St John, the Calvinist

Way back in May of 2008, one of my sons graduated from a Christian college. During his senior year there, he did a paper on the Gospel of John. He sent me a copy of that paper, and I stretched it into this little observation. (I bring it up now because the topic has come up a few times of late in comments.)

You've all heard of John the Baptist. I'm quite sure you've never heard of Saint John the Reformed. Truly, it would be nonsensical. The object of the Reformation was not to make the Church better, but to return it to a biblical condition, and since John was writing the Bible, he, by definition, couldn't be Reformed. And, of course, since Calvin didn't come along for another 1500 years or so and Calvinism itself didn't really come about for another hundred years or so, it wouldn't quite be right to refer to him as "John the Calvinist." That being said, I'd still like to introduce you to Saint John the Reformed by demonstrating how John in his Gospel concurs with Calvinism in its "TULIP" basics.

Total Depravity holds that humans beings are sinful at their core. They are incapable by nature of coming to God. While most people today believe in the intrinsic goodness of the human being, Total Depravity holds to the intrinsic evil of the human nature. In the Gospel of John we read this: "He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, yet the world did not know Him" (John 1:10). This speaks of a core problem. If it was so that a few didn't know Him, you could chalk it up to a problem of the few. John says it was a world-wide problem. Worse, John goes on to say, "He came to His own, and His own people did not receive Him" (John 1:11). You may wish to excuse the world; they didn't know, right? However, His own people had been given centuries of notification that He was coming ... and they missed it. This is a problem of humans being sinful at the core. In Matthew Jesus said, "I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 5:20). Of these scribes and Pharisees, the minimum standard of righteousness that Jesus held for all people, Jesus said in John's Gospel:

If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of My own accord, but He sent Me. Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear My word. You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But because I tell the truth, you do not believe Me. Which one of you convicts Me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe Me? Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God" (John 8:42-47).

What, then, is John saying about the nature of the most righteous people in the nation? They are liars and not of God. And John 6:65 may not sound like an argument for Total Depravity, but look at it anyway. Jesus was explaining why it was that some of His disciples didn't believe in Him. He said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to Me unless it is granted him by the Father." What does this have to do with Man's core problem of sin? It's in the basic phrase, "No one can." Jesus makes the same claim in verse 44 of the same chapter. No one can. Human beings, on their own, lack the ability to either believe or to come to Him. That, dear reader, is Total Depravity.

Unconditional Election is the premise that God chooses whom He will save without that choice being conditioned on something of merit in the one being chosen. It is an echo of Paul's "lest any man should boast." It says that I have nothing to offer God to incline Him to choose me ... and neither does anyone else. He chooses without condition of the Elect. What does John say? First, John has one of the clearest statements on Election that you'll find anywhere in Scripture. Jesus told His disciples, "You did not choose Me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in My name, He may give it to you" (John 15:16). Who chooses whom? Jesus is not unclear. "Oh," the other side objects, "but God chooses whom He chooses based on the fact that He knows in advance they will choose Him." It sounds nice, I'm sure, but John, again, objects. "To all who did receive Him, who believed in His name, He gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1:12-13). Our birth into the family of God is not a product of our blood line ("not of blood"), our godly living ("not of the will of the flesh"), and not our right choices ("not of will of man"). (See also where Paul emphasizes the same fact in Rom. 9:16.) We become one of the Chosen Ones, the Elect, on the basis of God's choice alone. We don't choose Him; He chooses us. That, dear reader, is Unconditional Election.

Limited Atonement is one of the most disliked, most misunderstood concepts in the list of five. Most people think it refers to shortcomings in Christ's sacrifice. They think it is saying that Christ's atonement was only sufficient for the Elect. That is not the point, unfortunate name aside. Instead, the question that is being asked and answered in this doctrine is this: When Christ chose to die on the cross, what was His intent? Was it His intent to save everyone, or was it His intent to save the Elect? Was it His aim to provide forgiveness for all and He failed, or was it His aim to provide atonement for the Elect and He succeeded? John's Gospel, in fact, is one of the most common places to find the claim that Christ died with the Elect in mind. You'll find it in two specific places. In John 10:14-15 we read, "I am the good shepherd. I know My own and My own know Me, just as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for My sheep." Notice that He doesn't say He lays down His life for everyone. He reiterates this concept in His High Priestly prayer in John 17. Here He prays for His disciples:

I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours (John 17:9).

Jesus doesn't pull any punches here. He excludes the world explicitly from His prayer. He prays only for His disciples and "for those who will believe in Me through their word" (John 17:20). All believers, then, are in mind and those who will not believe are not. This is the intention of Limited Atonement.

Irresistible Grace argues that when that moment comes, the Holy Spirit is able to save a person despite their own possible resistance. It does not hold that the Spirit cannot be resisted. It is the claim that God is capable of saving anyone He chooses despite their objections. Does John comment on this? I think so. "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and whoever comes to Me I will never cast out" (John 6:37). Note that there is no question. There is no suspense. Will the Chosen come to Christ? There is no doubt. They will come. Jesus says, "I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to My voice" (John 10:16). John 6:44 says, "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day." Again, there is no question. Those who are drawn by the Father will be raised up on the last day. Of course, "come to Me" is certain as implied in the middle. Clearly, then, those who are His sheep will be drawn to Him regardless of the objections or resistance they might have. That goes to irresistibility. Just like Lazarus, the physically dead man, all of the Elect, though spiritually dead, when called by God, will come forth (John 11:43).

The Perseverance of the Saints is perhaps the most misunderstood and maligned by both those who disagree and those who think they are agreeing. The doctrine is sometimes called "Eternal Security". Sometimes it is incorrectly connected with "Once Saved, Always Saved" (OSAS), which isn't exactly the same thing. The two share the position that a spiritually dead person ("T") who has been chosen by God according to God's purposes ("U"), paid for by Christ's death and resurrection ("L"), and certainly called from death to life ("I") will absolutely remain one of the Elect and end up in heaven. The difference between OSAS and the Perseverance doctrine is that the latter includes the certainty that God's work of bringing a person to life will result in a fruitful Christian. John agrees. One of the most quoted proofs for Eternal Security is John 10:28-29.

I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.

John, quoting Jesus, gives very little wiggle room. Those who belong to Him are given eternal life. If that life is eternal, in what sense can it stop? You have to ask the same thing with John 3:36 and John 5:24. But that's the easiest question. He defines "eternal life" as "never perish" and says, not once but twice, "No one will snatch them out." Now, you can squirm all you want, but unless you are willing to qualify yourself as "no one", you have to admit that not even you can snatch you out of His hand. Jesus makes the same point earlier in one of the passages we've already peeked at.

All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and whoever comes to Me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will but the will of Him who sent Me. And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that I should lose nothing of all that He has given Me, but raise it up on the last day (John 6:37-39).

We saw this for Irresistible Grace, but Jesus also claims "I should lose nothing of all that He has given Me." Either He was mistaken and He would lose some of those whom the Father has given Him, or the outcome is certain and not one will be lost. Now, the fundamental difference between OSAS and Perseverance of the Saints is the question of fruit. John addresses this in a couple of places. In John 14:15 Jesus says, "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments." In John 15 there is the famous "Vine and the branches" metaphor. Those changed by God cannot help but produce fruit. (The entire epistle of 1 John is about that topic.) We already saw in John 15:16, "I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide." The Elect are chosen for fruit, and that fruit abides. Thus, Perseverance of the Saints, the idea that those whom God has saved will certainly be enabled by God to remain in Christ until the end, is an idea you'll find throughout the Gospel of John.

It can be questionable to pull an idea out of a single passage. I've pulled several ideas out of a single book. It doesn't take much effort, in fact, to find these concepts all over Scripture. I am convinced that John the Beloved, had he been around during the Reformation, would have concurred with these points that today form what is referred to as "Calvinism." You may not be convinced, but I would hope that you can surely see that the accusation that "Calvinism is not found in the Bible" is not an accurate objection. At least, it appears that John didn't think so.

Nothing But The Truth

Yesterday it was "counterfactual," almost a definition for much of what our society is embracing today. And there is a fundamental difference between "fact" and "truth." Facts are objective, verifiable information, not feelings or opinions. Truth is subjective. Facts are objects; truth is a subject. Genuine facts (because it is very possible to present something as "fact" that, actually, is not) are truth -- that which corresponds to reality -- but truth goes beyond fact. "The ball is on the ground" might be a statement of fact, but it takes truth to tell you exactly how it got there. It takes truth to properly interpret the facts. "The Bible says" can be a fact, but it takes truth to correctly explain the meaning. And objective truth -- that which stands alone as true without regard to how you or I feel about it -- must exist if there is a God, if any truth exists.

