A Good Work

Think about this simple verse.

I am sure of this, that He who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ. (Php 1:6)

Take it apart for a moment. There are several important components, easy to overlook on a quick reading.

First, there is something going on. Paul calls it "a good work in you." Every believer has a good work going in each life. Lots of times we think there's nothing going on. We're not doing anything, going anywhere. No point, really. But Paul claims there is a good work in you.

Consider, then, the origin of this good work. It is "He who began" it. It's not a good work you initiated. You didn't produce it. You didn't start it. He ... God ... began it. In Galatians Paul asks them, "Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?" (Gal 3:2-3). This "good work" was "begun by the Spirit" ... and it is "perfected" by the Spirit ... not you.

Okay, so we have the thing – a good work in each believer – and an origin – not in us, but in God. What else? We have an outcome. Paul calls it a certain outcome (“I am sure of this”). The outcome is “completion,” but, more than that, the completion of this good work started by God in each of us is accomplished by God, not us. That’s exactly what Paul says. He who began it will complete it.

It's a very dense verse for being so short. We need to be reminded. We aren’t muddling about doing nothing. We aren’t forgotten. In fact, no believer is unchanged. That’s because believers didn't start it and aren't accomplishing it … the work. He is. And He will complete it. So, when you feel discouraged or ignored or like you’re going nowhere, remember. It is God at work in you both to will and to work for His good pleasure (Php 2:13), and He never fails.

A Thought Experiment

I'm just looking at an idea here for us to consider. In Genesis, God commanded Adam and Eve (Gen 1:28), then Noah's family (Gen 9:1), to "be fruitful and multiply." There are some today that suggest that the command is no longer in effect ... that it was a command for back then and, having accomplished it, we're no longer under any obligation to do so. What are we to think?

First, is it possible that a command of God might be … rescinded? I think that’s certain. God started Israel as a theocracy, then gave them a king. When He did so, laws that were predicated on God as government were ... changed if not eliminated (like stoning people). Jesus declared all foods clean (Mark 7:19) in opposition to earlier “unclean foods” laws. Paul argued that it was no longer a sin to eat food offered to idols (1 Cor 8:4-6). Jesus fulfilled the sacrificial law (Heb 10:1-10). Just a few examples. The notion, then, that some laws are no longer in effect is biblical.

So, how do we know if a command is no longer in effect? Well, as in the examples above, we have specific, biblical “addendums” (or “addenda” if you prefer) where Scripture itself rescinds God’s laws. Peter received such an "addendum" when God offered him “unclean foods” and he refused and God specifically told him, “What God has made clean, do not call common” (Acts 10:15). That is, God has the right to rescind His own laws and does so and lets us know.

Then … what about that “be fruitful and multiply” law? Let’s be clear. First, Scripture states that God opens and closes the womb (Isa 66:9). That is, we don’t get to choose if we get pregnant … God does. And sometimes He says, “No.” So actual reproduction is not a mandate if God “closes the womb.” Further, Jesus says, “There are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven” (Matt 19:12). Jesus never married, never reproduced, and argued that it wasn’t a sin. Paul seemed to suggest that more believers than we realize are called to singleness (1 Cor 7:7-8). So … no … it is not a biblical mandate that all humans … “be fruitful and multiply.”

Having said that, what is the biblical mandate? Is “be fruitful and multiply” off the table? I don’t think so. I think the biblical mandate is “whatever you do, do all to the glory of God” (1 Cor 10:31). I think the biblical mandate is to love God and seek to obey Him. (Do you need references for that?) It’s a willingness to obey, to say, “Here am I, Lord.” So, say, the husband who desires to have children because God has commanded us to “be fruitful and multiply” only to discover his wife refuses is not in sin. (His wife may be – that’s a different question – but he isn’t.) A man who opts to be single in order to do the best he can for the Lord is not in sin because he’s not being fruitful and multiplying. What God seeks is men and women after His own heart … and that’s always to His glory (Matt 5:16) but doesn’t always look the same for each person.
__________
Now ... a challenge. Jesus commanded His disciples to "Go therefore and make disciples ..." (Matt 28:18-20). Using the same thinking, is it a biblical mandate that all believers go and make disciples? I know some have argued every believer is commanded to spend time in the mission field. Or is it just to "make disciples" wherever you go? Or is it a command, like “be fruitful and multiply,” that is no longer in effect ... just an optional path? Or ... what? Was it just intended for the disciples or for all? I know this “be fruitful and multiply” command was a minor discussion as a matter of interest for a larger principle. How about this command? I would think it's more pressing. And, no, I'm not expecting you to do this challenge in the comments. I just mean on your own.

Which Comes First?

I've been in churches all my life. For a long time, I understood the purpose of the church was to bring people to Christ. I grew up with a Gospel presentation in every sermon and an altar call at the end of each service. As I read the Scriptures, I began to question that premise. I read how the purpose of the church was "to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes" (Eph 4:12-14). So ... it was more internal than external ... and very few churches seemed intent on this particular purpose.

The question remains. Are we supposed to be aimed at unbelievers or believers? Are we supposed to be outward facing or inward? Is our primary job to preach the Gospel or to live Christ? I think ... I hope ... when I ask it that way, you can readily see the answer is ... "Yes." And suddenly it becomes very complex. You see, "both" is the right answer, but we tend to lean toward one or the other. Interestingly, this becomes quite evident ... in the text on how the purpose of the church is equipping the saints ... internal. In that text, Paul writes, "And He gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ" (Eph 4:11-12). See it? Evangelists. There it is ... both evangelism and the equipping of the saints.

Put them together. We are clearly commanded to "Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation" (Mark 16:15). But ... more. We're commanded to "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you" (Matt 28:19-20). So it's not just "proclaim the gospel." It's "make disciples" and baptize and teach them. Oh ... there it is again ... equipping the saints. It is, then, two functions wholly interdependent and inextricably linked. Both are commanded and both are critical and both produce the other. Like the proverbial "chicken and the egg" question, what does it matter? You need both.

Contradicting Contradictions

Jesus famously commanded "Do not take an oath at all" (Matt 5:33-37) and Deuteronomy says, "It is YHWH your God you shall fear. Him you shall serve and by His name you shall swear" (Deut 6:13). Did Jesus actually contradict Deuteronomy? Scripture tells us to seek the Lord (e.g. Deut 4:29; Isa 55:6) ... and "There is none who seek God" (Rom: 3:10; Psa 14:2-4). Now ... that's strange, isn't it? Are we looking at a contradiction … or do we need to look more carefully? Well, if we are going to recognize Scripture as “God-breathed” (2 Tim 3:16-17) (you know, as Scripture recognizes Scripture), then we’ll have to assume there is no contradiction and search for a better answer.

