by whatever violent means necessary? Apparently helping pregnant girls without killing their babies is making survival "largely untenable." Helping girls without killing babies is criminalizing humanity (their words). Offering help without killing babies is limiting medical autonomy. It is an "infrastructure of the enslavers." To them "complete liberation" is the elimination of any other options. Attacking clinics that do not kill babies helps build "robust, caring communities of mutual aid." They say, "Through attacking we find joy, courage, and strip the veneer of impenetrability held by these violent institutions." Wait ... "violent institutions"? You mean the ones that help without hurting or killing or damaging anything? Those "violent institutions"? You who urge people everywhere "to paint, to burn, to cut, to jam" are the non-violent?
Protesting outside the homes of Supreme Court Justices to coerce a decision in your favor is an illegal act. Threatening to kill a Supreme Court Justice is an illegal act. Vandalism from graffiti to arson are illegal acts, all multiplied by their repetition. Violent people are aiming at nonviolent people and calling it "good" and "right." Like the abusers who claim, "You made me do this," they demonstrate their insanity by continuing to break the law and blame the victims. But, of course, this issue is one that the powers that be actually want violence against, so we aren't expecting any law enforcement or justice in the foreseeable future. Indeed, the White House encouraged illegal activities like this. Talk about corruption.
________
Postscript. For documentation of Jane's Revenge's aims and perspectives, go to their blog. Seriously, they are documenting this stuff in the open .. including the source of the above quotes.
"Consilience"? Really?? I had to look it up. Consilience is the principle that evidence from various sources can converge. It is the linking of principles from different disciplines to form a comprehensive theory. It is compatibility, harmony, consensus. So what does this "consilience" look like to Jane's Revenge? Walk away. "You quit and we win." Strange. That doesn't sound anything at all like consilience.
So now "the leash is off." They say they have demonstrated "How easy and fun it is to attack." They warned "We answer to no one but ourselves." They promise "increasingly drastic measures." What is the "crime"? What is the wrong they wish to right ... by whatever violent means necessary? Apparently helping pregnant girls without killing their babies is making survival "largely untenable." Helping girls without killing babies is criminalizing humanity (their words). Offering help without killing babies is limiting medical autonomy. It is an "infrastructure of the enslavers." To them "complete liberation" is the elimination of any other options. Attacking clinics that do not kill babies helps build "robust, caring communities of mutual aid." They say, "Through attacking we find joy, courage, and strip the veneer of impenetrability held by these violent institutions." Wait ... "violent institutions"? You mean the ones that help without hurting or killing or damaging anything? Those "violent institutions"? You who urge people everywhere "to paint, to burn, to cut, to jam" are the non-violent?
Protesting outside the homes of Supreme Court Justices to coerce a decision in your favor is an illegal act. Threatening to kill a Supreme Court Justice is an illegal act. Vandalism from graffiti to arson are illegal acts, all multiplied by their repetition. Violent people are aiming at nonviolent people and calling it "good" and "right." Like the abusers who claim, "You made me do this," they demonstrate their insanity by continuing to break the law and blame the victims. But, of course, this issue is one that the powers that be actually want violence against, so we aren't expecting any law enforcement or justice in the foreseeable future. Indeed, the White House encouraged illegal activities like this. Talk about corruption.
________
Postscript. For documentation of Jane's Revenge's aims and perspectives, go to their blog. Seriously, they are documenting this stuff in the open .. including the source of the above quotes.
Sunday, June 26, 2022
The Righteousness of God
Seems like you can revisit this over and over again and see something more. So ... I did.
Paul tells us why he wrote to the church at Rome, a group he didn't know. It was because "I am under obligation both to Greeks and to barbarians" (Rom 1:14). Obligation for what? "to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome" (Rom 1:15). So he steps into his "I am not ashamed of the gospel" (Rom 1:16-17) and explains why. To follow the explanation, you need to pay close attention.
From there it only gets more interesting. The next verse begins with "for." The gospel, revealing God's righteousness, begins with "the wrath of God is revealed ..." (Rom 1:18). Oh, now, hang on. That can't be. That doesn't make sense. We all know that wrath is not "righteousness" and we all know that the God of the Old Testament was a wrathful God, but the God of the New Testament is not. Except ... that's not what Paul says. Paul says that God's righteousness is first revealed in His wrath. Knowing that this is hard to grasp, Paul spends Romans 1:18 through Romans 3:20 explaining why God is righteous in His wrath. We've earned it. In spades. To the full measure. Without excuse.
Then, having built this massive case against every single person on the planet (Rom 3:9), Paul says, "But now the righteousness of God has been manifested ..." (Rom 3:21). There it is again -- the righteousness of God being manifested, revealed, shown. (Paul says this 4 times in Rom 3:21-26). More of the gospel. He explained that God is righteous in His wrath against sin. Just how is the righteousness of God manifested here? First, it is "apart from the law" (Rom 3:21). We cannot be saved by the law (Rom 3:20). This righteousness, then, is not our following rules. Instead, it is "the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe" (Rom 3:22). All have sinned -- fall short of God's glory (Rom 3:23) -- but we can be justified (declared righteous) "by His grace as a gift." (Rom 3:24). Oh, really? I mean, that's a sweet deal, but how is that righteous? Given what we've already seen about Man's sin condition, how is it right that we could be justified? "Through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" (Rom 3:24). Jesus, then, redeemed us. He apolutrōsis us, literally "paid the price." That which we owe due to our sin He paid. And you know what that is. "The wages of sin is death" (Rom 6:23). He paid that on our behalf. He appeased ("propitiation") God's righteous wrath "by His blood" (Rom 3:25). Paul says that this "propitiation by His blood" "was to show God's righteousness" (Rom 3:25). It is the only way that God could be just and justifier of those who have faith in Jesus (Rom 3:26).
There are those who will tell you that an angry God is an evil God. They lie. Scripture says that God's righteousness is first shown in His wrath against sin. There are those who will tell you that Jesus didn't die for your sins. They lie. It was absolutely necessary that a just God obtain just payment for sin. These people that try to mitigate Scripture and twist it to mean the exact opposite of what it says do so with "another gospel" that does not reveal the righteousness of God, but something else. They suppose they're being generous with God. They do so by stripping Him of righteousness ... according to Scripture. He doesn't need that kind of help. In this they eliminate the gospel, the good news, that God is righteous -- righteously angry against our sin and righteously appeased by His Son's sacrifice on our behalf. It is "another gospel" that is not another gospel.
Paul tells us why he wrote to the church at Rome, a group he didn't know. It was because "I am under obligation both to Greeks and to barbarians" (Rom 1:14). Obligation for what? "to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome" (Rom 1:15). So he steps into his "I am not ashamed of the gospel" (Rom 1:16-17) and explains why. To follow the explanation, you need to pay close attention.
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)Not ashamed of the gospel, he says. Why? "For it is the power of God." What power?" The power "unto salvation." Okay, that sounds good. Not ashamed of the gospel because it is the very power that God uses for salvation to all who believe. But he's not done. There is another "for" statement, another reason. How is the gospel the power of God for salvation? "For in it," he goes on to say, "the righteousness of God is revealed ..." Oh, now, see? That's another level of information. The gospel reveals God's righteousness, and, in revealing His righteousness it operates as the power that God uses to save those who believe. Well, why didn't you say so in the first place, Paul?