Most of our world, Christian or non-Christian, operates on opinion suspended in thin air. Most of us believe X, Y, and Z because ... well ... we believe it. Some of this is so entrenched in our belief system that no amount of reason or evidence will move it. Someone once said, "The human being has an incredible capacity to think logically, step by step, to the wrong conclusion." As a simple example, medical science tells us that children eating candy does not cause hyperactivity. It's just not medically true. Try to tell that to any mother of small children. They don't care what the medical science has proven; they've seen their kids with candy. And their belief in the dangers of giving kids candy to get them overactive is unwavering and unassailable. It's the same for most of us. We hold truths to be self-evident¹ ... even if they're wrong. We argue about politics as if the facts are plain and clear. We divide over theology not because the Scriptures are plain, but because we grew up with this one and will not accept that one. (The "pre-Trib Rapture" is a prime example of an "absolute truth" that is not absolute in Scripture.) We hold to incontrovertible "facts" that just aren't necessarily true. Most of the time, our beliefs are built on our feelings rather than any real truth.

Scripture says, "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work" (2 Tim 3:16-17). With phrases like "breathed out by God" and "complete" and "equipped for every good work," it seems as if Scripture would be a reliable source of truth. How much of our discussion is rooted in Scripture? More, Jesus prayed, "Your word is truth" (John 17:17). If Jesus considered God's word to be truth, shouldn't we? And, of course, we have Jesus's own claim: "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me" (John 14:6). Jesus claimed not to merely speak truth, but to be "the truth." It seems obvious to me that we spend far too much time putzing about, pursuing self-structured "truth" and debating unsubstantiated "reality," when we should be dedicating ourselves to Christ and the Word. (And, as an aside, no, God cannot contradict God. Those who argue we should "listen to the Spirit" and hear Him say things that are in direct opposition to what He has said are deluded. As one singer put it, "Perhaps it was the devil that whispered in your ear.") With a firm grasp on what God has said in Scripture and in Christ (John 1:1; Heb 1:1-2), it seems we'd have more sure footing to discuss what is and what is not real. Because, Satan is called "the god of this world" (2 Cor 4:4) and "the father of lies" (John 8:44) and we carry deceitful hearts (Jer 17:9). A reliable truth source is essential, and we have it. Let's use it.
________

¹ Take, for instance, those "self-evident" truths from the Declaration of Independence -- that we have a divine right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Really? Everyone dies, liberty is always limited, and "the pursuit of happiness" is what has gotten our world into this mucky moral morass today.

Counterfactual

I don't know why; I just like the word. It rolls comfortably off the tongue. It means ... wait ... well, you might think it was obvious, but it's not. On the face of it, it means that which is counter to fact. However, in the world of philosophy it refers to imaginary thought exercises in which you consider what it would be like if ... something was different. What if you had taken a different job? What if you had married a different spouse? That kind of thing. So, okay, I suppose that's still "counter to fact." And what do we mean by "fact"? A "fact" is similar to a "truth," but it has more ... substance. It refers to something that actually exists, something that cannot be denied because it is, in essence, right there in your hands. Truth can be philosophical or simply ideas-based, but a fact exists in solid form, as it were. It is interesting, then, how much of our world operates today on a counterfactual basis.

There are lots of examples, but today's most obvious one has a name: "transgender." Transgender refers to the notion that Bill or Sally actually feels like they're a Jenny or Jack. In today's world, that means that Bill/Jenny actually is a female and Sally/Jack really is a male. That, dear reader, is a prime example of "counterfactual," yet our current culture defends it venomously. It doesn't take a religious zealot to tell you it's nonsense. It just takes common sense, an admission of the facts. No amount of "I feel" will change the chromosomes of Bill or Sally to produce the opposite sex. No medical process will give Bill ovaries or Sally testes. No hormone replacement process will instill a lifelong memory of female experiences in Bill or male living in Sally. We can dress it up. We can perform external operations like clothes and hair, even superficial surgeries to look more like the opposite sex, but the facts are nothing will change the biology and functionality of one to become the other. Facts.

Of course, my saying such a thing will get me labeled as "transphobic" or some such nonsense because our current society is virulently opposed to that kind of straightforward truth. I don't oppose those people who find themselves confronted with what was until very recently termed "gender dysphoric." It (correctly) referred to people who feel uncomfortable or distressed because the gender they feel they are differs from their biological sex. Why would I oppose these people? They're in trouble. They're in distress. They need help. Hating someone like this is as cruel and unkind as hating a baby born with birth defects. They don't need hate; they need help. No, I'm responding to the foolishness that our world has embraced that says the help they need is to jettison the facts, discard reality, and embrace their impossible dream. And I'm the hater? Our world dwells in counterfactual insanity. The Bible calls it "sin" (Rom 1:21) and "There, there, that's okay" is not a solution.

The Heart Is Deceitful

We are an arrogant and foolish race. We can see quite clearly the truth of an assertion and ignore it completely and consider ourselves wise. So when God says, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?" (Jer 17:9), we blithely ignore the evidence and the facts and press on. "Pshaw! We know better." And we don't.

You don't have to be a religious zealot to see it. Consider the current moral mantra of our day. We get it in different terminology, but it's all the same. "If it feels good, do it." "The heart wants what the heart wants." "Love is love." That is, the primary test of any moral question is, "Do I want it?" If yes, it's good. And that's not merely mistaken, it's crazy. Consider the dieting woman who goes into a bakery for a loaf of fresh-baked bread. With all those sweets arrayed before her, she must not think, "The heart wants what the heart wants" or the diet is destroyed. Or the neighbor who covets his neighbor's wife. "I want it, so it's good" would be devastating. Or consider the toddler who finds the pool unlocked and just must feel what that water is like. "The heart wants what the heart wants" is a recipe for catastrophe. But, here we are, walking through life with "love is love" as a justification ... which we clearly don't mean because "No, you can't marry three women and a dog" or "Wait, wait, incest is evil" and on and on. Where is your "love is love" now?

A long time ago God said that humans have deceitful hearts and we, on a daily basis, prove Him true. "I want" cannot be the basis for "I ought," but it's our standard method of determining what's good and right ... and so often it's absolutely wrong. Proving once again that the heart is deceitful ... and we apparently have a learning disability where the heart condition is concerned.

Worship Wars

It's not so much these days ... we've relegated "Boomers" to the trash heap as much as possible ... but there has been these disputes back and forth that have been termed "worship wars." It is, oddly enough, primarily a question of style. What musical style is acceptable/right/correct for worship? Now, if you look through your Bible, you'll see that "Contemporary Worship music" ... isn't mentioned. Still, we fight about it, even if in ever smaller circles as the older generation dies out and the younger generation gets venerated above its class or just deserts. But is the Bible silent on this question?

I was raised on "Rock and roll is of the devil" and "If the beat leads, sin follows." When I failed to find it in my Bible, they told me, "Just trust us." And when I read, "Praise Him with trumpet sound; praise Him with lute and harp! Praise Him with tambourine and dance; praise Him with strings and pipe! Praise Him with sounding cymbals; praise Him with loud clashing cymbals!" (Psa 150:3-5), I said, "That sure sounds like a loud band." And they assured me it wasn't. So, no, the Bible is not silent. There is the command to praise Him with instruments, including "loud clashing cymbals." I've been posting this series with the label "Col 3:16," where we read,

Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God. (Col 3:16)

You see? Not silent. "Psalms and hymns and spiritual songs." God affirms in His Word different instruments and different styles. The classic categories of "hymn" vs "praise song" are problematic because both -- as categories -- seem to fall in that spectrum. And while we dicker over "hymns" vs "praise songs," we (sadly) ignore "teaching and admonishing" in those terms. Young or old, hymn or praise song, we typically prefer what makes us feel good and not what speaks to the truth.

I thoroughly dislike our "worship wars" because they are predicated on "I like" and "I don't like" and not what God says. Why not look for truth? Why not focus our minds on the truth and praise God with the truth rather than manipulated emotion? Paul there started with, "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly." That would be a great place to be in worship, founded on His Word, glorifying Him. (I think at times that the best hymn can be not quite as good as the simple praise song that is taken word for word from Scripture.) If we want to discuss the biblical truth around what is biblical and what is not, then I'm for it, but we would probably do well to drop bickering about what style is better than the other and go with God's instructions.

News Weakly - 10/12/2024

Is That Wise?
On the anniversary of Hamas's October 7 attack on Israel, Hamas launched rockets into Israel. Now, conventional wisdom would say, "If you're getting severely beaten, stay down and keep quiet." Apparently Hamas is more of a "Here I am! Kick me again!" kind of leadership.

Right Out of 1984
John Kerry has declared that a major roadblock for the US is ... the 1st Amendment. If we could just get rid of that pesky free speech and freedom of religion nonsense, we could really get moving on the mind control plans to eliminate opposition among the people. Don't worry, Mr. Kerry, a lot of people agree that their opponents should not have free speech ... and religion is right out.