As it turns out, this isn’t an isolated incident in Scripture. For instance,

"Make for yourselves a new heart" (Ezek 18:31)
"I will give you a new heart" (Ezek 36:26)

"Circumcise your hearts" (Deut 10:16)
"The Lord will circumcise your hearts" (Deut 30:6)

Who’s doing the action … us or God? Similar things turn up with things like the need for us to repent when Scripture tells us that God grants repentance (Acts 11:18; 2 Tim 2:25) or the command to love God when Scripture tells us, “We love because He first loved us” (1 John 4:19). So … can we make sense of these without requiring a contradiction? Yes, I think so … and, in fact, I think it’s important.

For all of these examples, there are two elements in play: human responsibility and human inability. Consider a silly example. Someone says, “If you want to prevent World War II, you’d have to travel back in time and kill Hitler before he comes to power.” (Okay, so I’m playing an “alternate history” game here.) Notice that it’s an imperative. “You’d have to …” And it’s true. For the statement to be true, does it require that it be possible? No. So when God says, “This is required” (e.g., “Seek the Lord” or “Make yourselves a new heart” or “Circumcise your heart”), it is a statement of truth regardless of our ability to accomplish it. When we see that repentance is commanded or that love is commanded and we realize we don’t have it in us, we might despair, but we don’t need to. That’s because we have these wonderful responses from God about how He supplies what we need – seeking Him, new hearts, repentance, love, etc. Instead of offering the impossibility of our compliance, we get to see God’s ability on our behalf.

Instead of being a contradiction, these kinds of texts become a … benediction … a blessing. Along the lines of Paul’s “My God will supply every need of yours according to His riches in glory in Christ Jesus” (Php 4:19), we see the amazing blessings that God bestows on those who are chosen (Eph 1:3-4), requiring what we can’t supply and then supplying what He requires … and blessing us for it. So when, for instance, Jesus said that in order to see the kingdom of God we must be born again (John 3:3, 7), He wasn’t talking about an impossible task where we make ourselves reborn. He was informing us of a necessary requirement that we can’t meet but He does. We can't make ourselves born again; God does that. And seeming contradictions become glorious praises instead.
__________
Postscript. Now ... that very first example at the beginning ... did Jesus contradict Deuteronomy? No, of course not. See if you can examine the Scriptures to see how He did not. Too many people still think Jesus forbade vows, nullifying marriage vows or oaths in the courtroom, for instance. He didn't. See if you can figure it out yourself.

News Weakly - 1/3/2026

Minnesota on Display
Homeland Security is conducting a "massive investigation" into childcare and other "rampant fraud" in Minneapolis. The DOJ announced 98 total arrests (including 85 of Somali descent) for fraud in Minnesota, primarily in daycare center fraud. Now, I'm sure law enforcement is mistaken. I'm sure it's a mistake ... or worse. Because Minneapolis is largely known as a law abiding, careful government ... oh ... wait ...

If at First You Don't Succeed
In response to the Christmas Eve fiasco where musicians ruined fans' Christmas Eve by canceling their show because the musicians were mad about ... Trump ... it appears that the Kennedy Center is planning to make a tradition of ruining people's events by canceling again. "You know what? We don't care about you fans or your fun. All we care about is we don't like Trump." So they've canceled the New Year's Eve performance as well. That ought to make us understand their position better. Let's see ... you're saying ... "Nope! We don't care about our fans!" Got it.

Tubes and Toothpaste
Have you heard of the notion that you "you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube." As a race, we seem to accept something as novel, but before long, it's necessary, then mandatory. Take the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), for instance. Established in 2010 as an oversight of financial institutions, it went from "a good idea" to a judicial mandate, as evidenced by the story that a federal judge ruled that the Trump administration must fund the CFPB. It's not constitutional. It's not a legal mandate somewhere. But ... now it's a requirement. That particular toothpaste is not going back in that tube.

Banning Social Media?
Australia last year banned social media accounts for children under the age of 16. Now France is considering something similar for under 15. So is Denmark, Malaysia, and Norway. Netherlands discourages it for under 15 and Greece requires parental consent. Apparently these (and others) are seeing dangers that have always been there but have gone unaddressed.

Your Best Source for Fake News
Minnesota's Governor Walz is taking action on this whole fraud thing. He has awarded an $8 billion grant to a Somali company to investigate the Somali perpetrators. Because that's what a savvy government does. On the airstrikes in Nigeria on Christmas day, the Bee had a ... different spin. They suggest Trump gave some terrorists the special gift of meeting Allah for Christmas. Finally, apparently Planet Fitness figured out a new approach by offering a new two-week membership for New Years ... you know, for those folks making resolutions. Shrewd marketing.

Must be true; I read it on the internet.

Christianity

In Acts 11, Christians were busy in Antioch. It is there, we read, that "the disciples were first called Christians" (Acts 11:26). Now, of course, they weren't. I mean, "Christian" is an English word. So ... "christianos" in Greek. Okay, close enough. In Acts 9, Paul was sent to find those "belonging to the Way" (Acts 9:2) and in Acts 19 people were "speaking evil of the Way" (Acts 19:9), so "the Way" was another common term in the day. But we've ended up with "Christians." Note, in that Acts 11 text, the other word used: "the disciples." So "Christian" refers to "the disciples" or, more completely, those who are disciples of Christ. Back then. Today? Not even close.

Today, "Christian" often has only vague connections to "Christ." It may be a disciple of Christ or a person who professes belief in the teachings of Christ (even if they deny Christ) or anything related to the institution referred to as "Christianity" such as the institution or the Scriptures or ethical values related somehow or a country that professes Christianity (I've spoken to people who profess, "I'm an American; we're all Christians."), for instance. It may even refer to treating people in a kind and generous way. Like the holiday we call "Christmas," one might reasonably ask, "What ever happened to Christ in all of this?"

Over the years, we've tried to point this out. From "the disciples of Christ" to "the brethren" to "the Jesus People" ... from "followers of the Way" to "fundamentalists" to "evangelicals" ... believers throughout Church history have realized that the institution of Christianity is not always synonymous with biblical Christianity. More modern "Red-Letter Christians" or "Missional Christians" are similar ... and will all suffer the same fate ... as the promised false teachers (e.g., Matt 7:15; 1 John 4:1; Matt 24:24; 2 Peter 2:1) following their "father of lies" (John 8:44) infiltrate and subvert misguided "believers" (Isa 29:13). We need to set aside worldly names and adhere to the Christ we're designed to follow as found in the pages of God's Word. Others can worry about keeping Christ in Christmas. I want to keep Christ in "Christian."

