Imputed, Not Earned

In Romans, Paul writes about Abraham as his example of "saved by faith" (Rom 4:1-5). He spends the entire chapter on the topic and focuses on one key concept: his faith was "counted to him as righteousness" (Rom 4:22). It's called "forensic justification" whereby God performs a "legal act" and declares a person righteous (as opposed to a person actually being righteous). It's not the same as a judicial "not guilty" finding. No, this is premised on "guilty" followed by "but faith is counted as righteousness." The Roman Catholics took offense at this concept and argued you had to actually be righteous (which is why they have all that "penance" and "Purgatory" and all that). But Paul argued that "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness" (Rom 4:3). Righteousness was imputed on the basis of faith. Paul prefers the "forensic justification" version to the Roman Catholic version.

Then notice that it's possible because Jesus "was delivered over because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification" (Rom 4:25) (thus, the importance of Substitutionary Atonement). But I noticed this. Romans 4:25 is followed by Romans 5:1, and our normal reading tends to make us miss this.

Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand; and we exult in hope of the glory of God. (Rom 5:1-2)

That is, the "therefore" is very important. On the basis of the claim that Jesus "was delivered over because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification," we have peace with God. Based on Christ paying for our sin and rising again, we have peace with God. Without Him being delivered for our sin and rising again for our justification, we would have no peace with God. Suddenly that whole "imputed righteousness" becomes critically important and it is because Christ died on our behalf that it's even a possibility.

Unashamed: The Gospel’s Necessary Offense

Most of us instinctively recoil at the idea of "offensive good news." If it’s truly good news, shouldn’t it comfort, affirm, and inspire? Yet Paul famously declared that he was "not ashamed of the gospel" (Rom 1:16)—a statement that only makes sense if the gospel actually tempts us to be ashamed of it. The gospel offends not because it has been poorly communicated, but because it faithfully reveals truths we would rather avoid—and that offense is not a defect to be corrected, but a feature to be preserved. Think about what might be offensive about the gospel.

Perhaps the most fundamental offense is the Bible’s assessment … of us. Scripture isn't timid about denying what so many people fundamentally believe ... that humans are basically good. Instead, it states unequivocally that "the intent of man's heart is evil from his youth" (Gen 8:21), that we are "brought forth in iniquity" (Psa 51:5). It says, "The wicked are estranged from the womb; these who speak lies go astray from birth" (Psa 58:3). The heart is deceitful (Jer 17:9), there is none who does good (Rom 3:10-18), the mind set on the flesh cannot submit to God, but is hostile to Him (Rom 8:7-8), the natural man cannot understand the things of God (1 Cor 2:14), no one can even believe unless it is granted by the Father (John 6:44-45). We are, in fact, originally dead in our trespasses and sin (Eph 2:1-3). This is a pretty bleak picture, and no one wants to hear it or believe it. We are not morally good or even neutral by nature, and we are not capable of being good.

If Scripture’s view of us is offensive, it’s view of God’s judgment would offend more. The whole concept of divine judgment offends many. On one hand, that He would do this is an offense. On the other hand, that He could do it offends some. "How can a good and loving God send people to hell? Isn't that ... judgmental?" But, throughout Scripture it's a running theme. From Genesis (Gen 18:25) to Revelation (Rev 20:11-15), it is a constant. He "comes to judge the world" (Psa 96:13), can "destroy the soul and body" (Matt 10:28). He gave judgment to His Son (John 5:22-29). His wrath against sin is fundamental to the gospel (Rom 1:16-21). Judgment is a basic component of the gospel--the thing that makes "the gospel" such good news--and that upsets a lot of people.

Even judgment is more often tolerated more than the claim that salvation is found in only one person. A big offender is the whole idea of the exclusivity of Christ. In our day, pluralism is demanded. But if we are to be Christians, we're supposed to follow Christ, and Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, the life. No one comes to the Father but by Me" (John 14:6). Peter declared, "There is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12). Paul declared Christ as the "one mediator between God and man (1 Tim 2:5). John the Baptist declared, "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him" (John 3:36). In all this and more, Scripture boldly declares Christ as the only option for salvation ... upsetting no small number of people.