It Figures
The MegaMillions Lotto is raising the cost of tickets to $5. I have never bothered, so it's no skin off my nose, but is anyone surprised that hyperinflation (250%) is hitting the lottery? Even greed is getting more expensive.

Free Enterprise?
A federal judge has ordered Google to open the Android app store to all. Mind you, Apple has had a tight grip on their version forever. I know because I've tried to write apps for them. It's not easy ... or cheap. But, the government is now in the business of forcing businesses to allow others to take their profits in a potentially dangerous manner that will undoubtedly leave Google to blame when some app steals private information. I mean, what could go wrong? I won't be holding my breath waiting for the courts to force Apple to ease up.

Victory And Defeat
For literally years now Jack Phillips has been in court in Colorado. He's the Christian baker who claimed that his religious beliefs precluded him celebrating "gay marriage" or "transgenderism." (Why both? Because once they found out the first one, they targeted him rather than avoiding him.) Colorado's Supreme Court dismissed another lawsuit this week against Phillips (Yay!) not on the fact of that the 1st Amendment demands it, but on procedural grounds (Boo!). Phillips continues to be harassed and intimidated for his beliefs and his adherence to them, and the courts both give him relief and dodge the question. Disappointing.

Anti-Democratic
Trump questioned the results of an election and is castigated as "an existential threat to democracy." Walz says, "The Electoral College needs to go," and that's ... patriotic? The Electoral College is brought to you by the Constitution. Why isn't he labeled "an existential threat to the Constitution"? The Electoral College gives a voice to minorities like Wyoming or other places of lower populations where most of our "democratic" world is driven purely by population centers, erasing completely the voice of the "little guy." But, you go with that. Trump is the threat and "delete the Constitution" is the promising voice. Hmm ... I guess I am "anti-Democratic" if "Democratic" means "of the Democrats."

In an Upside-Down World
Singer Garth Brooks was openly accused of rape, an accusation he says is "a shakedown." He did what the legal system allows; he filed suit against his accuser. Apparently a woman naming a man who she says (true or not) raped her is good (and I don't think otherwise), but naming a woman who is lying in order to rob the man is bad. Tell me that's not an upside-down way of thinking. I'm all for protecting victims, but if the law doesn't arrest the man and she chooses to publicly name him, why should she retain anonymity?

Fake News You Can Trust
The report went under the radar, but apparently a polygraph machine exploded after Tim Walz passed it. Strange. Elsewhere, with hurricanes in the news, a controversy has erupted around the evidence that a Jew in Galilee had the ability to control the weather. Really something to examine.

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

Commanding the Impossible

Now, I know ... the world doesn't care wha the Word has to say about marital relations, but we Christians should. We often don't, but we should. But if you read what it says, you might come away thinking, "Oh, no. That's not right." You will read, for instance,

But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. (1 Cor 11:3)

Many a Christian wife and not a few Christian husbands will read that and say, "That's not right." It's clear. It's explicit. It's unambiguous. But "it's not right." Or so they say. You will read things like,

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, His body, and is Himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. (Eph 5:22-24)

Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, when they see your respectful and pure conduct. (1 Peter 3:1-2)

And that can't be right, can it? Wives submit? To him? It even specifies "even if some do not obey the word." Does that make any sense? Especially when you encounter what I call the "hyper-patriarchals" who have decided that "wives, submit" is a command for them to thoroughly dominate their wives. It seems as if God is commanding the impossible here. It's not unclear or ambiguous, but Christians choke on it.

If the commands to wives seem impossible, the commands to husbands, if examined as they are given, are more so.

Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her, that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that He might present the church to Himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. (Eph 5:25-27)

Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered. (1 Peter 3:7)

At first blush, it's easy. "Love your wives." Yeah, sure, easy. But ... the standard of that love is not. "Love your wives as Christ loved the church." Oh, that standard. How? "Gave Himself up for her." Yes, He died, but, as Paul explains, He did so much more. He didn't cling to His status as God, but humbled Himself ... to death (Php 2:5-8). That is the standard of love that husbands are supposed to meet. It certainly slays the idea of the domineering husband on the spot. The notion of a "man cave" becomes nonsensical. "I need me-time" is relegated to the crazy box. Love her by giving self up for her. Is that even possible? And then the next one rears its ugly head. "Likewise," it says. Like what? Like wives submitting to their husbands. "Likewise," in the husbands' version of submission, "live with your wives in an understanding way." What? Really??" It is a common axiom that men do not understand women. I saw a book in a bookstore once titled, What Men Know About Women. The pages were blank. And here it is, the obviously impossible, in command form. Husbands are commanded to understand their wives. To be students of their wives. To see them, to know them, to grasp their ideas and feelings and wants and all. Crazy wives ask, "Does this dress make me look fat?" and the godly husband will be required to know the right answer because he understands his wife. She won't have to answer "Nothing" when he asks, "Honey, what's wrong?" because he has been a student of his wife and gets it. Yeah, sure, that's an absolute, a perfect world -- likely, due to human nature and limitations, will never be this side of heaven -- but it's the aim, the goal, the command.

God, it appears, is in the business of making impossible commands. "Love God with all your heart" (Deut 6:5; Matt 22:37). "Love one other as I have loved you" (John 13:34; John 15:12). "Rejoice always; pray without ceasing; in everything give thanks; for this is God’s will for you in Christ Jesus" (1 Thess. 5:16-18). On and on. I'm sure you can think of a whole lot more. These two are just a couple of obvious examples: "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord" and "Husbands, love your wife to the exclusion of your self, and live with her in an understanding way." The temptation is to simply reject them. "We can't do it." It's either wrong or we're just going to refuse. These are the wrong conclusions. The right conclusion is, "Well, He said it, so we'll do it." We'll do it by the work of God in us both to will and to do His good pleasure (Php 2:13). So, Christ-follower, what will it be? Dodge the "impossible" in open rejection of the One you claim to follow, or aim for a miraculous obedience?

Ironic?

Politics is often a touchy subject. Take, for instance, the Trump. In the campaign season of 2016, I earned a lot of ire from friends and family because I spoke about and even blogged about what I considered to be the danger of Trump. I was so clear then that even the dreaded Dan T. linked to an entry and concurred wholeheartedly with my disavowal of my party's candidate. I remember in July, 2016, my wife and I were on a trip with my parents and were visiting my dad's brother and family. The topic of politics came up around the table and I held my peace until someone asked me directly. For the sake of honesty, I told them, "No, I won't be voting for Trump." My father was shocked and my uncle was actually angry. You see, what we knew about Trump was that he was a womanizer and bragged about feeling up women. Sure, he probably had some good economic sense and other ideas, but he had what I considered to be a deranged morality. To my family, at least, he wasn't Hillary, so any vote that was not for Trump was a vote for evil. My father said, "Sure, Trump's not a paragon of virtue, but his VP is going to be Mike Pence, and he's a Christian." "Dad," I said, "are you suggesting I vote for Trump hoping he'll get assassinated?" Isn't it interesting, then, that Trump won without my vote? Isn't it interesting, now, that nearly every Trump fan, Christian or otherwise, presented with the name, "Pence," turns up their nose in disgust? Trump castigated his own VP for failing to bend to Trump's will and hoped the mob would hang him. And his devoted fans agreed ... one of the warnings I had given about Trump. I warned that he would normalize the unthinkable for the Right and, even, for Christians, and he did.

I didn't shift in 2020. His record was mixed and he had done some good things, but any president can do some good things. His character hadn't changed and his supposed "conversion to Christianity" looked to be misinformation and I didn't think he would uphold my concerns for the nation, so I voted against him again. In neither case did I vote for the Left. My conscience wouldn't allow that, either. It didn't matter. My own friends and family were outraged again and I was the bad guy for voting my conscience. But here is the irony. While my friends were kicking me to the curb, as it were, for violating their sacred cow, the Left was kicking me to the other curb for ... being conscientious. They accused me of supporting Trump and loving Trump and still do to this day. My friends were mad at me for failing to do what my enemies are sure I did. And none of them are shifting today. I'm conversely a Trump-hater or I'm a Trump-lover (and certainly not a patriot or even a good guy). I can't win.

Can I let you in on a secret? I know, it's not fair. They won't admit it and it won't stop ... on either side ... but it's not an issue for me. I don't believe that the ends justify the means. I don't believe that it's okay to encourage wrong in the hopes of gaining something right. I don't believe that I should run my life on the lies of other people. And gaining the approval of others is not my aim in life. Let's face it, I've not been too successful at that this far in my life. Why bother now? So I will, once again, vote my conscience this year and live with the consequences ... from both sides. I'm only a little sad that voting my conscience so rarely gets anyone elected. That's either a sad commentary on my conscience or a sad commentary on my nation.