Footprints - An Anniversary

Around Thanksgiving I did a series entitled "Footprints" where I offered various events in my life that were clearly God's direct intervention. Today is our 33rd anniversary, bringing up one of my favorite "footprints." My first wife divorced me (she had another guy and said I was boring) and I and my two sons were on our own. We tried a new church and I came across a woman with two kids of her own. Neither of us were interested in "doing that again" ... the mistake of investing your whole life in someone only to lose it all ... but we had coffee from time to time in group settings ... that sort of thing. I knew what Scripture said. God hates divorce (Mal 2:16). And Jesus said, "Whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery" (Mat 19:9). So I was "off the market," so to speak. Then I came across one of those verses that you know you've read multiple times but feel you've never seen it before.

Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be released. Are you released from a wife? Do not seek a wife. But if you marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. (1 Cor 7:27-28)

Interesting terms. "Bound" means "knit or tied together" clearly a reference to marriage and its obligations. "Do not seek to be released." But ... I didn't. In fact, I tried to hire a lawyer who would sue her to stay with me (ostensibly for "contractual reasons"). (Obviously no such lawyer exists.) And "released" ... clearly the opposite of "bound," but it requires first being bound. (You can't be "released" if you were never "bound" in any sense.) So ... I didn't seek to be released, but I ended up released (thanks to California's "no-fault" divorce laws). Yet, I did not seek a wife. And God said, "But if you marry, you have not sinned."

Thirty-three wonderful years now. I laugh at Adam's "It's that woman you gave me!" (Gen 3:12), but I delight in God's unique gift to me. You see, I'm not ... normal. I'm ... boring. I don't need novelty or excitement. I'm not overly sociable or greedy or any of the typical extremes. Yet ... this woman -- this one God gave me -- finds herself contented with me ... for 33 years and counting. We enjoy each other's company, share each other's joys, bear each other's burdens. We've experienced "better" and "worse," "richer" and "poorer," "sickness" and "health," and through it all she has loved and cherished me. No small feat. She's an independent woman who simultaneously takes care of everything she deems her responsibility (and that's a large list) and relies completely on me to do anything I can do for her.

In 2014, I wrote about my "Proverbs 31" wife. I quoted from the end of the chapter: "Her children rise up and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praises her: 'Many women have done excellently, but you surpass them all'" (Prov 31:28-29). She has always been that woman and she stands as my absolute favorite example of a "footprint of God" in my life. I was reading recently (again) of God's requirements for husbands in a marriage. I talked to her about it ... you know, a "performance review." My requirements, I explained, are to "give up self" for her, love her as myself, and live with her in an understanding way. "How am I doing?" Amazingly, she said, "Great." That's the kind of miraculous wife I have ... not that I'm doing great, but that she thinks so. She is a "gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's sight is very precious" (1 Peter 3:4). And I'm very blessed. When I see her, I see God's handiwork, an ongoing "footprint."

The Power Play

New Year is well-known for making resolutions. You know ... financial stability, healthier eating, more exercise, better mental well-being, better relationships, a closer walk with God ... oh ... wait ... maybe not that one. Most of them are worldly and personal and not that important. And we Christians make them ourselves ... often.

In his letter to the church at Ephesus, Paul prays for them.

I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened, so that you will know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, and what is the surpassing greatness of His power toward us who believe. (Eph 1:18-19)

He wants them to know the hope of His calling, the riches of the glory of His inheritance, and the surpassing greatness of His power. That last one Paul goes on to explain. What power does he want them to see ... to know firsthand? He wants them to see the power that raised Christ from the dead and seated Him at God's right hand and made Him above all rule and put all things in subjection to Him (Eph 1:19-23). This power, he goes on to say, raised us from "dead in sins" to "alive with Christ" (Eph 2:1-7). (Note that Ephesians 2 begins with "and," indicating Paul is adding to the previous thought.) That... is the power Paul prayed the Ephesian believers could see.

A lot of us are thinking about "What should I improve this next year?" How about that? How about taking a good look at the power of God that raised Jesus, that is "toward us who believe" (Eph 1:19), that is actually at work in us (Eph 3:20). Imagine the power that raised Christ from the grave and raised you from the death of sin being currently at work in you. Imagine the heights we could attain on that power. "More abundantly beyond all that we ask or think" (Eph 3:20). Much better than a skinnier waistline or a better stock portfolio.

Homesick

Loretta Lynn sang, "Everybody wants to go to Heaven, but nobody wants to die." Ain't it the truth? Well ... almost. Most people ... and every Christian ... believe heaven is the place you want to go. It's supposed to be a happy place, a place of genuine joy, no more tears, real peace ... all that good stuff. They just ... aren't ready to go yet. And ... they're kind of angry when someone they love does go. (Especially since most people seem to believe that anyone they love goes to heaven.) Why?

They say you can tell what someone believes by what they do. So when someone claims to believe in the supreme goodness of heaven and doesn't want to go, what does that say about what they believe? Somewhere around the turn of the century, primary physicians started adding a mental health questionnaire to their routine physical examinations -- questions about feeling depressed, anxiety, thoughts of self-harm, that kind of thing. I remember a time I filled one out truthfully when it asked, "Do you ever feel like you'd be better off dead?" I answered, "Yes." My physician was a little concerned, but I explained to her, "If I believe that when I die I will go to a place of perfect existence and eternal happiness, would I be quite sane if I answered, 'No'?" I explained I wasn't interested in hurrying the process and, more to the point, didn't believe I had ultimate control over life and death anyway, but I certainly believed when I died I would be better off. She had to admit the logic.

Just because someone wants to die doesn't mean they're necessarily suicidal. Paul struggled with that. "For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain" (Php 1:21). He said his desire was to be with Christ ... but serving Christ in this life while he could was better (Php 1:22-25). That ... is a reasonable position. Like Paul, I'm ... homesick. I'm an ambassador on assignment (2 Cor 5:20) and I will serve as long as He wants me to, but ... home ... where He is ... sounds good. As long as He wants me here I'll gladly stay ... but as soon as He calls me, I'll gladly go home. I don't have a prior commitment to life here on Earth ... just a commitment to serving my Lord.

Testing God

In Exodus we read about the children of Israel (and most of the adults) testing God (Exo 17:1-7). They had crossed the Red Sea through a mighty miracle and days later were grumbling about food (Exo 16:1-2). Then they grumbled about water. (They always seemed to grumble. They didn't just ask.) So God had Moses strike the rock and water came out. Moses called the place "Massah and Meribah" (Exo 17:7), where "Massah" means to test and "Meribah" means to quarrel. Notice the test, then. "Is the LORD among us, or not?"