From there it only gets more interesting. The next verse begins with "for." The gospel, revealing God's righteousness, begins with "the wrath of God is revealed ..." (Rom 1:18). Oh, now, hang on. That can't be. That doesn't make sense. We all know that wrath is not "righteousness" and we all know that the God of the Old Testament was a wrathful God, but the God of the New Testament is not. Except ... that's not what Paul says. Paul says that God's righteousness is first revealed in His wrath. Knowing that this is hard to grasp, Paul spends Romans 1:18 through Romans 3:20 explaining why God is righteous in His wrath. We've earned it. In spades. To the full measure. Without excuse.
Then, having built this massive case against every single person on the planet (Rom 3:9), Paul says, "But now the righteousness of God has been manifested ..." (Rom 3:21). There it is again -- the righteousness of God being manifested, revealed, shown. (Paul says this 4 times in Rom 3:21-26). More of the gospel. He explained that God is righteous in His wrath against sin. Just how is the righteousness of God manifested here? First, it is "apart from the law" (Rom 3:21). We cannot be saved by the law (Rom 3:20). This righteousness, then, is not our following rules. Instead, it is "the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe" (Rom 3:22). All have sinned -- fall short of God's glory (Rom 3:23) -- but we can be justified (declared righteous) "by His grace as a gift." (Rom 3:24). Oh, really? I mean, that's a sweet deal, but how is that righteous? Given what we've already seen about Man's sin condition, how is it right that we could be justified? "Through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" (Rom 3:24). Jesus, then, redeemed us. He apolutrōsis us, literally "paid the price." That which we owe due to our sin He paid. And you know what that is. "The wages of sin is death" (Rom 6:23). He paid that on our behalf. He appeased ("propitiation") God's righteous wrath "by His blood" (Rom 3:25). Paul says that this "propitiation by His blood" "was to show God's righteousness" (Rom 3:25). It is the only way that God could be just and justifier of those who have faith in Jesus (Rom 3:26).
There are those who will tell you that an angry God is an evil God. They lie. Scripture says that God's righteousness is first shown in His wrath against sin. There are those who will tell you that Jesus didn't die for your sins. They lie. It was absolutely necessary that a just God obtain just payment for sin. These people that try to mitigate Scripture and twist it to mean the exact opposite of what it says do so with "another gospel" that does not reveal the righteousness of God, but something else. They suppose they're being generous with God. They do so by stripping Him of righteousness ... according to Scripture. He doesn't need that kind of help. In this they eliminate the gospel, the good news, that God is righteous -- righteously angry against our sin and righteously appeased by His Son's sacrifice on our behalf. It is "another gospel" that is not another gospel.
Saturday, June 25, 2022
News Weakly - 6/25/22
Break It Up; Nothing to See Here
The story is out. Biden daughter Ashley reportedly wrote in her diary about "probably not appropriate" showers with dad. She suggested they served to create her sex addiction. But, not to worry. "Believe the woman" is a variable that only applies to "those guys," not "our side." Soon to be moved to "misinformation."
You Always Act on What You Truly Believe
The EU is dedicated to fighting global climate change -- to make the necessary changes and take the necessary losses. Fight this problem at all costs. Well ... sort of. Because of a shortage of natural gas in Germany, they're firing up coal power. I mean, they can't afford an electricity shortage, right? What's next ... nuclear? Heaven forbid! Apparently "at all costs" isn't actually a comprehensive statement. "At all costs ... unless it gets too expensive."
I Do Not Think That Word Means What You Think It Means
A Japanese court "ruled that Japan's ban on same-sex marriages does not violate the constitution." The story says, "Japan's constitution defines marriage as one between 'both sexes'." Do you see the problem? If marriage is defined as "between both sexes," then it cannot be a "ban on same-sex marriages" since "same-sex" does not meet the definition of "marriage." Which is what I've said all along. It's not that Japan is not allowing people of the same sex to marry. It is that marriage has a definition and "same-sex" isn't part of that.
Vive la Différence
The First Amendment says that the government cannot make laws "respecting an establishment of religion." That is, the government cannot determine a federal or state religion. So they outlawed prayer in school in the '60's and, more recently, tried to prevent Maine from using taxpayer funds to pay for attendance at religious schools. Here's the difference between establishing a state religion and using taxpayer funds for religious schools: "establishment." The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that a government that pays taxpayer money to private schools for public education can also pay taxpayer money to private religious schools for the same purpose. That is not "establishment." That is a refusal to discriminate against a school because it is religious. That is equal treatment. That's the difference.
I'd Get Fired for Doing This at Work
Attorney General Merrick Garland went to Ukraine this week to discuss Russian war crimes with his Ukraine counterpart. Odd. He did not pursue any prosecution of the thousands of rioters of 2020. He did not begin investigations to the crowds of illegal protesters outside of the homes of SCOTUS justices trying to coerce a ruling from them. He did not launch an inquiry into Jane's Revenge, the domestic terrorist group that has attacked more than 50 targets last month whose offense was simply standing for pregnant women and their unborn children and who has recently amped up their threats. In fact, there appears to be a long list of things he is not doing instead of offering help to Ukraine for Russian war crimes. I guess his priorities are clear.
Overreact Much?
In Belfast, Ireland, someone who attended a comedy show was so offended by a joke that they called the police ... and the police investigated. I have heard bad jokes before -- indeed, I've told enough myself -- but asking the police to investigate it as a crime? And they did? We are now pushing "the right not to be offended" way out of proportion.
It Warms Your Heart
Out of his deep and abiding compassion for the American people, President Biden has called on Congress to create a 3-month "federal tax holiday" on gas. Mind you, the current federal gas tax is $0.184 per gallon. The current average price of gas is $5.19 per gallon (and Californians could only wish it was that cheap), so I'm not really sure how far that will go to ease our pain at the pumps, but I'm sure his concern is sincere. Surely he's not just trying to buy better approval ratings by offering inconsequential assistance and hoping no one will notice.
Unrelated
British health officials will be offering vaccines to gay or bisexual men for monkeypox ... not because it's primarily a problem among that category ... or anything at all related to homosexual sex. Trust me. It's just random.
You Keep Using That Word
The Biden administration is proposing a "dramatic overhaul" of Title IX protections. Title IX was written 50 years ago before anyone thought of "sex" as either "sexual orientation" or anything different than "gender." We've come a long way, baby. "No discrimination on the basis of sex" has been expanded to "sexual orientation" and "gender identity." But we can't expect reason from any of this. The AP story, for instance, gave a graphic for the 19 states that have banned transgender students from playing sports. That, of course, is a lie. None have banned transgender students. Some have banned specifically biological men who identify as the female gender from women's sports because there is an actual, biological, physical difference, but "I identify" has overruled reality in too many minds. Especially now with examples like North Carolina, where the court has ruled that anyone can "correct" their birth certificate to match their gender identity without surgery. That is, full biological males will compete with full biological females because they "identify" as female, and that is neither reasonable nor safe. As the AP article rightly notes, "Nothing in the 1972 law explicitly addresses the topic," so "dramatic overhaul" is an accurate description. "A right, reasonable, and good thing" is not.
The Guillotine is Set
The Southern Baptist Convention has dropped their report on the sexual abuse in the SBC. Long lists of names of accused abusers, unanswered and unexamined, have been released along with the clear admission that this is a real mess. There will be "potential liabilities" and accusations and charges. Heads will roll. Unfortunately, godly people will suffer with the crud that actually perpetrated the abuse and cover-up. The falsely-accused will not escape any more than the rightly accused, and the SBC reputation will be more than tarnished. Some of that will be deserved, but some is due to our world's hatred for Christians and Christians' inability to keep their heads straight. Consequences are called for, repentance is demanded, transparency is required, and hurt and abused people need care. Will it happen? All in all, it does not bode well for the SBC, Christians, or Christ.