The New Command

A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. (John 13:34)

Jesus had a special dialog with His disciples on that last night in the upper room -- 4 whole chapters of the Gospel of John (John 13-16). In that time, He gave them this "new commandment." Love one another. Now, we all know that wasn't a new commandment. Jesus had quoted it back when He was asked what was the great commandment of the law (Matt 22:36-40). Jesus quoted it because it was from Lev. 19:8. This wasn't new. So why did He call it "a new commandment"?

The command to "love one another" wasn't new. What was new was the standard by which that love was measured. In the Old Testament, the standard was "as you love yourself." Of course, in today's society that's ambiguous, because we're all worried that some people don't love themselves enough. Scripture (no surprise) disagrees. Paul told husbands to love their wives as they loved their own bodies. "For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church" (Eph 5:29). That is, the simple fact that we feed ourselves means we love ourselves. That was the standard back then. Jesus called for a new standard. What was it? "As I have loved you." Hmmm, and what does that mean? You may have figured it out, but He didn't leave them to guess. In that same upper room dialog, He repeated His command and gave clarification.

This is My commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends. (John 15:12-13)

The assignment for each and every believer is to love one another in that way -- to lay down our lives for one another. In fact, if you think about it, Jesus had been doing that His whole ministry. He fed Himself and prayed alone at times -- took general care of His physical and spiritual health -- but everything He did was about others, not Himself. He didn't seek a career, find a wife ... do any of the things we all consider normal human behavior with our personal preferences at the center. He was about His Father's will (John 5:30; John 6:38). He was about the people to whom He was ministering. And, in the end, He physically gave up His life for His friends. He served as a living example of what He commanded.

We're all (or, at least, mostly all) aware of the command for believers to love one another. We're aware that it's supposed to be the hallmark of every believer (John 13:35). And we nod and think, "Well, I think affectionately of some of my fellow believers." And we miss the point. Jesus did not command affection. He commanded sacrifice. He didn't command warm feelings. He commanded death to self. We are supposed to be a people who are known for laying down our lives, literally or figuratively, for each other. I'm not entirely sure that's widely practiced enough among us to be something for which we are known.

One Thing

You remember the story. Jesus came to visit His dear friends -- Lazarus, and and his sisters, Mary and Martha. Martha went about her important hospitality job, but foolish Mary simply sat at Jesus's feet. Martha complained. "Tell her to help me." Remember Jesus's reply? "Martha, Martha, you are anxious and troubled about many things, but one thing is necessary. Mary has chosen the good portion, which will not be taken away from her" (Luke 10:41-42). The practical folk scratch their heads a little -- "But ... how will we eat ...?" -- but, you get the idea. It's important to sit at Jesus's feet.

I wonder, though, if we really hear what Jesus said. "Mary," He said, "had chosen a good portion." Yes, we got that. But look at what He said before. Martha was concerned about "many things." Frankly, much like all of us. Then He said, "But one thing is necessary." Wait ... what? Only one thing is necessary? That's what He said. And, in all honesty, most of us don't buy it. We have a whole lot of important, necessary things going on. Which should indicate a problem.

Jesus said, "One thing is necessary." That was, in Mary's case, sitting at Jesus's feet. Of course, it's figurative of a lifestyle. Are we "sitting at Jesus's feet," learning, when we're driving to work? Or sitting in church? Or talking to our spouse? Or making dinner? Or ...? Martha, in our example story, had the capacity to serve and sit at Jesus's feet in this sense. She opted to only serve. But the only thing that is important is being in the presence of Christ, waiting, expectant, listening, obeying. It is a lifestyle. And it is the only necessary thing.

A Superstitious Bunch

We're Christians. We know better. We believe in Christ, not all that superstitious nonsense. Right? You've probably heard of Santeria. It's an Afro-Caribbean religion that took African voodoo and merged it with Roman Catholic Christianity. It doesn't work, of course, but, as it turns out, we can be a real superstitious bunch. Superstition is "a widely held but unjustified belief in supernatural causation leading to certain consequences of an action or event, or a practice based on such a belief." On the face of it, it almost looks like a definition of the Christian faith, but we know better. As long as we're following the Word, our beliefs are "justified." We have reasons to believe. We have faith, not credulity. Credulity is an unfounded belief, and our faith has deep foundations. And still we buy into some superstitious ideas.

I think of the "health and wealth" theology, the "prosperity gospel." Pure, unvarnished supersition, pitting my faith (or lack thereof) against God's supposed temporal blessings. I think of "in the name of Jesus." It's a phrase we use loosely. I hear, "I pray the name of Jesus over you" as if it's some magical phrase that gets our "genie" to provide what we want. We sing about how beautiful Jesus's name is without thinking about the idea. "Jesus" isn't a particularly beautiful name. The name of Jesus, as it represents the person of Jesus, is as beautiful as Jesus is. It's not the name, but the person. We reject rabbit's feet and black cat curses, but we're pretty sure that if we don't do what God wants, He can't accomplish what He intends. We think that God "wants you to be happy." Nowhere in the pages of Scripture do you find that. He wants what's best for us, but that includes chastisement when needed (Heb 12:6). Job understood we don't merely accept good from the hand of God (Job 2:10). Happy? No. Blessed? Yes. Not the same thing. We like to think, "We're all God's children." We're all God's creation, but only those who are adopted into His family are His children (John 1:12-13). (If we were all God's children, what is adoption even for?) Other deeply ingrained superstitions haunt us. God won't love us if we're not good. Lie. You have to be good to get to heaven. Lie. Going to church makes you a Christian. Lie. If you don't choose the right thing, you can only get God's "plan B" at best. Lie.

We're actually a pretty superstitious bunch, and those are just a very few examples of how we are superstitious. Our best defense against such superstitions is to go to the Word (John 17:17). Jesus is the truth, and pursuing a lot of our own foolish ideas isn't very productive. We should be on the lookout for all our superstitious nonsense.

Oh, For A Thousand Tongues to Sing

Oh, for a thousand tongues to sing my great Redeemer's praise,
The glories of my God and King, the triumphs of His grace!

My gracious Master and my God, assist me to proclaim,
To spread through all the earth abroad the honors of Thy name.

Jesus! The name that charms our fears, that bids our sorrows cease.
'Tis music in the sinner's ears, 'tis life and health and peace.

He breaks the power of canceled sin, He sets the prisoner free.
His blood can make the foulest clean, His blood availed for me.

Hear Him, ye deaf; His praise, ye dumb, your loosened tongues employed.
Ye blind, behold your Savior come, and leap, ye lame, for joy.

Charles Wesley wrote this hymn on the occasion of the 11th anniversary of his conversion to Christ. It was inspired, it is believed, by a chance remark by an influential leader in his life who said, "Had I a thousand tongues, I would praise Christ Jesus with all of them." Originally there were 19 verses and it was entitled "For the Anniversary Day of One's Conversion."

How many of us recognize our conversion with such excitement? For that matter, how many of us recognize God with such enthusiasm? Wesley knew God in a way we have lost today. In theologians' terms, God has two aspects: His transcendence and His immanence. Immanence speaks of His immediate presence. We like to think of God as here, among us. And He is. Immanence points to His more personable attributes, like love, grace, and mercy. His transcendence speaks of His being above and beyond us. "Your ways are not My ways," says the Lord. The word that most clearly expresses His transcendence in Scripture is "holy." His holiness is His otherness. It is this aspect that we seem to have lost. David Wells says that the church in America today has "an infatuation with the love of God and an embarrassment at his holiness."¹ We see God in His closeness to us, His love for us. It is His holiness that scares us, because with that holiness comes righteousness, wrath, and judgment. Wesley sees God in His greatness beyond our comprehension.

What aspects of God's greatness does this hymn point to? "Redeemer" is the first description. He is the One who purchased me out of sin's penalty. "My God and King" are the next two. "My God" speaks of His personal nature to me, His immanence. "My God" speaks of His holiness, His otherness, His transcendence. "King" is a descriptive term that people of an earlier time would understand. Americans have little comprehension of the word, having no king of our own and valuing independence as we do. The king was the single ruler of all. His word was law. His judgments were carried out. His choices were final. Jesus is the King of kings, the Ultimate King. He is my King. He is, in that phrase, immanent and transcendent.

"The triumphs of His grace" is the next descriptive phrase. It is on that grace that we wholly lean. There is no place in God's view for my merit. I have earned no rights to attention, love, or mercy. My wages, my earnings, are death (Rom. 6:23). God first demonstrated His grace in the garden of Eden when He spared the lives of Adam and Eve when they sinned. "In the day that you eat it, you shall surely die." (Gen. 2:17) But they didn't die physically, and that is due solely to God's grace. God is not obligated to maintain the life of one who regularly engages in overthrowing His rulership, yet that is what we do daily. Every breath we take is testimony to His triumphant grace.