We easily point at those naughty Israelites and berate them, but isn't that us ... all the time? We don't simply ask (James 4:2). We complain. We complain that God isn't doing what we think He should. We complain that this person shouldn't have cancer and that person shouldn't have lost his job. We complain that family members are sick or we're in need and don't have what we need. Just like the children of Israel, we ... test God. And ... let's just say ... He's not happy about it. Of that event, Deuteronomy says, "You shall not put YHWH your God to the test, as you tested Him at Massah" (Deut 6:16). And we think, "Well, I'm not complaining about water in the Sinai Desert, so I'm not testing God ... I'm just ... complaining." (Okay, we probably don't say that. We don't think about it.) And we are guilty of not simply asking God, but of testing Him ... in ways He prohibits.

God has promised to meet our needs (Php 4:19). He has assured us that all things work together for good (Rom 8:28-29). He never fails (1 Cor 1:9). So ... ask yourself ... "Is the LORD among us, or not?" If you conclude that He is, all these questions and complaints will change their tone from "quarreling" to asking, from "testing" to waiting on the Lord. And trusting God is always the best idea.

The Commandment

In Deuteronomy 6, Moses says, "Now this is the commandment, the statutes and the judgments which YHWH your God has commanded me to teach you, that you might do them in the land where you are going over to possess it" (Deut 6:1). Interesting that there is a singular commandment that encompasses "the statutes and the judgments which YHWH your God has commanded." Chapter 5 of Deuteronomy was a recap of the 10 commandments, and Moses throws in other commandments in chapter 6, and the whole thing is termed "The Commandment." Odd.

The subsequent text gives the famous quote that Jews to this day quote.

"Hear, O Israel: YHWH our God, YHWH is one. You shall love YHWH your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates. (Deut 6:4-9)

So "the commandment" begins with the recognition of God, the "one." "The commandment" is the one that Jesus called "the great and first commandment" (Matt 22:37-38). Love God with all your heart. Jesus said, "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments" (John 14:15). And the singular effort described in that text -- "You shall teach them diligently to your children ... " (Deut 6:7-9) -- lays out the supreme importance of this command ... that encompasses all commands.

I think no one questions this fact: obedience is highly prized in the pages of Scripture. On one hand, John wrote, "There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love" (1 John 4:18). John says "perfect love" casts out the fear ... of punishment. Lay that up against Jesus's, "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments" (John 14:15), and I think it's clear that John's "perfect love" is referring to ... when we love Him perfectly ... and are perfectly obedient. So perfect obedience from perfect love is a wonderful thing. And the perfect love begins with "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart." (No small task when you consider "all your heart.") But there is another side to obedience. We think of it as "duty," but God says, "You shall do what is right and good in the sight of the LORD, that it may go well with you" (Deut 6:18). Obedience ... is good for us. It goes well for us when we obey. God, the Maker, tells His creation, "You work best this way." It's not "rules" as much as "best operating procedures." So it makes no sense to struggle against it. If God loves us perfectly (Lam 3:22), then His commandments would be an act of love on His part as well. We shouldn't forget that.

News Weakly - 12/27/2025

Fighting the Wrong Battles
The laws aren't vague regarding immigration, and, despite the battles over language ("It's not illegal immigration!!" Yes ... it is.), pockets of the nation are protesting law enforcement. If you ask me, they're fighting the wrong battle. If they want to eliminate "illegal immigration" and the law enforcement that is associated with it, eliminate immigration laws. Of course, they'd have to deal with the results of open borders. I don't suppose they're willing to do that, either.

Juxtaposition
So ... one story is about how the economy grew, and the other is about how consumer confidence continues to fade "despite heady economic growth." In a world that has no real concern about the truth, we certainly won't let facts change our emotional outlook, right?

A Flood of Problems
It's almost ironic. California has struggled with water for so long ... and now their problem is ... too much water. Heavy rainfall in burn areas is causing flooding while residents are urged to evacuate. The very dangerous and life-threatening drought conditions are being replaced by very dangerous and life-threatening flooding. But remember Jesus's words. Just because it might look like judgment (Luke 13:1-5) doesn't mean it is. "Repent or perish" is always a pertinent piece of advice.

Anti-Immigration
I've always disliked the rhetoric of those who portray people who oppose illegal immigration as in opposition to immigration. It might be, but not always. I, for instance, don't mind immigration at all, but oppose breaking the law to do it. On the other hand ... it feels as if a ridiculous $100,000 fee to get an H-1B visa is intentionally anti-immigration. A judge has ruled it's legal, but it seems to me that it cannot be interpreted as "No, we want qualified people to immigrate here." It seems like a slap in the face to anyone who might want to come here and contribute to the country. So .. is that "anti-immigrant," or ... anti-American?

Who Is This Hurting?
I hate this kind of thing. You know ... like protests aimed at one thing that hurt other things. Like Chuck Redd, a jazz drummer and vibraphone player, who canceled the annual Christmas Eve jazz concert at the Kennedy Center ... because Trump added his name to the Kennedy Center. I mean ... sure ... maybe that's irritating, but ... it doesn't hurt Trump to cancel. It hurts every single person who planned to be there. It created a contentious atmosphere on the eve of the "most wonderful day of the year." Should they have changed the name? I don't think so. The Kennedy Center is supposed to be a "living memorial" to ... Kennedy. But ... seriously, ruining the Christmas Eve plans of all those people for that reason is not likely the most effective means of getting something done about it. It could be symptomatic of Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Your Best Source for Fake News
I liked the story of the shepherds seeking Jesus. They were asking, "Is this Him?" while looking at this baby with a glowing halo. Texas issued their annual reminder not to shoot Santa. A perennial problem, I'm sure. Then, last week, Trump reclassified marijuana to a minor offense (actual story), so it seemed ... questionable that Pelosi purchased $10 million of Taco Bell stock the day before.

Must be true; I read it on the internet.

The Myth of Genesis (or the Myth of the Myth of Genesis?)

Modern scholarship largely agrees that Genesis ... at least the first 11 chapters or so ... is myth ... at best. Possibly just wrong, but, at the very least, not literally true. This view only became mainstream in the modern age of science. Early church fathers (such as Philo of Alexandria, Origen, and Augustine) questioned a six-day Creation, but their skepticism (not of God's creation, but of a literal 6-day creation) wasn't about the days, but about the fact that God could (and possibly did) create everything instantaneously. Not a longer time period based on science, but a shorter time period based on an Omnipotent God. The modern view started in the 17th century when modern scholars began re-examining Scripture in light of Science. (I capitalize "Science" here because the idea is that science is more reliable than God's word in interpreting truth, making "science" more like God than God's word is.) So they would read Genesis and see the time and story and say, "But ... that's not what Science is telling us," and reinterpret Scripture through that lens. (Let's be fair here. They weren't reinterpreting Scripture; they were challenging a literal reading of Scripture.)