Then, Of Course, There's This ...
Without much comment from me, as you all know, the Supreme Court removed federal protection for killing babies in the womb. Note, first, it is not an abortion ban. Note, second, that it doesn't end abortion. Some states will; others will not. And we don't know just how far Congress will go to 1) take guns to keep kids from getting killed while 2) passing laws to keep your babies getting killed. We'll have to wait and see. (As a sidenote, I listened to Biden's blather on the ruling. So many lies and errors that I don't have the space or time to comment.)
Bee Brief
In honor of the latest news from the Supreme Court, the Bee offered two entries. First, the story of how Roe v. Wade was aborted in its 198th trimester. Then there was the heartfelt story of leaps of joy felt in millions of wombs across the nation. Sometimes the Bee is only partly satire.
The story is out. Biden daughter Ashley reportedly wrote in her diary about "probably not appropriate" showers with dad. She suggested they served to create her sex addiction. But, not to worry. "Believe the woman" is a variable that only applies to "those guys," not "our side." Soon to be moved to "misinformation."
You Always Act on What You Truly Believe
The EU is dedicated to fighting global climate change -- to make the necessary changes and take the necessary losses. Fight this problem at all costs. Well ... sort of. Because of a shortage of natural gas in Germany, they're firing up coal power. I mean, they can't afford an electricity shortage, right? What's next ... nuclear? Heaven forbid! Apparently "at all costs" isn't actually a comprehensive statement. "At all costs ... unless it gets too expensive."
I Do Not Think That Word Means What You Think It Means
A Japanese court "ruled that Japan's ban on same-sex marriages does not violate the constitution." The story says, "Japan's constitution defines marriage as one between 'both sexes'." Do you see the problem? If marriage is defined as "between both sexes," then it cannot be a "ban on same-sex marriages" since "same-sex" does not meet the definition of "marriage." Which is what I've said all along. It's not that Japan is not allowing people of the same sex to marry. It is that marriage has a definition and "same-sex" isn't part of that.
Vive la Différence
The First Amendment says that the government cannot make laws "respecting an establishment of religion." That is, the government cannot determine a federal or state religion. So they outlawed prayer in school in the '60's and, more recently, tried to prevent Maine from using taxpayer funds to pay for attendance at religious schools. Here's the difference between establishing a state religion and using taxpayer funds for religious schools: "establishment." The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that a government that pays taxpayer money to private schools for public education can also pay taxpayer money to private religious schools for the same purpose. That is not "establishment." That is a refusal to discriminate against a school because it is religious. That is equal treatment. That's the difference.
I'd Get Fired for Doing This at Work
Attorney General Merrick Garland went to Ukraine this week to discuss Russian war crimes with his Ukraine counterpart. Odd. He did not pursue any prosecution of the thousands of rioters of 2020. He did not begin investigations to the crowds of illegal protesters outside of the homes of SCOTUS justices trying to coerce a ruling from them. He did not launch an inquiry into Jane's Revenge, the domestic terrorist group that has attacked more than 50 targets last month whose offense was simply standing for pregnant women and their unborn children and who has recently amped up their threats. In fact, there appears to be a long list of things he is not doing instead of offering help to Ukraine for Russian war crimes. I guess his priorities are clear.
Overreact Much?
In Belfast, Ireland, someone who attended a comedy show was so offended by a joke that they called the police ... and the police investigated. I have heard bad jokes before -- indeed, I've told enough myself -- but asking the police to investigate it as a crime? And they did? We are now pushing "the right not to be offended" way out of proportion.
It Warms Your Heart
Out of his deep and abiding compassion for the American people, President Biden has called on Congress to create a 3-month "federal tax holiday" on gas. Mind you, the current federal gas tax is $0.184 per gallon. The current average price of gas is $5.19 per gallon (and Californians could only wish it was that cheap), so I'm not really sure how far that will go to ease our pain at the pumps, but I'm sure his concern is sincere. Surely he's not just trying to buy better approval ratings by offering inconsequential assistance and hoping no one will notice.
Unrelated
British health officials will be offering vaccines to gay or bisexual men for monkeypox ... not because it's primarily a problem among that category ... or anything at all related to homosexual sex. Trust me. It's just random.
You Keep Using That Word
The Biden administration is proposing a "dramatic overhaul" of Title IX protections. Title IX was written 50 years ago before anyone thought of "sex" as either "sexual orientation" or anything different than "gender." We've come a long way, baby. "No discrimination on the basis of sex" has been expanded to "sexual orientation" and "gender identity." But we can't expect reason from any of this. The AP story, for instance, gave a graphic for the 19 states that have banned transgender students from playing sports. That, of course, is a lie. None have banned transgender students. Some have banned specifically biological men who identify as the female gender from women's sports because there is an actual, biological, physical difference, but "I identify" has overruled reality in too many minds. Especially now with examples like North Carolina, where the court has ruled that anyone can "correct" their birth certificate to match their gender identity without surgery. That is, full biological males will compete with full biological females because they "identify" as female, and that is neither reasonable nor safe. As the AP article rightly notes, "Nothing in the 1972 law explicitly addresses the topic," so "dramatic overhaul" is an accurate description. "A right, reasonable, and good thing" is not.
The Guillotine is Set
The Southern Baptist Convention has dropped their report on the sexual abuse in the SBC. Long lists of names of accused abusers, unanswered and unexamined, have been released along with the clear admission that this is a real mess. There will be "potential liabilities" and accusations and charges. Heads will roll. Unfortunately, godly people will suffer with the crud that actually perpetrated the abuse and cover-up. The falsely-accused will not escape any more than the rightly accused, and the SBC reputation will be more than tarnished. Some of that will be deserved, but some is due to our world's hatred for Christians and Christians' inability to keep their heads straight. Consequences are called for, repentance is demanded, transparency is required, and hurt and abused people need care. Will it happen? All in all, it does not bode well for the SBC, Christians, or Christ.
Then, Of Course, There's This ...
Without much comment from me, as you all know, the Supreme Court removed federal protection for killing babies in the womb. Note, first, it is not an abortion ban. Note, second, that it doesn't end abortion. Some states will; others will not. And we don't know just how far Congress will go to 1) take guns to keep kids from getting killed while 2) passing laws to keep your babies getting killed. We'll have to wait and see. (As a sidenote, I listened to Biden's blather on the ruling. So many lies and errors that I don't have the space or time to comment.)
Bee Brief
In honor of the latest news from the Supreme Court, the Bee offered two entries. First, the story of how Roe v. Wade was aborted in its 198th trimester. Then there was the heartfelt story of leaps of joy felt in millions of wombs across the nation. Sometimes the Bee is only partly satire.
Friday, June 24, 2022
Raise Your Standard
In 2011, "thousands of protesters rushed to the … Capitol Wednesday night, forcing their way through doors, crawling through windows and jamming corridors." Oh, the horrors! Another insurrection!! Republican lawmakers barely escaped the mob. Despite the obvious similarities to our more recent "insurrection" (that was not), this one was brought about by Democrats and the Left. They bused protesters in from out of state. The Democrats embraced the left-wing mob. Pelosi called it an "impressive show of democracy in action."