And, of course, a really big component of the gospel that offends is the notion that Christ died for our sins. That is just too much. A popular assessment assumes that sin isn’t truly that serious and that God would never require such a cost. He's not an ancient "angry God" and sin can be remedied with better living and the proper application of therapy and medication. Scripture disagrees. From the early days of the God-commanded sacrificial system to the end of Scripture, the story was always that Christ would and did die for our sins. Isaiah said He bore our iniquities in His flesh (Isa 53:4-6). Jesus Himself declared He specifically came to be "a ransom for many" (Mark 10:45). John the Baptist called him "The Lamb of God who takes away sin" (John 1:29). Paul wrote that Jesus was our "propitiation by His blood" (Rom 3:25), where "propitiation" is specifically the appeasement of an angry God and it was accomplished by His blood. We were "saved from wrath through Him" (Rom 5:8-9). He became sin for us (2 Cor 5:21). He became a curse for us (Gal 3:13). Peter says He "bore our sins in His body" (1 Peter 2:24). To affirm this doctrine is not to affirm some "tradition." It's to affirm Scripture. To deny this doctrine isn't to deny some offensive idea. It's to deny Scripture and Jesus's own statements. It's not peripheral. It's central to the gospel.

One really offensive concept central to Scripture and to the gospel is the concept of the Sovereignty of God. By God’s sovereignty, Scripture does not mean blind fate, but God’s active rule—His freedom to accomplish His purposes without resistance or uncertainty. Especially in our day where personal freedom is almost a god of its own, the idea that God can and does claim Sovereignty offends many. But Joseph assured his brothers, "You meant evil, God meant it for good" (Gen 50:20). Solomon said that man plans but the Lord directs (Prov 16:9), that even the heart of the king is in God's hand (Prov 21:1). Nebuchadnezzar admitted, "None can stay His hand" (Dan 4:34-35). It is this doctrine of Sovereignty that allows Jesus to claim that the Father gives people to the Son (John 6:37, 44). Peter claimed that Jesus was delivered up by God's hand (Acts 2:23) and His crucifixion was accomplished by Herod and Pontius Pilate and the crowd by "whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur" (Acts 4:27-28). Our salvation is the product of His foreknowledge, predestination, and calling (Rom 8:28-30). God "has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires" (Rom 9:18). Paul says we're His because we are "predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will" (Eph 1:11-12). Essential to the gospel is the claim that God is Sovereign. We humans really don't like that idea.

That's just a sampling. Paul wasn't ashamed of the gospel and we shouldn't be either. It is the power of God for salvation and puts God's righteousness on display. But don't expect everyone to call it "good news" when it carries such aspects as these and more. On the other hand, don't waver. We didn't make this thing up. It's Scripture ... God's Word. His Word does not come back empty (Isa 55:11). If we strip the gospel of its biblical offense, it negates the cross (1 Cor 1:17) and eliminates the gospel. We really need to decide if we're going to hang on to the gospel with all its "offense" or soften the offense and lose the gospel. The question is not whether the gospel will offend, but whether we will reinterpret that offense as a failure rather than a feature. The real temptation is not rejection—but revision … which would result in "another gospel" (Gal 1:6-9).

The Easy Commands

Paul's last instruction to the church at Corinth in his first letter was pretty short and sweet.

Be on the alert, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong. Let all that you do be done in love. (1 Cor 16:13-14)

Stay alert. Stay on watch. Be vigilant. You're in a difficult place in difficult times. Watch yourselves. Stand firm in the faith. Don't waver. Don't go on the attack. Stand right there in the faith, in the Word. Don't falter from what God clearly says is true ... even if it's against popular thought or your own personal feelings. Act like men. No, not masculine. Be bold. Be courageous. Yes, things will be scary, but do what you're supposed to do in the face of it. Be strong. Remember, we're not standing in our own strength. Be strong in the strength of the Lord. Be empowered. Be vigorous. The Corinthians lived in a wicked city in a pagan society full of every kind of temptation. They had succumbed to despicable immorality in the church, abuse of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, petty quarrels over who followed whom, lots of problems. Stop that. Watch, stand, be brave, be strong.

Lots of testosterone, it feels like, doesn't it? Until ... you finish his thought. "Let all that you do be done in love." Everything ought to be motivated by agapē, that unconditional, self-sacrifice, firm commitment to the best for others. It's that love that Jesus offered when He died ... for His enemies (Rom 5:10). That love. The love that Paul describes in 1 Corinthians 13:4-8. That love. The giving-up-of-self-for-the-other kind of love. Everything should be done with that motivation. Easy, right? So ... okay ... maybe not ... but necessary.