The argument is that Genesis 1-11 is ... and at this point, the wording gets murky ... mythical, "mytho-history," "etiological myth," maybe "legend" or "saga." What makes those first 11 chapters not literal? They say that it's basically the shift to Abraham. Okay, that's simplistic. The first 11 chapters affect all humans everywhere. The subsequent chapters are about a family ... Abraham and his offspring. Creation, Adam, Noah, the Flood ... all these are singular and universal. Chapter 12 is family narrative. And, to be fair, "myth" in this use of the term is not "a made up story" like we'd understand it in other uses. It's more of a sacred narrative that presents a worldview through symbolic storytelling. This version of "myth" has the Bible telling stories in narrative, symbolic form that are intended to be understood in a nonliteral expression of truth. (For instance, "I'm hungry" would convey a literal statement while "I'm starving" would convey a nonliteral version with an exaggerated meaning for effect.) So calling Genesis 1-11 "myth" is not intended to convey that it's false; just that it's not literal. Jesus, for instance, told parables. We all understand those are not to be understood in a strictly literal sense, but as allegory. Prophetic texts like Daniel, Ezekiel, or Revelation include descriptions that are considered symbolic, not literal. This concept of nonliteral texts in Scripture isn't new or unreasonable.

Still, for millennia, the vast majority of followers of the God of the Bible and His Son have understood Genesis to be a literal representation of the beginning of life on Earth. Why? Why do they do that even in the face of Science? Well, it's not simply out of blind devotion or tradition. There are reasons. For instance, God uses the six-day creation account as a reason for the Sabbath (Exo 20:11). If you read Genesis just casually, you won't sense a change in delivery or language that indicates a change in presentation between Genesis 1-11 and the rest of the book. The unity of Genesis seems to support a literal interpretation of the first part as much as the second part. Luke traces Jesus's lineage to Adam (Luke 3:38). Paul uses Adam in his defense of "the gospel I preached to you" (1 Cor 15:1, 22) and argues that Adam and Moses were equally historical (Rom 5:14). He explains that "Adam was formed first, then Eve" as part of his explanation of why women shouldn't be in charge of men in church (1 Tim 2:13-14). Jude refers to Enoch and Adam as literal figures (Jude 1:14). Jesus and Paul both quote Genesis 2:24 as actual truth (Matt 19:5; Eph 5:31). In textual analysis, the chronological sequence ("first day," "second day," etc.) appears as historical prose rather than mere imagery. It uses ordinary language and repetitive structure ("and God said ... and it was so") like typical historical prose would. The author of the Genesis account used "the evening and the morning" as time-markers. Metaphor wouldn't have needed this kind of literal time marking. Further, a literal account supports both later Scriptural texts (as I've indicated) as well as basic theological concepts like "Original Sin" and God's Sovereignty over all. Add to this the weight of millennia of adherents who held to this view from the beginning and up to this day (understood through the lens of Jesus's claim that the Spirit would lead us into all truth) and you begin to see a large argument against a nonliteral understanding of Genesis 1-11.

I'm not solving the question for you. I'm laying out the two views and their reasons. Today, the primary reason for throwing out Genesis 1-11 as literal is a presupposition of the superiority of Science over a literal understanding. That's obviously a problem ... if a literal understanding is actually the truth. And when the "mythical" view starts erasing obvious truths from the Genesis account (like the claim that God made humans as male and female or that God ordained marriage to be between a man and a woman), it ceases to be a simple difference of an approach. You can't call such claims "mythical" by explaining "they don't mean anything like what they say" and still be embracing Scripture. But not all who oppose the literal understanding oppose the truth contained in Genesis 1-11, so we need to carefully examine the texts and the reasons for not taking them literally ... or taking them literally. Is it ... Science on one hand or tradition on the other? Are we pursuing a real understanding of God's word or are we defending a perception we prefer or have acquired? It's not a minor question and it isn't trivial. Let's be careful about minimalizing Scripture, but also about minimalizing genuinely honest interpretations that disagree with our own simply because they disagree. We need to consider God, His word, and His message over our own preferences and opinions, and consider the Holy Spirit rather than our own questionable understanding.

What Christmas Means to Me

Stevie Wonder (and a lot of others) sang What Christmas Means to Me, a warm song about the meaning of Christmas ... with very little connection to ... you know ... the real meaning of Christmas. The song speaks of candles and mistletoe, snow and carols, smiling faces and touching cards, pretty lights and singing choirs, and ... gifts ... oh, yeah ... gifts from Santa. Okay. Sure. All warm and fuzzy. But ... real? You see, Satan is in the business of offering cheap knock-offs ... poor substitutes for God's "good" and "perfect" gifts (James 1:17). We see it in "love" today where God's "unconditional, selfless giving" is replaced with "a warm affection." We see it in "marriage" today where God's "lifetime union" is replaced with "as long as we both shall love." And we see it in Christmas. All those things in that song are good and pleasant ... but ... cheap when compared to the truth.

My favorite version of the Christmas story isn't found where most people might look. It's not Matthew's or Luke's. They're excellent and I enjoy them immensely. It's not even John's, "In the beginning was the Word ... and the Word became flesh ..." (John 1:1-14) story, although that's closer to it. No ... mine is in Philippians.

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though He was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. (Php 2:5-8 ESV)

The popular Christmas hymn, Hark the Herald Angels Sing, includes this line: "Mild He lays His glory by." That's the Philippians version. Jesus in the form of God did not cling to that glory, but ... emptied Himself. "Have this mind among yourselves." The Christmas story is a phenomenal story of a King who stepped down from His throne, the Greatest that became the least ... for you and me. The story (John 3:16) is of a Father who gave up His Son ... for you and me.

Lights and trees, snow and candles, even "good will" toward everyone ... these are all good things ... to varying degrees. But they pale in comparison to the Good Thing that Jesus did when He took off His glory and put on our flesh ... His ultimate cost for our ultimate salvation. He became sin for us that we could be His righteousness (2 Cor 5:21). That story is so much bigger than tinsel and presents and even "Jolly Old Saint Nick."

Santa Without the "Saint"

I keep coming back to the disappointing savior ... Santa Claus. As a society, we tout him as a wonderful example of goodness and light, but ... I think he's actually dangerous. Consider.

Santa, as we all know, knows who's naughty and nice. Jesus knows, too. Check. He rewards the nice kids with gifts. Well, actually, Jesus forgives the sins of those who repent and believe, so ... not quite check. Santa threatens to put coal in the stockings of the bad kids ... but never, ever does it. Jesus promises judgment to those who don't repent, and certainly carries it out in the end. Absolutely not check. Our modern Santa is a white-haired "deity" kind of being who is "kindly" and certainly not judgmental. Santa acknowledges "naughty" as well as "nice," but ends up putting all kids in the "nice" category. Definitely not just. His primary job is to give everyone (well, at least kids) what they want -- a divine butler, if you will. This character is so far from Christ as to suggest something ... devious, deceitful ... dare I say ... satanic.