Proverbs says, "Unequal weights and unequal measures are both alike an abomination to the LORD" (Prov 20:10). Primarily, I suppose, this is a warning to butchers and others that deal in weights and measures, right? Of course not. The concept is not "weights and measures," but double standards. "For one side we give you this determination of good or bad and for the other side you get a different standard. Thus, we are perfectly justified in being hateful, intolerant, judgmental, and even violent toward those who disagree with us; it's only those who disagree with us who are evil for doing the same toward us." This "unequal measures" gives you, "We are inclusive, so we will exclude you." It gives us, "It was brave and right to protest the outcome of the 2016 election but treasonous to do the same in 2020." It gives us, "Church gatherings are a hotbed of COVID, so we ban them, but BLM gatherings are not, so we protect and attend them." It gives us, "We who have long been regarded as immoral demand to be regarded as morally right, so you must not only change your moral position; you must jettison the religious basis for it." Most recently it gives us a radical terrorist group that threatens and burns pro-life crisis pregnancy centers accusing them of being violent and "harming the vulnerable." Meanwhile, the government continues a farcical "investigation" into an insurrection the FBI says did not take place while ignoring completely more than 50 attacks on houses of worship and pro-life crisis pregnancy centers.
Double standards. They are part of what we call "hypocrisy." "It's right for me but wrong for you." "I'm not wrong when I do it, but you are." Jane's Revenge is a pro-abortion domestic terrorist group calling for open warfare on pro-life people and organizations and that terrorism is good, but a Christian school teaching a Christian worldview to students who signed up for it needs to be changed. Double standards. Regardless of what we as individuals think of such things, God gives His own opinion. He calls it "an abomination." We don't want to be guilty of double standards ourselves. But if we are followers of Christ and He is our standard, we should be set. How about you? Your own standards, likely to be "double," or His?
Proverbs says, "Unequal weights and unequal measures are both alike an abomination to the LORD" (Prov 20:10). Primarily, I suppose, this is a warning to butchers and others that deal in weights and measures, right? Of course not. The concept is not "weights and measures," but double standards. "For one side we give you this determination of good or bad and for the other side you get a different standard. Thus, we are perfectly justified in being hateful, intolerant, judgmental, and even violent toward those who disagree with us; it's only those who disagree with us who are evil for doing the same toward us." This "unequal measures" gives you, "We are inclusive, so we will exclude you." It gives us, "It was brave and right to protest the outcome of the 2016 election but treasonous to do the same in 2020." It gives us, "Church gatherings are a hotbed of COVID, so we ban them, but BLM gatherings are not, so we protect and attend them." It gives us, "We who have long been regarded as immoral demand to be regarded as morally right, so you must not only change your moral position; you must jettison the religious basis for it." Most recently it gives us a radical terrorist group that threatens and burns pro-life crisis pregnancy centers accusing them of being violent and "harming the vulnerable." Meanwhile, the government continues a farcical "investigation" into an insurrection the FBI says did not take place while ignoring completely more than 50 attacks on houses of worship and pro-life crisis pregnancy centers.
Double standards. They are part of what we call "hypocrisy." "It's right for me but wrong for you." "I'm not wrong when I do it, but you are." Jane's Revenge is a pro-abortion domestic terrorist group calling for open warfare on pro-life people and organizations and that terrorism is good, but a Christian school teaching a Christian worldview to students who signed up for it needs to be changed. Double standards. Regardless of what we as individuals think of such things, God gives His own opinion. He calls it "an abomination." We don't want to be guilty of double standards ourselves. But if we are followers of Christ and He is our standard, we should be set. How about you? Your own standards, likely to be "double," or His?
Thursday, June 23, 2022
Common Sense
'Tis the season for political ads. I drove by one today that said he took the "common sense" approach. Wouldn't it be nice if that actually meant something today? What is "common sense" in today's culture? What "sense" do we share in "common"?
Well, obvious to all, if a fellow human being needs a fish and you have a fish, you should give it to him, right? Unless, of course, you'd prefer the obvious "teach him to fish and he'll eat for life." You'd think that the idea that less than 5% of the population engages in something makes it "not normal," but if you did, you'd be called a "hater." If Bob does something bad, is it common sense to shoot him in the head metaphorically or give him another chance? Can't tell by today's standards. Is it common sense to trust the media or to distrust the media? Do the people still "have the right to know," or do they only "have the right to know what we tell them"? If the media tells us "There is no story" and then, a year or two later, "We were wrong; that was a real story," is it "common sense" to drop that criminal activity off the radar or to pursue it? When we do a congressional investigation into a former president, do we investigate with people from both sides of the president (so to speak), or do we "stack the deck" with all "president haters" and expect to get the truth? That's "common sense"? In the song, Doin' What Comes Natur'lly, Irving Berlin wrote, "My tiny baby brother, who's never read a book, Knows one sex from the other, All he had to do was look." Silly people. By today's logic that makes no sense at all ... which makes no sense at all. Seriously, is it "common sense" to suggest that men can get pregnant simply because "she" decided she was a "he"? And we will lock anyone up (hopefully metaphorically, but ...) if they suggest that science tells us what sex people are. Common sense?
Scripture says, "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no god'" (Psa 14:1). We read in Jeremiah that the heart is deceitful and desperately sick (Jer 17:9). Paul wrote, "The god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers" (2 Cor 4:4), that humans as a race supress the truth about God and become futile in their thinking (Rom 1:19-21). I would suggest that "common sense" is a myth when we humans are, by nature, hostile to God (Rom 8:7) and do not -- cannot -- operate from a common basis without intervention from God. You'd think that common sense was common. I'd argue that the vast divergence in our world from anything approximating "common" would preclude the notion of common sense. But maybe, just maybe, that would only be an acceptable notion if we had common sense.
Well, obvious to all, if a fellow human being needs a fish and you have a fish, you should give it to him, right? Unless, of course, you'd prefer the obvious "teach him to fish and he'll eat for life." You'd think that the idea that less than 5% of the population engages in something makes it "not normal," but if you did, you'd be called a "hater." If Bob does something bad, is it common sense to shoot him in the head metaphorically or give him another chance? Can't tell by today's standards. Is it common sense to trust the media or to distrust the media? Do the people still "have the right to know," or do they only "have the right to know what we tell them"? If the media tells us "There is no story" and then, a year or two later, "We were wrong; that was a real story," is it "common sense" to drop that criminal activity off the radar or to pursue it? When we do a congressional investigation into a former president, do we investigate with people from both sides of the president (so to speak), or do we "stack the deck" with all "president haters" and expect to get the truth? That's "common sense"? In the song, Doin' What Comes Natur'lly, Irving Berlin wrote, "My tiny baby brother, who's never read a book, Knows one sex from the other, All he had to do was look." Silly people. By today's logic that makes no sense at all ... which makes no sense at all. Seriously, is it "common sense" to suggest that men can get pregnant simply because "she" decided she was a "he"? And we will lock anyone up (hopefully metaphorically, but ...) if they suggest that science tells us what sex people are. Common sense?
Scripture says, "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no god'" (Psa 14:1). We read in Jeremiah that the heart is deceitful and desperately sick (Jer 17:9). Paul wrote, "The god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers" (2 Cor 4:4), that humans as a race supress the truth about God and become futile in their thinking (Rom 1:19-21). I would suggest that "common sense" is a myth when we humans are, by nature, hostile to God (Rom 8:7) and do not -- cannot -- operate from a common basis without intervention from God. You'd think that common sense was common. I'd argue that the vast divergence in our world from anything approximating "common" would preclude the notion of common sense. But maybe, just maybe, that would only be an acceptable notion if we had common sense.