"My gracious Master and my God" is the next phrase that illustrates who God is. We've already looked momentarily at His gracious aspect. Master is a term that we don't like in America. We will be free. We will be independent. We will be slave to no man. God doesn't offer that option. It's His game. We can come to Him on His terms, or not at all. His claim is Master. Paul told the Philippian jailer that he must believe on the Lord Jesus Christ to be saved. (Acts 16:31) God requires control in our lives. Paul says we will be slaves, either to righteousness or to sin. (Rom. 6:16) We will have a master. Slavery is not a choice. God gives us the option of masters. To fail to choose God as master is to choose sin as master. There are no other choices, no in betweens. There is no independence.

The single name "Jesus" is next on the descriptive list. Wesley says that name affects our fears, our sorrows, our outlook on life, and our inner thoughts. Paul says that His name will be the name above all names. Many hymns and choruses pick up this same concept. "Jesus, name above all names." "Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, there's just something about that name . . ." "Take the name of Jesus with you." Today's world sees His name as an expletive, but God sees that name as the name. A failure to revere that name is a failure to revere the person. What does the name of Jesus do in your thoughts?

More than a name, Jesus carries power. Power to cancel sin. Power to set us free. Power to cleanse. His blood is effective in cleansing. Jesus carries power in name and in presence. For most Christians, it is Jesus that represents God's immanence, His presence with us, His love. It is the Father that represents His transcendence, His holiness. But Jesus is just as holy. ("I and the Father are one.") They are inseparable entities. While we may not comprehend, all of God's transcendence as well as His immanence resides in Christ.

For all that He does, for all that He is, we are called to praise Him. The purpose of man is to glorify God. All of creation was intended to point to God. Wesley says that one tongue is insufficient to point to God's greatness. He calls on God to assist him in glorifying God. If that seems somewhat contradictory, then we are failing to see man's depravity and God's right to our worship. We need God's assistance to do anything for God, including the act of praise. But man has no higher purpose than to point to the awesome and wonderful God who made him.

Do you ever feel inadequate in praise? Do you ever have a sense that one tongue is not enough for glorifying God, that you are incapable of affording Him the adoration He deserves? Do you ever sense that you cannot provide the honor and worship He so richly merits? If not, you don't know God either in His immense holiness or His intimate immanence. That should worry you.
________

¹ David F. Wells, God in the Wasteland, pp. 114 (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1994)

News Weakly - 10/5/2024

We Wouldn't Know It If It Hit Us In The Face
California has banned (with 3 other states) "legacy admissions" -- giving priority to admissions of the children of alumni, worrying about favoring "white or wealthy students." I suppose that assumes that no alumni who are minorities are wealthy? And I assume that they'll still give preferential treatment to minority applicants? So it's not preferential treatment or even "white" that is the issue, but the stereotypical "all whites are bad" concept here. Reversing racism doesn't make it any less racist.

(As an aside, my title of this section reminded me of a line. "I saw something hurtling toward me. I wondered what it was. Then it hit me." But ... I digress.)

Ultimate Antisemitic
Iran launched waves of missiles at Israel as a "revenge attack" for Israel killing Hezbollah leaders. Mind you Hezbollah leaders are not Iranians. Mind you, Hezbollah leaders (along with Hamas) have been working hard for the genocide of Israel. Mind you, almost all the missiles were shot down. But, hey, if you have the world on your side in favor of genocide against Israel and you think that gives you the moral high ground, fight on, Iran. It's not true, but ... (And, oh, Iran, that particular enemy has a serious bite ... and their missiles are effective.)

Pushback
A teacher in Virginia, fired for something he didn't say, will receive $575,000 from the school board in compensation. He wouldn't use transgender pronouns because they violated his faith. He couldn't use pronouns that were "inconsistent with the student's sex." And, of course, despite the complaints, the statement is absolutely correct. Our culture confuses "sex" with "gender," but, no matter what you think, sex doesn't change, regardless of what the expression of that sex ("gender") may be. This victory pushes back on the current position that truth is no longer acceptable.

Message Received
Home Depot has an ad out for a fancy thermostat. The tagline is, "Be comfortable in your own home." The wife turns this thermostat to 72°. The husband, sitting in his chair with smartphone in hand, surreptitiously turns it down to 69°. The wife frowns and takes his phone away. The message is clear. "Be comfortable in your own home" ... as long as you're a wise wife who knows what's best and certainly not if you're one of those stupid, useless, "male" types. You're out of luck. Got it. Thanks.

Another Yawn
The VP candidates debated. I couldn't have cared less. We clearly have no more standards of dialog, decency, or honesty. I can't imagine what listening to this banter would tell me.

Fake News You Can Trust
Seriously, I loved this Bee headline. "Idiot Noah Builds An Ark When He Could Have Just Paid More Taxes To Stop Climate Change." Perfect. Spot on. The states hit by Hurricane Helene are apparently out of luck. FEMA is reporting they spent their funding on a sweet PowerPoint presentation about racial equity. And now, it seems, the Ayatollah is frantically googling to find out "how to build one of those Iron Dome thingys ... fast."

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

Breaking Barriers

Our culture today likes to think that they're breaking barriers. Don't limit people to heterosexual; let (one of the stupidest phrases I can imagine) "love be love." (Stupid because without a clear definition of "love" -- like we have today -- you're enabling all sorts of evil, like pedophilia, bestiality, marrying your pillow ... on and on.) Or, how about how we're throwing off the old (rational, scientific, as-old-as-human-existence) "boys are boys and girls are girls" and substituting ... everything and nothing at all? Or those racial barriers, which we're tearing down by erecting new ones where the white people (all of them without exception) are the bad guys -- just another barrier. Now, if you pay attention, you might begin to see that Jesus was all about breaking barriers, too.

Jesus said, "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" (Matt 5:43-44). Now, that is a barrier broken. Jesus said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave" (Matt 20:25-27). Wow! Talk about tearing down a barrier! Jesus said, "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 18:3). Bang! Another barrier falls! In fact, Jesus said He came to "give His life as a ransom for many" (Matt 20:28). Jesus came to bring down the barriers between a holy God and sinful Man. Seriously, He took down lots of barriers ... more than we realized He could.

So, Jesus was about tearing down barriers, right? Well, sort of. He was also in favor of erecting them. He said, "If anyone would come after Me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow Me" (Luke 9:23). That's a significant barrier. He told Nicodemus, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God" (John 3:3). Cannot see it? Huge barrier. Jesus ripped down the false judgment of the Pharisees when He said, "He who is without sin cast the first stone" followed immediately by erecting a new barrier by telling her, "Go and sin no more." (John 8:7, 11). So, in fact, Jesus was in the practice of knocking down barriers, but not for the sake of barriers. He was busy redirecting false thinking to true thinking, of removing lies and substituting truth. He tore down walls keeping people from what was actually true and erected walls to block people from the lies they embraced. Unlike our culture, which is busily tearing down walls that were intended to keep us safe and erecting walls to keep us from the truth. So ... not the same thing.

Threat to Democracy

It seems as if this presidential race has run on the "threat to democracy" platform. The left has pounded the drum that Trump is an "existential threat to democracy" for most of this year (and before) (and they were startled when "patriots" tried to eliminate that "existential threat" with assassination). Why? Primarily because Trump questioned the results of the 2020 election. Now, I wouldn't think questioning the results of an election was a "threat to democracy." I mean, Gore did it in 2000 and Hillary did it in 2016 and ... well, a lot of people are doing it ... without being an "existential threat." I would think verifying election results would be in support of democracy. But, no, Trump kept (I think still) saying that the election was rigged. The media (primarily) declared, "There is no evidence for widespread election fraud." Look at that a moment. First, it does not claim "Election fraud was proven false." No, they claim "no evidence." They do it despite the evidence, but the claim is not "proof," but the lack thereof. And then there are those "weasel words." "No evidence" (in their book) of "widespread" (undefined) election fraud. I didn't think anyone was claiming "widespread" fraud. In the 2020 election 3 swing states had a small gap between Trump and Biden. Three states decided the outcome. That's not "widespread" but neither is it insignificant. But they swept the evidence and the question under the rug and call Trump the "threat to democracy."

I'll tell you what is a threat to democracy. Fascism or a monarchy or a dictatorship or an oligarchy or the like -- those are threats to democracy. An overbearing, over-controlling, over-stepping government -- that's a threat to democracy. You know what else? A republic. You see, America is not a democracy; it is a republic. We vote in representatives and they make the rules ... without concern for the voters'. Their only accountability is "Can I get reelected?", and folks like AOC have demonstrated that that's not an issue. The American political system is a threat to democracy. We have a two-party system. Each party offers a candidate before we decide who will be our leader. So we end up with so many goofballs, none of which should be in office. A democracy would give us a list of names and we vote and the one with the highest number wins, but we don't do that. We don't even want to do that. So we eliminate actual democracy, substitute a two-party system, and then fold in a Republic ... and complain about Trump.