I like the warm things about Santa Claus, but between the commercialism (our modern "Santa Claus" representation was originally a Coca-Cola advertisement) and the false "niceness" that is more a license to sin than a call to repent (you know, where "repent" is the first step toward salvation), I'm not a big fan. No, I'm not a "Scrooge." I favor a better Christmas character ... Christ. I prefer the One who came as the Savior of the World to give His life for sin, not to hand out toys and candy and eat cookies.

Digital Musings

I hate electronic communication. Okay, maybe that's an overstatement, but ... consider. I was looking at statistics the other day. Ironically, in this society flooded with "social media," over the past 10 years the number of people who feel isolated exceeds 75%. In 2023, the U.S. surgeon general declared loneliness an epidemic. According to a study at Harvard, people between 30 and 44 feel the loneliest ... where 29% said they were "frequently" or "always" lonely. The study said that the #1 cause of this is ... technology ... the very thing that is trying to bring people together. So the time it takes from actual interaction (especially with family, the study says) and the distance it puts in actual connection is a real problem. (Interestingly, the study also cites "No religious or spiritual life" and "too much focus on one's own feelings." That's telling.)

Consider the challenge of communicating via electronic means. We're used to body language. Body language is entirely eliminated. We're unconsciously aware of context, but electronic communications operate in small bytes. (Sorry ... bad joke.) Small bits. (Not getting better.) Add in "autocorrect" and typos. Subtract emotional content. Throw in the delays between interactions, making us lose track of context and content, essentially starting a conversation new ... in the middle of the conversation. And factor in the serious lack of accountability ... oh ... and the problem of humor. (Humor is often built on incongruity and misdirection, completely confusing without visual cues, tone of voice, facial expressions, etc.) Frankly, remaining "personal" in a medium that is, by definition, impersonal is a very difficult thing to do.

Some years ago my son and I were having an email dialog. I said something that was intended as humor and entirely sarcastic. We would have laughed about it if we were talking face to face. He would have seen me, heard me, known me ... it would have been ... humorous. He took offense. "Why would you say something like that??!" I was surprised because, of course, I never intended it to be understood as he did. So I responded. "Read it again. Think about who is saying it. Hear it in your father's voice ... from your father's lips ... with your dad's facial expressions." I didn't need to explain further. He responded, "Oh! Yeah! Sorry ..." Because digital communications are so difficult. So I wonder why I keep writing this blog sometimes. It's so easy to be misunderstood. It's so easy to be labeled and mischaracterized. It's so easy to upset people with things that, if properly heard and understood, they'd agree with. And, of course, it's so easy for some people to be cruel and abusive when they're confident there is no accountability ... people who would never be that cruel and abusive if they were speaking to your face. Sometimes ... I wonder.

Fractured Christmas Carols - A Reprise

Full disclosure. I did this back in December of 2015, a sort of extra-length dad joke, I guess. And my wife has been listening to hours and hours of Christmas music. So ... I've gotta do it again ...
_______________
I don't know. Maybe I'm missing something. I just don't get what everyone sees in these Christmas songs you hear all around.

Some of them do it to themselves. On what planet, for instance, could you see "three ships come sailing in to Bethlehem", a landlocked town in Israel? And everyone knows that you put decks on ships or on patios, but not in halls. And I have to say I think it is cruel to be pointing to the mother who just delivered her first child and referring to her as "round yon virgin". Mean ... just mean. And, seriously, how exactly do you "troll the ancient yuletide carol"? Seriously. Say, when did "jingle belling" and "mistletoeing" become verbs? And what, do you suppose, the verb tenses would look like? "Jingle belled", "jingle belling", "have jingle bellen"?

Others, however, just seem really out there if you're not paying close attention to the words.

Take, for instance, the Nat King Cole classic, The Christmas Song. I mean, sure, it's true. I'm sure that everybody does know a turkey -- that office clown or the conspiracy nut down the street or something -- but why put it in a song? "Everybody knows a turkey, and some mistletoe helps to make the season right." In what way does some mistletoe make it better knowing a turkey? Or is it safe having Santa flying around while under the influence? "We know that Santa's on his way. He's loaded; lots of toys and goodies on his sleigh." I mean, that's just not right.

And, seriously ... in Jingle Bells ... The horse was lean an lank, ran into a bank ... "And then we got upsot"?? I didn't mess with that at all. That's the actual word in the song.

Bing Crosby was known for his song about his thoughts about the girth of Christmas. Why? Who dreams of a wide Christmas? What does that even mean? Winter Wonderland isn't much better. "Later on we'll perspire while we sit by the fire." Ooo, that's really appealing, isn't it?

And tell me, why did Olive pick on Rudolph? You know, "Olive, the other reindeer, used to laugh and call him names." Someone should have done something about that bully reindeer.

Something I've never figured out is exactly who Harold Angel is. (Someone told me he was a famous journalist whose full name was Harold Angelsing.) You think about that a moment while I try to decipher "In egg shells is Dale."

True story. I was in a choir in my youth and the leader told us, "The words are important. If you don't understand something, ask." So I said, "What is 'See the blazing yule before us'?" My friend said, "It's Euell Gibbons picking a hickory nut in a forest fire." (I guess you'd have to remember Euell Gibbons's commercials for Grapenuts cereal where he'd hold up some nature item and say, "This is a pine tree. They are edible, you know.") Strange stuff in those cheerful tunes.

Afterthought
Do you suppose what I've just been doing would be correctly termed "trolling the yuletide carol"?

Tradition

We're in the midst of the Christmas season and heading down the stretch to Christmas day. The time is steeped in tradition. "Tradition" ... there's a word with good and bad connotations. The Roman Catholic Church, for instance, has long held that there are three authorities in matters of faith and practice. They go with "Scripture," "Tradition," and "the Magisterium." (Magisterium refers to the authority of the Pope and the bishops responsible for determining Scripture and Tradition.) Precisely because they include "Tradition," Protestants ... protest "tradition." I understand, but ... I think it's a mistake.

First ... the biblical reason. (Always a good place to start.) While Jesus and Paul both warned against human traditions (Mark 7:8-13; Col 2:8), Paul wrote, "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter" (2 Thess 2:15). In fact, he dared to say, "Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us" (2 Thess 3:6). Clearly, then, tradition is not in and of itself evil; it depends on the origin ... the source. There is, then, good and even authoritative traditions ... the ones based on God's Word. And in that sense, we still recognize Scripture as the sole authority, but we also recognize biblical traditions as authoritative, being grounded in Scripture.