Wednesday, June 22, 2022
The Other Guy
It was dubbed "the Mass Poor People's & Low-Wage Workers' Assembly and Moral March." (And may I say the name is too long ... and so is the acronym.) Poor people around the country gathered in Washington D.C. to protest being poor. No, that's not accurate. They were protesting not being looked after sufficiently. They have demands. Lots of them. You can read them here. It is true that there are poor people in this country (this world) and that people in general and in power don't seem very concerned about them. But if you read through their demands, you might find a common theme. The enemy ... is the people with money. And we want it now.
They want to take from the general population to "permanently expand welfare benefits, provide cash assistance programs, and guarantee adequate incomes" and "enacting a universal single payer national health care program." They want to harm the economy -- employers and customers -- by " raising the minimum wage to a living wage." They want the right to form unions because they don't trust the government or the employers to give them what they want. They want to damage landlords by "ending all evictions, cancelling past due rent and mortgage payments." And more. The running theme here is "Someone else has resources and we want the government to redirect them to us." Why? Because those other guys -- in this case the "rich ones" -- are the enemy and we want what we deem to be our rightful share.
I'm not writing this about poor vs rich. It's about "us" vs "them." It pops up in poor people. It pops up in rich people, where, to them, the poor people are the enemy. It pops up in race questions when "whites" are the problems and "people of color" want what's coming to them at the cost of the "whites." It shows in neighborhoods when "that different family" moves in and it shows in churches when "that different family" starts attending. Why is it so hard to "break into a church" -- to actually get connected? Because they are "us" and those who are not "us" are "them." Everyone has something that someone else wants and everyone is in some position or another in which they are the enemy. Often without even trying. Sometimes without even knowing it. People with different incomes, different countries, different skin tones, different sexes, different accents, and so on. I met a white girl who hated white folks because she grew up in a black community and was taught that white folks were the enemy. In her experience, "us" was the black community and those outside that community was "them," not even recognizing that she was white.
We have a term for it. It's "xenophobia" -- the fear of anything alien. It has been coerced by the science fiction aficionados, so it is mostly "fear of aliens from outer space," but the word references anyone or anything "different." We humans will slide in a host of other reasons for our hostility to "them" -- poverty, nationality, crime, racism, sexism, religion, whatever -- but the origin is this fundamental human need for community and its counterpart, the fear of that which is not my "community." Why are some white people racist? Because they're scared. Why are some black people racist? Same reason. (Look it up. "Racist" has a meaning, and it is NOT "white".) Why do poor people hate the rich? Why do rich white Americans hate those impoverished illegal aliens? Same reason. There is more, sure, but that's at the core. And until we -- humanity -- recognizes and deals with that problem, legislation to take from the rich and give to the poor will not only not solve poor peoples' problems; it will only make things worse ... for everyone.
They want to take from the general population to "permanently expand welfare benefits, provide cash assistance programs, and guarantee adequate incomes" and "enacting a universal single payer national health care program." They want to harm the economy -- employers and customers -- by " raising the minimum wage to a living wage." They want the right to form unions because they don't trust the government or the employers to give them what they want. They want to damage landlords by "ending all evictions, cancelling past due rent and mortgage payments." And more. The running theme here is "Someone else has resources and we want the government to redirect them to us." Why? Because those other guys -- in this case the "rich ones" -- are the enemy and we want what we deem to be our rightful share.
I'm not writing this about poor vs rich. It's about "us" vs "them." It pops up in poor people. It pops up in rich people, where, to them, the poor people are the enemy. It pops up in race questions when "whites" are the problems and "people of color" want what's coming to them at the cost of the "whites." It shows in neighborhoods when "that different family" moves in and it shows in churches when "that different family" starts attending. Why is it so hard to "break into a church" -- to actually get connected? Because they are "us" and those who are not "us" are "them." Everyone has something that someone else wants and everyone is in some position or another in which they are the enemy. Often without even trying. Sometimes without even knowing it. People with different incomes, different countries, different skin tones, different sexes, different accents, and so on. I met a white girl who hated white folks because she grew up in a black community and was taught that white folks were the enemy. In her experience, "us" was the black community and those outside that community was "them," not even recognizing that she was white.
We have a term for it. It's "xenophobia" -- the fear of anything alien. It has been coerced by the science fiction aficionados, so it is mostly "fear of aliens from outer space," but the word references anyone or anything "different." We humans will slide in a host of other reasons for our hostility to "them" -- poverty, nationality, crime, racism, sexism, religion, whatever -- but the origin is this fundamental human need for community and its counterpart, the fear of that which is not my "community." Why are some white people racist? Because they're scared. Why are some black people racist? Same reason. (Look it up. "Racist" has a meaning, and it is NOT "white".) Why do poor people hate the rich? Why do rich white Americans hate those impoverished illegal aliens? Same reason. There is more, sure, but that's at the core. And until we -- humanity -- recognizes and deals with that problem, legislation to take from the rich and give to the poor will not only not solve poor peoples' problems; it will only make things worse ... for everyone.
Tuesday, June 21, 2022
You're On Your Own, Kid
I've noted an interesting thought pattern in a lot of Christians and I'm not at all sure they're aware of it.
In conversations with fellow believers about difficult circumstances and events in their lives, they seem to feel as if they're on their own. "Me against the world," so to speak. Relationship trials, economic problems, job difficulties, on and on ... all seem to be "up to me" and, therefore, too often outside of our ability to manage let alone fix. Parents encounter problems and ask, "What can you do?" Spouses collide with spouses and ask, "What can you do?" We look at our world around us slipping farther and farther from God's ideals and ask, "What can we do?"
Now we are Christians. We believe our bibles. We can even quote Jesus's, "I will never leave you nor forsake you" (Heb 13:5). We all love that "we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose" (Rom 8:28). So many lovely promises of God's presence and His power in our lives. We affirm them ... and then operate as if we're on our own. Why is that?
I just wanted to tell you, fellow believer. You're not. In a conflict with a coworker or neighbor or spouse and don't know what to do? You're not in that alone. Struggling with making ends meet, with finding a spouse, with living with a lout? You're not in that alone. What to do with the kids? What to do with your life? What to do with your morning? You're not in that alone. Not only that, but He promises to work it out for good. Let me ask you this. If you knew that He was always present and always working, would it be easier, say, to forgive? To bear up? To keep on going? If you actually believed that God was who He says He is and is doing what He says He is doing, would that have practical implications for how you live your life, see your world, interact in everyday things? Do you? Does it? Something to consider.
In conversations with fellow believers about difficult circumstances and events in their lives, they seem to feel as if they're on their own. "Me against the world," so to speak. Relationship trials, economic problems, job difficulties, on and on ... all seem to be "up to me" and, therefore, too often outside of our ability to manage let alone fix. Parents encounter problems and ask, "What can you do?" Spouses collide with spouses and ask, "What can you do?" We look at our world around us slipping farther and farther from God's ideals and ask, "What can we do?"
Now we are Christians. We believe our bibles. We can even quote Jesus's, "I will never leave you nor forsake you" (Heb 13:5). We all love that "we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose" (Rom 8:28). So many lovely promises of God's presence and His power in our lives. We affirm them ... and then operate as if we're on our own. Why is that?