The founding fathers of this nation revolted against their government because, as an example, "No taxation without representation." Well, I can't think of the last time I voted in a representative who represented my views. For most of my life it has been "hold your nose and vote" elections, some slightly better than others. For the 21st century, it seems it has been "Never them" votes, where you're not voting for a candidate, but against an opponent. That's not democracy. It's not even a representative government. So, fine, you want to call Trump an "existential threat to democracy"? Go ahead. I'm no Trump fan. But keep in mind that you are perpetrating "an existential threat to truth" when you do. And that's on you.

How To Dress For Church

I didn't intend it -- it wasn't the point -- but there has been some discussion recently about how we should dress in church. I'm afraid we've missed the point. Oh, I know, people feel one way or another about that, but I don't. They say, "Clothes make the man," but it's simply not true. It's not about what you wear to church. What, then?

The real issue (and I think this was touched on but almost entirely missed in the discussion) is not the clothes. There are no dress codes (or shouldn't be) in churches. Why? Simple. It's not biblical. We aren't told to wear a tie to church. We aren't told that shorts are okay. Clothes are not the point. What are we told? "By those who come near Me I will be treated as holy, and before all the people I will be honored" (Lev 10:3). Easy. Regard God as holy. In Scripture, everyone who had a close encounter with God was terrified. One of my favorite stories was the disciples on the Sea of Galilee in a storm and Jesus was asleep (Mark 4:31-. The disciples woke Him. "Don't you care that we're going to drown???" Jesus rebuked the storm, it halted, and the text says, "They became very much afraid" (Mark 4:35-41). You thought they were scared in a storm? That was nothing to seeing God in the boat with them. That was terrifying. We tend to think of God as a pal, a buddy, our friend. And, in a sense, He is, but we must not lose that "fear" factor. Moses thought of God as a friend when he cried out, "Show me Your glory!" (Exo 33:18). God spared Moses's life not by simply being merciful, but by covering him so he wouldn't die seeing God's glory. God is our friend; He's just not that kind of friend.

We fail to reverence God as we should, and that is a key, biblical problem. Not wearing a tie to church is not. I think of what Peter wrote to wives, "Do not let your adorning be external -- the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear -- but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's sight is very precious" (1 Peter 3:3-4). That's the idea. Peter wasn't commanding women to dress (or not dress) a certain way. He was telling them to have a spirit -- a character -- that reflected God. That character would show externally. So, no, what you wear to church is not the issue. Your attitude is. It's just hard to imagine shorts and flip-flops as an outward sign of an inner realization of a holy, holy, holy God. No, the shorts are not the problem, but how much does how we dress say about what's in our hearts? I don't know what's in hearts, so I won't respond to what others are wearing. But I cannot imagine walking into the palace of a king in shorts and flip-flops and a flippant, "Hiya, king" and regarding that as "respectful."

The Older Brother

Few of Jesus's parables are more memorable than the parable of the prodigal son (Luke 15:11-32). (As an aside, did you know "the parable of the prodigal son" is not in the Bible? Oh, the parable is, but nowhere does it mention a "prodigal" son. The word means wasteful and recklessly extravagant, so that's where the name comes from, but nowhere in the text is the word used. And we scarcely use it anywhere else either.) The most obvious character ... wait for it ... is, of course, the prodigal son.



The prodigal son is the main point. He's the "bad guy." He goes to his father and asks for his inheritance to squander it on wild living. Think about that. He is, in essence, wishing his father dead. He rejects his father, his family, his faith. He goes off, wastes all he received, ends up with the pigs, and finally ... I love this phrase ... "came to himself." He woke up. He realized his father's servants were better off than he was. So he repented. He would go tell his father he would be a servant. And, of course, the prodigal son is every one of us. We've sinned. We've rejected the Father. We've discarded "family." We jettisoned "faith." We all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God (Rom 3:23). We need repentance.

The next character we often mull over is this father. First, he acquiesces to his son's demands. It's not reasonable. It's not right. But he let's the boy go, knowing what was in store for him -- disaster. Then, when the boy comes slinking back with his tail between his legs, the father spies him "a long way off" and ran to him and embraced him. "My son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found." Why was his son "dead"? That kind of rebellion in Jewish culture was "fatal." You know the old, "You're dead to me"? That was the idea. They would often have a funeral for a disowned child. He was dead; he was lost. But the father ran and embraced him, brushed aside his plea for mercy, and threw him a party. If the prodigal son represents all of us sinners, the father clearly represents God, the Father. He lets us squander what He gives us and embraces us when we repent. "I tell you," Jesus said, "there is joy before the angels of God over one sinner who repents" (Luke 15:10).

All these interactions are memorable, but we often let the other guy remain in the shadows. The older brother. He was not pleased. He was angry at his father. (Think aout that for a moment.) He had been the faithful son, and his father never threw him a party. "But when this son of yours came, who has devoured your property with prostitutes, you killed the fattened calf for him!" (Luke 15:30). The father did not deny that his son had been there. He just asked him to rejoice that his brother was home. The text gives no indication that the older brother did. Who is he? The traditional line is the Pharisees. Maybe ... then. Today we have our own "older brother." You find them in "faithful" places like churches. They're warm and friendly to the "forgiven" -- the "in crowd" -- but not so much the soiled. I remember when stories circulated that Jeffrey Dahmer had come to Christ in prison, some were skeptical and some were outraged. "Really? A murderous cannibal?" We don't have to go so far as that to see it, though. "You heard about her, didn't you? She had an abortion." "You know, he cheated on his wife." "Did you know that in his youth he did drugs?" Or, the worst, "She voted for Hillary!" These objects of discussion are believers, forgiven, embraced by the Father. They were pursued and called and saved. Jesus died for them. But ... no ... they're not good enough for us.

The parable is really heartwarming. We see the Father, always ready to forgive. Thank God that's Him. We see the son, a truly profligate sinner who truly repents and receives both grace and mercy. Thank God we can, too. It's really, then, in the end, that older brother that is heartbreaking. There is joy in heaven when one sinner repents, but sometimes not so much among the "saved." And that's truly a shame. Don't be that older brother.

Short-Sighted

God told us, "My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways" (Isa 55:80). We seem to have made a practice of proving His point. Consider an easy example. The Old Testament prophets gave all sorts of information about the coming Messiah -- some 300 prophecies. Yet, when the Messiah arrived, the Jews had no idea that He was going to die, or that He was not the Conquering King, and so much more. They had the information and simply missed it. Didn't take it in. Didn't see it. They were short-sighted.

We're really good at that today. We read, "Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God" (Luke 6:20) and think, "Oh, people with less money and food inherit the kingdom." He wasn't talking about that "poor." He was talking about the "poor in spirit" (Matt 5:3). Poor, yes, but not our kind of poor; a spiritual poor. Jesus said He was fulfilling Isaiah's prophecy to "the poor, the captives, the blind, the oppressed" (Luke 4:17-21), and we think of the people we know who are poor, captives, blind, and oppressed. Jesus was talking about the spiritually poor, the spiritual captives, the spiritually blind, the spiritually oppressed. (We know this because He did not solve all those problems when He was here, but He did solve the spiritual problems at the Cross.) We read, "For I know the plans I have for you, declares YHWH, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope" (Jer 29:11) and think, "Oh, cool, we're going to get rich!!", forgetting His thoughts are not our thoughts and we keep thinking He's like us.

I'd imagine most of us can think of a whole lot more examples of seemingly straightforward things said in Scripture that turn out to clearly be something else ... something more. That's why we need the Spirit. Natural man does not understand the things of God (1 Cor 2:14) and is blinded by the god of this world (2 Cor 4:4). Thinking God's thoughts after Him doesn't come naturally, but we who are born of the Spirit have the Spirit to lead us into all truth. We should be cautious in reading God's Word too simply. It's not hard, but it's not necessarily natural, either. (And isn't it funny that a lot of those who claim the simplest readings of some of these texts also deny the reliability of Scripture?)

How Firm a Foundation

How firm a foundation, ye saints of the Lord,
Is laid for your faith in His excellent Word!
What more can He say than to you He hath said,
To you who for refuge to Jesus have fled?

"Fear not, I am with thee; O be not dismayed,
For I am thy God, and will still give thee aid.
I'll strengthen thee, help thee, and cause thee to stand,
Upheld by My righteous, omnipotent hand."

"When through fiery trials thy pathway shall lie,
My grace, all sufficient, shall be thy supply.
The flame shall not hurt thee; I only design
Thy dross to consume and thy gold to refine."

"The soul that on Jesus hath leaned for repose
I will not, I will not desert to its foes;
That soul, though all hell shall endeavor to shake,
I'll never, no, never, no, never forsake!"