Lots of people will try to sound thoughtful and wise by warning us about our "traditions," and not without cause. Human traditions can be dangerous. But traditions based on Scripture honor God and strengthen faith. We may enjoy "Christmas trees" at Christmas as a positive tradition, but it's purely human and without biblical content. Maybe they do have a value (if it's not forgotten, like it is today), but forgetting the roots tends to remove their value. On the other hand, to adhere to the traditional atonement story of Christ's blood sacrifice that pays for our sins isn't the same. It's based on Scripture. It goes from the Old to the New Testament (e.g., Isa 53:6; Col 2:13-15; Rom 5:8; Mark 10:45; Hebrews 9:26; 2 Cor 5:15; John 1:29 (cp Lev 1:4); Rom 3:21-26). It was foreseen in Abraham's offering of Isaac, demonstrated in God's ordained sacrificial laws and fulfilled in the sacrifice of His Son. It is a tradition ... a tradition handed down from Scripture. Not a matter of opinion or mere "tradition," but a biblical perspective that believers must either ignore or recognize. For all traditions, then, we need to ... consider the source. Honor those traditions that come from Scripture and handle carefully the rest.

News Weakly - 12/20/2025

Nonsensical Science
The current mode of thinking in our world is materialism. The word has two definitions. One is the obvious "I always want more." The other is the existential meaning that all things are a product of matter, not ... spiritual or especially not God. I'm talking about the latter. So the news item about polar bears is bizarre. The story says that "new research suggests polar bears are rapidly rewiring their own genetics in a bid to survive." It's about how their genetics are changing to survive climate change. It's fascinating that the story is framed to suggest polar bears are consciously altering their own genes ("rewiring their own genetics"). But it happens all the time. Watch a nature documentary about seemingly miraculous things in life and they can't avoid saying how this or that is "designed" for such and such ... all the while denying design. As if "that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them" (Rom 1:19).

The Passing of a Director
Rob Reiner, actor, director, activist, philanthropist, and more, and his wife were found dead Sunday from stab wounds in their home in Los Angeles. Police have arrested and charged Nick Reiner, their son. (It seems as if no one can escape being excoriated at death.)

Unhappy Hanukah
The "religion of peace" strikes again. At Bondi Beach in Australia a Hanukah party was attacked by a gunman associated with ISIS killing nearly two dozen people. Related, at least in terms of terrorism and Islamic leanings, the FBI foiled a New Year's Eve terror plot planned across southern California by a pro-Palestinian, anti-government group to bomb at least five locations. Remember, people -- ideologies, hearts, intents -- are the problem, not the particular weapons they use.

Your Best Source for Fake News
The Bee reports on a groundbreaking study that finds that it's remotely possible that some Islamophobia may be caused by ... Muslims killing people a lot. I'm just sayin'. To those parents who are struggling to figure out what to get their kids for Christmas, President Trump has suggested that ... maybe ... bad kids don't deserve presents. Expect a run on coal. And the Bee apparently copied a story I did myself.

Jesus is kind of bummed at being born on December 25th, since His birthday will be overshadowed by Christmas every year.

(My daughter was actually born on Christmas. I gave her a card like this on her birthday one year.)

Must be true; I read it on the internet.

Conservatism of a Different Type

We were in church ... an adult class ... and they were sharing prayer requests. Someone asked for prayer for a newlywed couple on their honeymoon ... safe travels. "No," someone said, "they already had that honeymoon ... before they were married." With a laugh. And I thought, "How did we arrive at this 'sex outside of marriage is suitable and admirable' position?" Just an example. I find it all over the place ... self-identified Bible-believing Christians ... even discussing biblical texts and principles ... explaining why modern society has demonstrated that the text can't mean what it says because modern society has improved on it. People who grew up with biblical morals are embracing worldly morals without batting an eye. And I don't understand.

I get that some of them are misinformed. They don't know, for instance, that "God created Man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them" (Gen 1:27), rendering the entire "transgender" concept impossible. They maybe haven't noted that the repeated text, "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh" (Gen 2:24; Matt 19:5; Eph 5:31), specifies "man" and "wife," precluding "husband and husband" or "wife and wife" ... defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Maybe they aren't diligent enough to see all the texts about God placing husbands over wives (e.g., Gen 2:18; 1 Cor 11:3; Eph 5:22-33) and choose to ignore them, not because they're vague, but because modern society says otherwise. The mere notion that wives should submit to their husbands (Eph 5:22) and husbands must sacrifice self for their wives (Eph 5:25) is abhorrent to so many Christians simply because culture (and self-centeredness) opposes it. Of course, maybe some fall into a different category entirely (Matt 7:21-23). But if Jesus said God's word was truth (John 17:17), wouldn't it be encumbent on every true believer to discard personal views that oppose Scripture and adopt biblical views at all times? Even if they oppose modern society?

If you look at the positions of the "liberals" in the '60s, you'll find that they're often the current positions of the conservatives today. "Conservativism" is an attempt to promote and preserve ("conserve") traditional institutions, customs, and values. The problem is that as things change, the "traditional" changes, so "conservative" changes. In a sense, then, "conservatives" necessarily follow behind "liberals," trying to maintain prior values that were discarded ... while discarding earlier ones. That's understandable in politics or culture, but when the values that are discarded are biblical, it's a serious problem. And when people who classify themselves as "Christians" choose to knowingly discard biblical values, that's a real problem.

From the Ground Up

I remember in my younger days someone told me, "You are God's best choice as the father to your children." I protested. They couldn't know that. In fact, I knew that I wasn't the best choice for any children. I was (am) a man of failings and faults. There were much more capable fathers out there than I was. Stop. Think about that for a moment. I just offered a line of reasoning. Lines begin and end somewhere. Where did my line begin? Me. My own knowledge of my own self. I built my argument from the top down. Knowing who I was, I thought down through to the ramifications of much bigger things. I didn't realize that this is not a good approach.

In Ephesians, Paul describes how the Gentiles were "separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world" (Eph 2:12). Then he goes on to speak of the wonderful work of Christ who broke the barriers and formed Jew and Gentile believers into "one new man" (Eph 2:13-16). Then he describes a wondrous thing. We are "of God's household" where the "foundation" is "of the apostles and prophets" and Christ is the cornerstone (Eph 2:19-22). Individuals in this model are the bricks, the building blocks of "a dwelling of God in the Spirit." Paul builds his argument ... from the ground up. Christ is the cornerstone, the primary guide, the founding principle. Everything is guided by Him. The foundation is the apostles and prophets, a standard reference to God speaking through His designated mouthpieces ... what we now have as "Scripture." Paul didn't describe the building first. He described the foundation, so the "holy temple" to the Lord is built on that and the "questionable" bricks take on a different significance because they aren't ... "foundational."