I just wanted to tell you, fellow believer. You're not. In a conflict with a coworker or neighbor or spouse and don't know what to do? You're not in that alone. Struggling with making ends meet, with finding a spouse, with living with a lout? You're not in that alone. What to do with the kids? What to do with your life? What to do with your morning? You're not in that alone. Not only that, but He promises to work it out for good. Let me ask you this. If you knew that He was always present and always working, would it be easier, say, to forgive? To bear up? To keep on going? If you actually believed that God was who He says He is and is doing what He says He is doing, would that have practical implications for how you live your life, see your world, interact in everyday things? Do you? Does it? Something to consider.
Monday, June 20, 2022
The Problem of Rights
We are currently engaged in a great debate. Will we scratch the protective surface of the 2nd Amendment to protect children from guns or will we ignore the problem? This, of course, is how it is couched in the public square. It's what is called a "false dilemma." This is not what is really going on.
The original premise of this country was that there was a Creator and that this Creator endowed us with certain rights. The Founding Fathers believed the function of government was to "secure these rights." So they built a limited government with very strict checks and balances and wrote that into the Constitution. That was not good enough, so they added 10 amendments that we call "The Bill of Rights" to ensure that government didn't encroach on our God-given rights. The 10th Amendment is quite broad.
Back in the 1960's, they began the legal process of yanking God out of the public square. They gave it a high-sounding name -- "separation of church and government" -- and tied it to the First Amendment: The government cannot establish a national religion. (Note: there is a substantial difference between acknowledging a religion and establishing one.) In so doing, they banned religion in general, with a special view to Christianity, from the public square. We've come a long way from the 1960's. Having edged God out, it is a short walk to debunking " endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." If not endowed by their Creator, these rights become "alienable" and, if they admit we have them, it is only by the kindness of the present powers. The Bill of Rights warned government to keep their hands off. "These don't belong to you; they belong to the people by God's administration." Having dismembered that position, we've dismembered the concept of "rights." "Rights" are, now, "whatever I think they are" including the right not to be offended and the right not to feel scared because someone else owns a gun. (Those are not hyperbole; I've heard them publicly declared.)
"You're exaggerating," I hear some say. Yes. Maybe it's hyperbole. But if we have, say, the "inalienable right" to bear arms, why does the average Joe need to provide reasons that you will accept for him to own an AR-15? (I don't. I'm talking examples here.) The thinking is "You have the right to bear arms ... within limits ... as long as you can give me a reason I consider good enough to let you ... on an individual basis ... which is nearly zero." This is not the way a right endowed by a Creator works. And it's not merely the right to bear arms in question. The freedom of the press, free speech, the free exercise of religion, the right to due process, and the rights of the States or the People are all in question or already denied ... for starters. Let's ask the unborn how they feel about equal protection (14th Amendment). Oh, no, I forgot. Rights are not endowed by a Creator; they are endowed by the powers that be. Sorry, kids. And America in the 21st century edges away from democracy and closer to totalitarianism where the powers that be tell you what rights you do or don't have ... at this moment.
The original premise of this country was that there was a Creator and that this Creator endowed us with certain rights. The Founding Fathers believed the function of government was to "secure these rights." So they built a limited government with very strict checks and balances and wrote that into the Constitution. That was not good enough, so they added 10 amendments that we call "The Bill of Rights" to ensure that government didn't encroach on our God-given rights. The 10th Amendment is quite broad.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People.You can see, I hope, that the scope of the federal government was intended to be extremely limited, leaving the bulk of governing to the States and the People. Enter the 21st century.
Back in the 1960's, they began the legal process of yanking God out of the public square. They gave it a high-sounding name -- "separation of church and government" -- and tied it to the First Amendment: The government cannot establish a national religion. (Note: there is a substantial difference between acknowledging a religion and establishing one.) In so doing, they banned religion in general, with a special view to Christianity, from the public square. We've come a long way from the 1960's. Having edged God out, it is a short walk to debunking " endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." If not endowed by their Creator, these rights become "alienable" and, if they admit we have them, it is only by the kindness of the present powers. The Bill of Rights warned government to keep their hands off. "These don't belong to you; they belong to the people by God's administration." Having dismembered that position, we've dismembered the concept of "rights." "Rights" are, now, "whatever I think they are" including the right not to be offended and the right not to feel scared because someone else owns a gun. (Those are not hyperbole; I've heard them publicly declared.)
"You're exaggerating," I hear some say. Yes. Maybe it's hyperbole. But if we have, say, the "inalienable right" to bear arms, why does the average Joe need to provide reasons that you will accept for him to own an AR-15? (I don't. I'm talking examples here.) The thinking is "You have the right to bear arms ... within limits ... as long as you can give me a reason I consider good enough to let you ... on an individual basis ... which is nearly zero." This is not the way a right endowed by a Creator works. And it's not merely the right to bear arms in question. The freedom of the press, free speech, the free exercise of religion, the right to due process, and the rights of the States or the People are all in question or already denied ... for starters. Let's ask the unborn how they feel about equal protection (14th Amendment). Oh, no, I forgot. Rights are not endowed by a Creator; they are endowed by the powers that be. Sorry, kids. And America in the 21st century edges away from democracy and closer to totalitarianism where the powers that be tell you what rights you do or don't have ... at this moment.
Sunday, June 19, 2022
Father's Day, 2022
I have talked to people on the topic of "God the Father." A couple have told me, "I don't know what that means because I didn't have a good father figure." I think that's mistaken logic. We all know what a "good father" looks like even if we didn't have one. On the other hand, I did. Growing up, of course, I didn't realize it. I didn't know my dad was outstanding. He was my dad and I just figured he was like most other dads. Listening to people today, I've figured out he wasn't ordinary.
My dad took the family on family vacations. He loved that. We went camping and we went traveling. We traveled the country one summer touring all sorts of sights in a motorhome he bought so my mom would be comfortable traveling. It was him I learned "Husbands, love your wives" by observation. Thanks to my dad's penchant for vacations, I've been to most of the 50 states including Alaska as well as most of southern Canada at some time or another. That's an adventure and an education. He loved to fish but was very careful to include his sons in that pleasure. He didn't mind at all forgoing his own fishing experiencing to keep us fishing. He prepped the gear, baited the hooks, drove the boat (when necessary), netted the fish ... ad infinitum ... so we could be with him and enjoy what he enjoyed. He was keen on our spiritual education as well. We attended church every Sunday (and more) unless someone was sick. Then we'd have our own church service at home. We went to Christian school and he took me often to Christian Business Men's Committee (CBMC) breakfasts or Los Angeles's skid row in his various ministry efforts. He wasn't merely dedicated to these kinds of things; he intentionally shared that dedication with his children -- especially his sons. We never heard, "Wait 'til your father gets home" from Mom. She was the front line discipline. I don't recall my father ever spanking me, although I do remember several "What were you thinking?" episodes, a question I found amusing. "What makes you think I was thinking?" I never said that to him. Dad was known to bring people home who needed help. He was serious about his relationship with Christ, lived it out boldly in front of his family, and urged his kids to do the same.
My father is getting up in age, but I still respect him greatly, admire his dedication to Christ, and appreciate his lifelong example and love. Because of my father, I know what a good father looks like. I will be eternally grateful to my heavenly Father for the father He gave me.
Happy Father's Day, Dad.