The actual author of this hymn is unknown. It was published in a book of hymns by Dr. John Rippon in 1787. Dr. Rippon was the pastor of Carters Lane Baptist Church in London, England, for 63 years. The hymn has been called "the unofficial hymn textbook for Baptist Churches." Andrew Jackson requested it near the end of his life, and Robert E. Lee asked that it be sung at his funeral service in tribute to his God.

The hymn is actually a sermon. The first verse states the intent, while the following verses present various promises from Scripture. So what is the premise of this hymn-sermon? We saints stand on a firm foundation laid on God's Word. So complete is it that there is nothing more to be said. This is, on the face of it, not a remarkable view, but when we scratch the surface, there is a depth beneath that we may not have seen.

How complete is God's Word for our lives? The author of this hymn believes that in matters of faith, the Bible is complete, lacking nothing. In fact, God has said to us all He needs to say for our lives. Is that what you believe? Modern critics have arisen who claim otherwise. The Bible is no longer considered the infallible Word of God. Most mainline churches and seminaries have altered their statement of beliefs to varying extent to remove that odious claim. After all, what did the authors of old know about us and our culture? How could they possibly have understood our "no-fault" divorce laws, our concepts of living together before marriage to wisely test the waters, so to speak, or our problems with crime, teenage pregnancy, abortion, drugs, etc.? Times have changed. But the hymn-writer claims otherwise. Perhaps he understood the concept of God's omniscience and immutability. He definitely had a larger view of God than our present day does. And it is on the basis of this concept of God that the inerrancy of Scripture is claimed.

Now, if Scripture is the Word of God (no light claim), it must alter the life of anyone who believes that to be true. The views of our society become radically wrong. Rampant divorce in the Church becomes an affront to God. Premarital sex is no longer an option. It is called "sin." Homosexuality is no longer an alternate lifestyle. It is called "sin." Further, our attention to Scripture would necessarily increase if we actually believed that it was words written from the heart of God. It would drive every facet of our lives, transform every set of choices, and radically revise our thinking. "What more can He say than to you He has said?"

Look next at the passages from which our "sermon" comes. The first reference is Isaiah 41:10. It almost comes word for word from the verse. "Fear not," God says, for "I am with you. I am your God, and I will give you the aid you need. I'll strengthen you, help you, and cause you to stand. You are upheld by My righteous, omnipotent hand." Imagine! Our strength is His hand! It is the constant presence of God that makes unbearable circumstances bearable, even joyous. God Himself has promised to walk with us, even in the valley of death. He has the capacity and determination to use our worst experiences for His glory and our best gain. If God is for us, who can be against us?

Verse three refers to 2 Corinthians 12:9. "My grace is sufficient for you, for My power is perfected in weakness." The hymnist continues with the subject of suffering. (Why do we struggle so much with suffering in our modern world, as if it is a surprise? God has promised it. The writer of this hymn recognized that.) What is God's answer? "My grace is sufficient." It is when we understand the character and intent of God that we can accept this answer. Perfect love casts out fear. When we see that He loves us perfectly, we can begin to see His perfect intentions. He is purifying us, making us lights in a dark world, making us holy, as He is holy. The hymnist puts it much better than I. "The flame shall not hurt thee; I only design thy dross to consume and thy gold to refine." We cling to the dross, almost missing entirely the gold. But God has better ideas in mind for us!

The hymnist seems to have had training in Greek. He displays a real knowledge of Hebrews 13:5 in the final verse. In most Bibles it reads, "I will never leave you, nor will I ever forsake you." However, we lose something in the translation. "Never," in the Greek, is a double intensified word. It is stressed. More accurately, it should read, "I will never, never leave you." The hymn says, "I will not, I will not . . ." The phrase "nor will I ever" is triple intensified in Greek. Perhaps it would read, "I will never, never, never forsake you." The hymnist writes, "I'll never, no, never, no, never forsake!" Now, the writers of the Bible used repetition in much the same way we do today. It was for emphasis. Jesus, for instance, always spoke truth. He was a rabbi. So when He said, "Verily . . .," it caught the disciples' ear. When He said, "Verily, verily . . .," the disciples would have paid utmost attention. This was ultimate and important Truth. So when the author of Hebrews says, "never, never, never," it is a serious statement. Think about that. God, the Creator of the universe, has promised to never, with paramount emphasis, leave us alone or stranded. This is too wonderful to comprehend! God is always with me! What does that do to my view of life? How do I perceive the events of my existence when the Sovereign Lord is always at hand? How does that alter my choices knowing I am always in His company? What does that do to fear and worry?

Paul wrote to the Colossians, "Let the peace of God rule in your hearts." The word "rule" means literally "to arbitrate." In other words, let God's peace in your heart be the arbitrator of your well-being. Do you have a sense of God's peace? If not, it is not a failure on God's part. He is with us. He is sufficient. He will never leave us. What room is there for agitation? Why fret? What could possibly bring any distress? Are you anxious? Let God's peace arbitrate. Recognize that anxiety is your refusal to believe God. Reaffirm your faith. The answer to anxiety is not harder work. It is renewed faith. We need to look hard at our failure to trust the God we claim to have trusted. He is, above all, trustworthy.

News Weakly

Eliminating Parental Rights
A federal judge blocked a Tennessee law that prevented adults from helping minors get abortions without parental permission. Obviously. Because the federal government believes parents should have all the responsibility and none of the rights of being parents. "All of your kids are ours."

I Don't Even ...?
Alabama has decided that a person can get their driver's license changed to reflect their "new gender" ... as long as they sterilize themselves first. I'm not at all happy about the whole anti-science, nonsensical concept of "transgender," but I'm not at all clear about how sterilization makes it better. Mind you, changing sex designations on a driver's license to match gender identity is a crazy thing, but so is this new ruling.

A Threat to Democracy
Robert Kennedy Jr. tried to position himself as the "right candidate" in past months, concerned about truth and justice and all that. As opposed to the Left. As opposed, even, to Trump. But he saw the writing on the wall and dropped out, fighting to have his name removed from ballots on states in which it would dilute the pool. Until now. Now, the candidate who is not running for president is suing to have his name put back on the ballot in New York, not because he hopes to get elected (he's not running), but because it will dilute the Democratic vote in that state. Now, if "democracy" is a numbers game, then however you arrive at your numbers, "democracy" is all well and good, but if it is discovering "the will of the people," this will only eliminate that possibility. Pure political gamesmanship to skew numbers in favor of an outcome. So much for democracy. So much for integrity, Mr. Kennedy.

You Keep Using That Word ...
Two reports are out bemoaning the rise of book banning in schools. "These things," they are crying, "ought not be! It's censorship! It is in direct opposition to the freedom of the press!" Except ... it isn't. No one flinches when they disallow, for instance, Playboy magazines in elementary school libraries. Six-year-old boys don't need porn readily available in their schools. Nor do eight-year-olds need to learn about the mechanics of gay sex. And that's not "censorship" or "book banning" because all that garbage is available elsewhere. It's only "book banning" when the books are banned, not just when they're not allowed in a specific, child-centered venue. Pornography took over this country first via the "free speech" argument. If we keep this up, every six-year-old boy will be able to learn to read from the likes of The Happy Hooker, Fifty Shades of Grey, and The Joys of Gay Sex for the sake of the "free press." And that's not progress.

Kettle, Meet Pot
Harris's campaign has been banging away at "Trump's plan to charge a national sales tax." She is (deceitfully) referring to his (ill-advised) plan to charge tariffs for foreign goods, which, in turn will raise prices on foreign goods sold to the consumer. That part is true, but only foreign goods. Fortunately, Harris's plan is to "raise corporate taxes" ... which, of course, will raise the price of American goods. Is she going to call this her "national sales tax"? Oh, no, never mind. That would make her an honest politician ... something we don't see much of.

Fake News You Can Trust
The Bee has a story about how Democrats are warning that if public libraries are defunded, homeless people will have nowhere to watch porn. They have a point. After California banned "deep fake" political ads (actual story) (although it's still legal to lie boldly in political ads) and limited AI imagery (actual story), the Bee is reporting raids in California seizing over 2,000 memes while Texas Governor Abbott declares Texas a sanctuary state for memers. And the real reason Newsom signed the ban was because he was tricked into thinking a picture of Trump as a merman was real.

I know it's true; I read it on the Internet.

All to God's Glory

There are some surprisingly sweeping statements in Scripture that are sometimes hard to fathom. We read, for instance, "No one does good, not even one" (Rom 3:12; Psa 53:3). No one does good? Not even one? That's a sweeping claim. We are told to "love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind" (Matt 22:37). All your heart, soul, and mind? That's a sweeping command. There are many of these. But one that is striking is the command Paul gives in his first epistle to the church at Corinth.

So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. (1 Cor 10:31)

The basic command is "Do all to the glory of God." Our tendency might be to think something like, "Anything spiritual I do needs to be to the glory of God" or something like it. "Anything really important." Something like that. But this command is "all." And to make the point, Paul specifies (because of the context) "whether you eat or drink" along with "whatever you do." That is, eating and drinking falls under the command to do all to the glory of God. Now, let me ask you, how do you eat or drink to the glory of God?