It's best to think that way ... from the ground up, rather than from the top down ... generally. Take my objection to God's choice of me as father to my children. If I started with the foundation, I would see that God is Sovereign (Gen 50:20; Job 42:2; Psa 115:3; Prov 16:4; Prov 19:21; Prov 21:1; Dan 4:35; Isa 46:9-10; Rom 8:28-29; Rom 11:36; Eph 1:11; etc.), and all that occurs is by His choice and guidance. Stepping up from that point, "all that occurs" would necessarily include "I am the father of my children." Given His sovereignty and His goodness, "I am the father of my children" would necessarily be His best choice. Logically, then, my strengths and my shortcomings would be God's best choice for my children, and God, not me, would be the one providing for my family. From the ground up, it makes perfect sense. On the other hand, most arguments that begin with "me" can be a little dodgy ... or worse. Don't get hung up on my example. Pay attention to the principle. We need to reason from the truth ... foundational ... as given to us in Scripture. Start with the foundation of Christ and the Word. Work up from there ... not from the top -- "me" -- down.

Misleading

I've been notified by Blogger, the Google-owned service I use to publish this blog, that an entry of mine was deleted. They deleted my most recent "News Weakly" entry (12/13/2025) because a reader complained. They said it contained "misleading content." They gave no indication exactly what content was misleading, so I'm not at all clear. In fact, it very well could be that if I speculate here about which one it could be, they could complain again for mentioning it. Maybe it was about ICEBlock or COVID or ...? (Wouldn't it be funny if it was some of the Bee content?) Needless to say, I'm disappointed.

In my early blogging days, I found a site that would tell me if my blog was banned in China. It was. Still is, last time I checked. My primarily Christian-based blog is banned in a primarily atheist-centered country, and I felt like it was a badge of honor. Now ... I'm blocked from reporting news and offering an opinion ... in America? What did I say that so upset a reader? Where have we come to when we can't even discuss it? What does that say about America today?

I need to be clear. I don't think this is a constitutional violation. The government can't limit free speech, but organizations can. But I think it's ironic that in a "free" country we face being blocked from expressing thoughts and opinions that are not allowed by the powers that be. Not seditious opinions, treasonous statements, malevolent ideas ... just "misleading." "Misleading content" is a bizarre variable. For instance, an RFK Jr. type would consider a Fauci type as presenting "misleading content." But we aren't allowed to discuss it. Not even allowed to bring it up. (And I'm not even an "RFK Jr. type" or a "right-wing conspiracy theorist" kind.) So when something I wrote upsets someone who is among the race that Scripture says "by their unrighteousness suppress the truth" and whose hearts are "deceitful above all things, and desperately sick" (Jer 17:9) enough to take legal action, do I take it as an offense or another badge of honor? I'm not sure.

When It Can't Be Fixed

It's a tough question. All Christians (all people) sin. Our only means of recourse is the forgiveness that Christ gives. And John writes, "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 John 1:9). Notice ... this "confess" -- agree with God about our sin -- produces forgiveness for the sins we confess and "all unrighteousness". Scripture says, "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him" (2 Cor 5:21). In Him we are God's righteousness. Jesus said, "He who believes in Him is not judged" (John 3:18). Paul wrote, "When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions" (Col 2:13). All our transgressions are forgiven in Him. So ... what about those sins that can't be fixed?

I'm not talking about unforgivable sins. I'm talking about unfixable sins. Maybe it's missed opportunities or harm that can't be undone. Jesus said remarriage after divorce is adultery, so what if you're remarried after divorce. How is that remedied? Maybe a married couple comes to believe it was God's command to have children and they're no longer able. How can that sin be fixed? Not forgiven, fixed. Paul lists a group of sins (just a short list, you understand) that rule people out of the kingdom. It includes people who have had sex outside of marriage and people who have committed adultery and people who have coveted (1 Cor 6:9-10). If you stop reading there, you'll realize we're not going to make it. I mean, we've done it all. We're out of luck. But Paul says, "Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God" (1 Cor 6:11). Yes, we were those people ... but ... we're washed, sanctified, and justified. We are ... the righteousness of God in Christ.

It puts us in a strange position. On one hand, we are genuinely guilty of transgressions. On the other hand, we're forgiven. We can agree with God that X was a sin and agree with God that we're forgiven. We can be guilty without feeling guilt, not because we're not guilty but because we are justified by the blood of Christ. A clean slate. And Christ's words to the adulteress echo in our heads: "Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more" (John 8:11). We agree with Joseph. "You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good" (Gen 50:20).

Presence

Yesterday, I wrote about "dwelling in the house of the Lord forever." What does it mean to dwell in the house of the Lord forever? In one sense ... nothing ... or everything. I mean, God doesn't have a "house." Believers are "the Body of Christ" (1 Cor 12:27) and His "temple" (1 Cor 3:16), but clearly His "house" isn't made by hands (Acts 7:48). So it is metaphorically to live in His presence. And what does it mean to live in the presence of God?

Obviously God is not a physical being, so we're not talking about location. Obviously, God is omnipresent, so we are always in His presence. Psalm 145 says, "The Lord is near to all who call upon Him" (Psa 145:18). While the Lord is omnipresent and near to everyone, clearly there is an element of Him being near -- of us being in His presence -- that depends upon us. It is our willingness to be looking at Him. The Aaronic Blessing (Num 6:24-26) talks about God's face shining on us. In a similar sense, to be "in His presence" means we need to be "looking at Him." We need to "seek His face" (2 Chron 7:14).

In Matthew 7, Jesus tells a particular group of people "I never knew you" (Matt 7:21-23). Of course He knew them in the sense of knowledge, but He had no relationship with them. In the same way, we're always in His presence, so living in His presence is more about our awareness than His presence. Living in His presence requires a relationship with Him that we recognize and practice. We need to be "fixing our eyes on Jesus" (Heb 12:2) ... practicing His presence.

One Thing

In City Slickers (1991), Jack Palance plays a tough cowboy, Curly, to some city slickers. At one point, he tells them what the secret of life is. "One thing." It was enigmatic and vague, but he simply said if you find that "one thing," it gives you the reason to live. David writes,

One thing I have asked from YHWH, that I shall seek: That I may dwell in the house of YHWH all the days of my life, To behold the beauty of YHWH And to meditate in His temple. (Psa 27:4)

What was David's "one thing"? To dwell in the house of the Lord. Imagine that kind of focus, that kind of dedication, that kind of commitment to ... remaining in the continuous presence of God. If that was our "one thing," it would be life-changing. Priorities would change, directions altered, purposes adjusted. Nothing would be untouched. Nothing would remain the same.

So simple, yet so outside of our reach. We want so much more ... or, more accurately, so much other. If we made David's "one thing" our own, what a difference it would make. But ... will we?