My dad took the family on family vacations. He loved that. We went camping and we went traveling. We traveled the country one summer touring all sorts of sights in a motorhome he bought so my mom would be comfortable traveling. It was him I learned "Husbands, love your wives" by observation. Thanks to my dad's penchant for vacations, I've been to most of the 50 states including Alaska as well as most of southern Canada at some time or another. That's an adventure and an education. He loved to fish but was very careful to include his sons in that pleasure. He didn't mind at all forgoing his own fishing experiencing to keep us fishing. He prepped the gear, baited the hooks, drove the boat (when necessary), netted the fish ... ad infinitum ... so we could be with him and enjoy what he enjoyed. He was keen on our spiritual education as well. We attended church every Sunday (and more) unless someone was sick. Then we'd have our own church service at home. We went to Christian school and he took me often to Christian Business Men's Committee (CBMC) breakfasts or Los Angeles's skid row in his various ministry efforts. He wasn't merely dedicated to these kinds of things; he intentionally shared that dedication with his children -- especially his sons. We never heard, "Wait 'til your father gets home" from Mom. She was the front line discipline. I don't recall my father ever spanking me, although I do remember several "What were you thinking?" episodes, a question I found amusing. "What makes you think I was thinking?" I never said that to him. Dad was known to bring people home who needed help. He was serious about his relationship with Christ, lived it out boldly in front of his family, and urged his kids to do the same.
My father is getting up in age, but I still respect him greatly, admire his dedication to Christ, and appreciate his lifelong example and love. Because of my father, I know what a good father looks like. I will be eternally grateful to my heavenly Father for the father He gave me.
Happy Father's Day, Dad.
Saturday, June 18, 2022
News Weakly - 6/18/22
Fair and Balanced
A pregnancy center in Buffalo was firebombed last week by a pro-abortion terrorist group called "Jane's Revenge." It wasn't the first. The Left has said ... nothing. The national media keeps us informed moment by moment of any gun violence or "anti-abortion" sentiments, but this happened last week and it was almost unremarked entirely. Clearly our national media (and our nation) cannot be termed "fair and balanced" or "without extreme prejudice."
That's Curious
This isn't particularly remarkable. A government panel has renamed Mount Doane in Yellowstone National Park to "First Peoples Mountain" because Doan was an army officer that led a Native American massacre. The kind of thing we've come to expect these days. Fine. In other news, they've decided to remove the Crazy Horse Memorial because Crazy Horse was known for raids, murders, and Custer's "Last Stand." Oh, wait ... no, that's not right. Crazy Horse remains a hero for his killing of white people, combatant and non. Strange sense of "justice" this country has these days. Oh, yeah ... only white people can be bad. In the meantime, God expressed His opinion of the nonsense. (That last was humor.)
Just Wondering
The report is out that says that the Great White shark population off the coast of California has increased more than 5 times between 2017 and 2021. I'm just wondering. Is that because of white supremacy, male sexism, or climate change? Maybe it's COVID, Trump's fault, or the Ukraine war? I can't keep up.
Equal Protection
A private school in North Carolina had a dress code that required girls to wear skirts. A federal appeals court has ruled that unconstitutional. Violates the 14th Amendment "equal protection" clause. Now, if they had required all students to wear jeans and jockstraps, it would have been well within the 14th Amendment. Everything equal, right? I, however, would argue that requiring people to dress in accordance with their gender is equal protection. But, hey, that's just me. Gender-based dress codes are right out. I wonder how many schools are in deep, deep trouble.
Cure for Monkeypox
Those geniuses over at the WHO have figured out an clever way to solve the monkeypox epidemic (if 2200 cases worldwide can be called that). The name is "inaccurate," "discriminatory" and "stigmatising." So, change the name. I'm thinking something like "Fred." Poof! Monkeypox is gone! Now all we have to do is figure out a cure for Fred. And I know a few Freds who need a cure. Seriously, the name is "discriminatory"? For whom? Monkeys?
Underrepresented
Pixar has given Buzz Lightyear a same-sex partner, apparently for the sake of educating our kids. (Some might say for grooming our kids, but that's so conspiratorial.) They did it to give the underrepresented LGBT folks representation. So ... if the question is representation, where is their religious character? (If proportional representation is in view, that would have to be more than one, wouldn't it?)
Biden Cares
We're looking at record prices for gasoline -- reaching prohibitive levels -- that hurt more than anyone the poorer among us. In an effort to relieve that problem, Biden is seeking to increase costs of fossil fuel operations in order to reduce methane pollution. I suspect, if he's successful, we shouldn't have to worry about prices much longer. We'll have to worry about how we'll continue to afford going to work and support our families ... in a "cleaner environment." Biden cares ... about the environment, perhaps, but not so much about the people he ostensibly serves.
A New Low
Through the 50's and 60's polls indicated that 98% of Americans believed in God. A religious if not Christian nation. Since 1967 it has dropped. It hit a low in 2014 at 86%, jumped up a bit in 2015 to 89%, and has steadily dropped until 2020 to our all-time low of 81%. Only 40% believe that "God can intervene on people's behalf." (It begs the question of what kind of "god" the other 60% believe in.) Younger people (18-29) (68%), college grads (78%), Democrats (72%), and ideological Liberals (72%) are less likely to believe in God. Republicans (92%) and married couples (88%) are much more likely. Tell me how liberalism and public education are good for us? (One of the oddest statistics was that 1% of those who don't believe in God attend religious services weekly. Why?)
Got to Beelieve
Have you heard the absolutely shocking news that science has tested positive for COVID? (Lest you've forgotten, Dr. Fauci famously declared, "I am the science.") Have you seen the latest in Supreme Court robes? Are you aware of the latest from biblical scholars who now believe that the "666" in Revelation refers to the price of gas in the end times?
Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
A pregnancy center in Buffalo was firebombed last week by a pro-abortion terrorist group called "Jane's Revenge." It wasn't the first. The Left has said ... nothing. The national media keeps us informed moment by moment of any gun violence or "anti-abortion" sentiments, but this happened last week and it was almost unremarked entirely. Clearly our national media (and our nation) cannot be termed "fair and balanced" or "without extreme prejudice."
That's Curious
This isn't particularly remarkable. A government panel has renamed Mount Doane in Yellowstone National Park to "First Peoples Mountain" because Doan was an army officer that led a Native American massacre. The kind of thing we've come to expect these days. Fine. In other news, they've decided to remove the Crazy Horse Memorial because Crazy Horse was known for raids, murders, and Custer's "Last Stand." Oh, wait ... no, that's not right. Crazy Horse remains a hero for his killing of white people, combatant and non. Strange sense of "justice" this country has these days. Oh, yeah ... only white people can be bad. In the meantime, God expressed His opinion of the nonsense. (That last was humor.)
Just Wondering
The report is out that says that the Great White shark population off the coast of California has increased more than 5 times between 2017 and 2021. I'm just wondering. Is that because of white supremacy, male sexism, or climate change? Maybe it's COVID, Trump's fault, or the Ukraine war? I can't keep up.
Equal Protection
A private school in North Carolina had a dress code that required girls to wear skirts. A federal appeals court has ruled that unconstitutional. Violates the 14th Amendment "equal protection" clause. Now, if they had required all students to wear jeans and jockstraps, it would have been well within the 14th Amendment. Everything equal, right? I, however, would argue that requiring people to dress in accordance with their gender is equal protection. But, hey, that's just me. Gender-based dress codes are right out. I wonder how many schools are in deep, deep trouble.