The whole notion is daunting, to tell the truth. I'm supposed to do my work to the glory of God. I'm supposed to love my wife to the glory of God. I'm supposed to get dressed to the glory of God. If I talk with friends, I'm supposed to do it to the glory of God. If I play a game, I'm supposed to do it to the glory of God. If I "sits and thinks," I'm supposed to do it to the glory of God. Whatever I do, I'm supposed to do it to the glory of God. Whatever. Do I? Not even close.

The sad thing, of course, is that not only do we fail to do this, but we fail to even think about it. Do we ask, "How will I glorify God when I stop at Starbucks for a cup of coffee"? Do we wonder, "Does my playing video games glorify God in any way?" Women might stereotypically ask, "Does this dress make me look fat?" but who asks, "Will this dress glorify God?" Like loving God with all that we are, we fall so far short of glorifying God in all we do. And, honestly, that's to be expected this side of eternity; we are people in process. Still, shouldn't it bother us? A little? Shouldn't we want to do better?

Unsung Heroes

A hero is defined, according to the dictionary, as "a person noted for courageous acts or nobility of character." I think sometimes we throw the word around a little too loosely. Someone we admire, for instance, might be termed "my hero," but "courageous acts" or "nobility of character" may not really be in view. And we will use the term, "unsung hero," in a similar way, possibly referring to someone who didn't get the fame or celebrity status we think they should. Genuine heroes, though, I think are often unsung. They do great deeds of courage and character and go unnoticed. And, of course, that's partly because a person of truly noble character will be humble.

I think of the wife who submits to her husband as to the Lord even when he is disobedient to the Word (Eph 5:22-24; 1 Peter 3:1-4). These women are few and far between. If they are noticed, the typical response is ridicule, not appreciation. But the faith this takes, trusting God over all else, is courageous, bespeaking a real nobility of character. I think of the husband who sacrifices self to love His wife without regard for his own wants or wishes (Eph 5:25-27). It's not human. As one Christian counselor told me, "That's crazy." Because it is in direct opposition to basic human nature, an ongoing act of real bravery in the face of self and society. I think of parents who love their children above "stuff" and status and the world. Fathers bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord (Eph 6:4). Who does that anymore? Most leave it to public school devoid of God and to Sunday School teachers and to their peers and the rest. These parents are as rare as can be, but they are courageous and noble and are unsung heroes in my book.

Just a few examples. If a real hero is to have a noble character, it requires that they have a functioning relationship with Christ. If a true hero is to be courageous, it requires that they have a vibrant and solid faith in the God who supplies. These people are not common. We don't encounter too many. Most are unassuming, quiet, and gentle, but not wavering. They don't do it for the accolades, which is good, because there are precious few for this kind of hero -- a sincere follower of Christ, dying to self daily and seeking to serve Him and His people at every turn. Unsung heroes.

Command and Conquer

St. Augustine is known for some pretty deep theology, but sometimes you have to wonder. One of his famous statements comes from his spiritual autobiography, The Confessions. In it he prays, "Command what You will, and give what You command." Wait ... what? Augustine told God to be God -- "command what You will" -- perhaps something we don't allow from God at times. "What, me? Submit? Oh, no." That sort of thing. But if God is God, that's our problem, not God's. The real issue here is the second phrase. "Give what You command." The idea here is "By all means, God, tell me to do whatever you want. I only ask that You carry it out in me." Is that a thing? Is that even possible? I mean, it sounds like an abrogation of my own free will. And it sounds like I'm expecting God to make me obedient. I mean, didn't Augustine realize that God does not want robots, that love is only love when it's given freely?

I would like to point out that nowhere in the pages of Scripture do we find either of those claims -- God doesn't want robots, and love is only love when it's given freely. So let's pause a moment. First, what do we know about free will? Free will is the ability to make choices without coercion. Some like to expand it, but always to places that make no sense. And the truth is we don't have absolute free will. That is, I cannot simply choose, for instance, to flap my arms and fly to the moon. We have limitations. We are limited by our natures. We always choose according to our strongest inclination. So when Augustine asked God to give him what He commanded, it was a simple request to "change my 'want to'," so to speak. "Change my strongest inclinations." Is there anything that would make us think God does that? Why, yes, there is! Paul wrote a command -- "work out your salvation with fear and trembling" (Php 2:12) -- followed by the description of how that is accomplished.

... for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure. (Php 2:13)

Isn't that interesting? Our free will is determined by that which we desire most. Paul here says that God is at work in you and me. What is He doing? He is bringing about the desire (will) and the power to do what He commands. Is that not, then, exactly what Augustine prayed? "Lord, command what You will, and that thing that Paul said -- at work in me to will and to do -- do that in me."

My dream is to someday become God's robot, God's perfect "following machine," doing whatever He says without question or faltering. We're supposed to surrender everything to Him, and I want to surrender my will to Him. I want to love Him without variation or effort, but just all in all. The common wisdom tells me that these are not compatible, that God doesn't want that. Well, I do. And I pray, "Command what You will, and give what You command." Because I can't be relied upon to do that myself every time. And I want to do what He commands.

Full of Grace

Now, everyone knows that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was "full of grace." Says so right there in the "Hail Mary." Except, of course, that's not in Scripture. There is a reference to a biblical character being "full of grace." Stephen, one of the first deacons (Acts 6:1-5), is described as "full of grace and power" (Acts 6:8). As a refresher, what is grace? Grace is unmerited favor (Rom 11:6). It is favor that is not deserved or earned. So just what does a follower of Christ who is full of grace look like?

Stephen's primary job was taking care of people (Acts 6:2). Stephen was "doing great wonders and signs" (Acts 6:8), although there's no reason that all who are "full of grace" do that. But Stephen ran up against the religious unbelievers of his day, and that's not unlikely for people pursuing grace. Stephen went on trial for false accusations (Acts 6:10-14). In the Council chambers, he spoke his only recorded sermon -- 52 verses long (Acts 7:2-53). He gave a rundown of Israel's history from Abraham on, explaining Israel's history of rebellion. He told them, "The Most High does not dwell in houses made by human hands" (Acts 7:48). You can be confident that got their dander up. And then he did what all those who are full of grace do; he accused them of being stiff-necked, uncircumcised in the heart, and resisting the Holy Spirit. "Now, hang on," we might want to retort, "doesn't 'full of grace' mean we don't point out others' wrongs?" No, that would more likely be "full of mercy," where justice is set aside. Grace gives favor to those who don't deserve it, and pointing out sin is simply pointing out "they don't deserve it."

The crowd, of course, took it well. Okay, no, they rushed at him, dragged him out of the city, and stoned him to death. But note Stephen's response. As they were stoning him, he called on the Lord: "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!" (Acts 7:59). And then he prayed, "Lord, do not hold this sin against them!" (Acts 7:60). And he died. That, dear reader, is "full of grace." He served others. He did God's work. He faced false accusations with "the face of an angel" (Acts 6:15). He did point out their sin because it was the issue -- he spoke the truth in love -- and he prayed for their forgiveness ... while they murdered him. Being full of grace, you see, doesn't mean turning a blind eye to sin or not speaking up about the truth when it's required. It pursues the truth in love and seeks the best for those who don't deserve it, sometimes at great cost to self. Grace is not ignoring sin; grace is the solution to sin.

Heteronyms and Homophones

English can get tricky, can't it? Take, for instance, two categories of words: heteronyms and homophones. Heteronyms are words that are spelled the same, but are pronounced differently. Homophones are words that are pronounced the same, but spelled differently.

In the heteronym category, you might have a guide lead you to a lead mine. It's hard to play a bass fiddle while fishing for bass. You will, however, need a permit to permit you to fish. Some lab workers wanted it in their contract that they wouldn't contract any diseases. At Christmas we frequently present presents. We all know that deer would have does for mothers, but so does the baby rabbit. Just because a person is an invalid doesn't mean his ideas are invalid. Heteronymns.

Homophones are, perhaps, better known. "They're going to their home over there." "You two can go to your home, too." "Swiss cheese isn't holy, but it is wholly holey." "We didn't want to err when we let the heir go for some air." And, of course, we all remember NSync's hit, Buy, By, Bye.

It's all very confusing (and amusing). Like my favorite longest sentence using one word: "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo." Since "buffalo" can mean a city (Buffalo, NY) as an adjective (someone from Buffalo), an animal (a buffalo or bison) as a noun, or the attempt to intimidate (to buffalo) as a verb, this is a grammatically correct sentence. That is, buffalo from Buffalo that buffalo from Buffalo intimidate (buffalo) also intimidate (buffalo) buffalo from Buffalo. Ouch! No one ever said English was easy.