Cure for Monkeypox
Those geniuses over at the WHO have figured out an clever way to solve the monkeypox epidemic (if 2200 cases worldwide can be called that). The name is "inaccurate," "discriminatory" and "stigmatising." So, change the name. I'm thinking something like "Fred." Poof! Monkeypox is gone! Now all we have to do is figure out a cure for Fred. And I know a few Freds who need a cure. Seriously, the name is "discriminatory"? For whom? Monkeys?
Underrepresented
Pixar has given Buzz Lightyear a same-sex partner, apparently for the sake of educating our kids. (Some might say for grooming our kids, but that's so conspiratorial.) They did it to give the underrepresented LGBT folks representation. So ... if the question is representation, where is their religious character? (If proportional representation is in view, that would have to be more than one, wouldn't it?)
Biden Cares
We're looking at record prices for gasoline -- reaching prohibitive levels -- that hurt more than anyone the poorer among us. In an effort to relieve that problem, Biden is seeking to increase costs of fossil fuel operations in order to reduce methane pollution. I suspect, if he's successful, we shouldn't have to worry about prices much longer. We'll have to worry about how we'll continue to afford going to work and support our families ... in a "cleaner environment." Biden cares ... about the environment, perhaps, but not so much about the people he ostensibly serves.
A New Low
Through the 50's and 60's polls indicated that 98% of Americans believed in God. A religious if not Christian nation. Since 1967 it has dropped. It hit a low in 2014 at 86%, jumped up a bit in 2015 to 89%, and has steadily dropped until 2020 to our all-time low of 81%. Only 40% believe that "God can intervene on people's behalf." (It begs the question of what kind of "god" the other 60% believe in.) Younger people (18-29) (68%), college grads (78%), Democrats (72%), and ideological Liberals (72%) are less likely to believe in God. Republicans (92%) and married couples (88%) are much more likely. Tell me how liberalism and public education are good for us? (One of the oddest statistics was that 1% of those who don't believe in God attend religious services weekly. Why?)
Got to Beelieve
Have you heard the absolutely shocking news that science has tested positive for COVID? (Lest you've forgotten, Dr. Fauci famously declared, "I am the science.") Have you seen the latest in Supreme Court robes? Are you aware of the latest from biblical scholars who now believe that the "666" in Revelation refers to the price of gas in the end times?
Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
Friday, June 17, 2022
Unwanted Visitors
I have been hearing recently about the concept of generational curses. Generational curses are believed to be passed down from generation to generation. If you have ungodly patterns in your family, you're likely under a generational curse. If your father suffered from anger, he probably got it from his father and you likely got it from him -- a generational curse. The source of this kind of thinking is two-fold. First, it is unavoidably true that children often inherit the sins of their parents. You know, the problem of nurture. If you grow up with a constant example of alcoholism, it isn't outlandish that you might have a tendency toward alcoholism, as an example. But the second source is Scripture.
The concept is problematic. While it does say that God visits the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation (here and in Exo 20:5 and Num 14:18), Scripture also says that children are not punished for the sins of their fathers (Deut 24:16; Ezek 18:20). Jeremiah wrote, "Everyone shall die for his own iniquity" (Jer 31:30). So, no, God does not judge children by their parents' sins (nor vice versa). So what does it mean when it says God "visits iniquity" on people?
In the Exodus passage, God is clear. He visits iniquity on subsequent generations "of those who hate Me." That is, a condition of this visitation is that they hate God. So "visiting iniquity" can be understood by saying, "Those who hate God will continue the same sort of sins that they learned from their parents." That is, by hating God, they produced their own sin and earned their own judgment. It is similar to God's "wrath of abandonment." Romans 1:18-32 gives a clear demonstration of God's "wrath of abandonment," where He acts in wrath by withdrawing, not intervening. His first line of wrath is to give us up to more sin. At the same time, God provides a way of escape. By His grace, He offers repentance and absolution. In Leviticus God told Israel, "Those of you who are left shall rot away in your enemies' lands because of their iniquity, and also because of the iniquities of their fathers they shall rot away like them" (Lev 26:39). He goes on to say, "But if they confess their iniquity and the iniquity of their fathers in their treachery that they committed against Me, and also in walking contrary to Me, so that I walked contrary to them and brought them into the land of their enemies -- if then their uncircumcised heart is humbled and they make amends for their iniquity, then I will remember My covenant with Jacob, and I will remember My covenant with Isaac and My covenant with Abraham, and I will remember the land" (Lev 26:40-42).
I don't believe, then, in "generational curses" as the term is commonly used today. That simply blames our problems on the prior generation. "It's not my fault I'm like this; it's a generational curse." We are each responsible for our own sin and each able to repent and be healed by God's grace. We certainly do "inherit" sin from our parents, mostly by nurture, but those sins need not remain. Remember, God declared Himself to Moses, "The LORD, the LORD, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin." In fact, it is that God that is the fundamental component of the Gospel. "Yes, there is a really bad problem -- sin -- but there is a glorious solution!"
The LORD passed before [Moses] and proclaimed, "The LORD, the LORD, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children's children, to the third and the fourth generation." (Exo 34:6-7)Well, there you have it. God visits the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the 3rd and 4th generation. A generational curse. (Interestingly, most who talk about "generational curses" do not acknowledge that it is God who visits these things on subsequent generations.)
The concept is problematic. While it does say that God visits the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation (here and in Exo 20:5 and Num 14:18), Scripture also says that children are not punished for the sins of their fathers (Deut 24:16; Ezek 18:20). Jeremiah wrote, "Everyone shall die for his own iniquity" (Jer 31:30). So, no, God does not judge children by their parents' sins (nor vice versa). So what does it mean when it says God "visits iniquity" on people?
In the Exodus passage, God is clear. He visits iniquity on subsequent generations "of those who hate Me." That is, a condition of this visitation is that they hate God. So "visiting iniquity" can be understood by saying, "Those who hate God will continue the same sort of sins that they learned from their parents." That is, by hating God, they produced their own sin and earned their own judgment. It is similar to God's "wrath of abandonment." Romans 1:18-32 gives a clear demonstration of God's "wrath of abandonment," where He acts in wrath by withdrawing, not intervening. His first line of wrath is to give us up to more sin. At the same time, God provides a way of escape. By His grace, He offers repentance and absolution. In Leviticus God told Israel, "Those of you who are left shall rot away in your enemies' lands because of their iniquity, and also because of the iniquities of their fathers they shall rot away like them" (Lev 26:39). He goes on to say, "But if they confess their iniquity and the iniquity of their fathers in their treachery that they committed against Me, and also in walking contrary to Me, so that I walked contrary to them and brought them into the land of their enemies -- if then their uncircumcised heart is humbled and they make amends for their iniquity, then I will remember My covenant with Jacob, and I will remember My covenant with Isaac and My covenant with Abraham, and I will remember the land" (Lev 26:40-42).
I don't believe, then, in "generational curses" as the term is commonly used today. That simply blames our problems on the prior generation. "It's not my fault I'm like this; it's a generational curse." We are each responsible for our own sin and each able to repent and be healed by God's grace. We certainly do "inherit" sin from our parents, mostly by nurture, but those sins need not remain. Remember, God declared Himself to Moses, "The LORD, the LORD, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin." In fact, it is that God that is the fundamental component of the Gospel. "Yes, there is a really bad problem -- sin -- but there is a glorious solution!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)