Insane

We have a word that carries a heavy burden. "Insane" comes across as offensive and unkind. It simply means "not sane" meaning "not rational." It means "not in accordance with reason or logic." On Saturday I included a story from Canada:

A statement by a Canadian Member of Parliament got quite a reaction this week when they offered a new acronym for "LGBT." The acronym is "MMIWG2SLGBTQQIA+".

It got me to thinking. Have you considered how ... irrational the whole thing is? Think with me about it. At the beginning there was "heterosexual" and "homosexual." The prefixes tell the story. "Hetero" is "other" and "homo" is "same." "Heterodoxy" is having differences in doctrines or ideas. "Heterogeneous" means "composed of different elements." "Homochromatic" means something has the same colors while "heterochromatic" means they have different colors. Not hard to understand. So "heterosexual" means "sex with the opposite sex" and "homosexual" means "sex with the same sex." This isn't rocket science. Or ... is it?

Enter the "LGBT" acronym. Standing for "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender," no one seemed to notice it was confusing at the start. You see, "gay" was co-opted from "happy" to "homosexual" over time, but primarily in the 20th century. It referred to homosexual men and women. So "LGBT" offered us "homosexual ladies and homosexual men" like the gender mattered. Okay ... fine ... except "bisexual" suggests BOTH "heterosexual" and "homosexual." (And no one has yet to urge the government to allow "bisexuals" to have the right to marry BOTH.) And the explicit meaning of "transgender" is ... changing gender. That is, gender is ... today's term ... fluid. "Nonbinary," they call it ... and insist we all recognize it. In which case "lesbian" and "gay" (where "gay" already overlaps "lesbian") become moot and should simply be "homosexual." But ... no. We must continue to define everyone in a binary way as they deny the idea.

To further push this irrational perception, the entire "transsexual" thing seems not to notice that it is still operating on a "binary gender" foundation. When a biological male decides he's supposed to be a female, he'll undergo a variety of procedures to become ... "female." Not "in between." Not "whatever I feel like." A biological female who identifies as male takes on the gender expression of males as if they're ... not binary. They're trying to be male. Binary. Not one and the other, but one or the other. If gender was irrelevant, a biological female who wanted to identify as male could just ... identify as male without doing anything else. They don't ... ever. It's similar to the whole radical feminism thing. In an effort to prove how females are superior to males, they take on all the characteristics of males that they say they hate and prove ... that they're just like males ... as they "affirm" feminism. Contrary to logic.

In the real world of male and female, established by God at the beginning (Gen 1:27), humans are ... binary. It's unavoidable. Changing terms, altering appearances, adding letters to incoherent acronyms ... none of that changes the facts. Biology tells us that males produce sperm and females produce eggs and no amount of "procedures" changes that. History tells us that a phalloplasty doesn't give a biological female sperm production and vaginoplasty doesn't allow a biological male to give birth. Biology matters. So does God's word. But we persist, don't we? And consider the insanity "enlightened" and "rational" ... confirming God's opinion (Jer 17:9; Rom 1:18-21).

Performance Issues

Let me start with a disclaimer. This is not about church music. That's just a jumping off point. So don't get bogged down in that topic. So ... I've been in church all my life. I've sung in choirs, played in worship, led worship teams ... lots of stuff. I've noticed, both in observing and in my own experience, that there is a tendency of people who are "up front" in that sense to ... become more performance-oriented than worship-oriented. I mean, we're all aware that "It's all about Him," but when someone says, "Hey, you sounded great today," it's hard to think it has nothing to do with you. When you do a good job and, say, the congregation applauds, it's hard to think, "They're applauding for God." Because they're probably not. They're telling you, "You're doing a good job." So even when you set out to do things like that for a good reason with all the best intentions, it's so very easy to slip into a "performance" mode.

Life is like that. We read "Without Me you can do nothing" (John 15:5) and we're pretty sure we can do a lot of things. We read that we're supposed to "Work out your salvation with fear and trembling" and think, "Well, I guess I'll work on that," ignoring the next verse: "for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure" (Php 2:13). "I'm sorry ... what did you say? Are you saying that my will and power are provided, not generated by me?" We think we're pretty good (Rom 3:11-12) and pretty savvy (1 Cor 2:14) and we're working hard on growing in Christ (Gal 3:1-3). You see, it's not about our performance; it's about Him, His grace, His mercy, His work in us, His Holy Spirit at work in us. Scripture says we don't even know how to pray, but He prays on our behalf (Rom 8:26). Everything we do is to His glory by His power ... not by our fine performance.

So ... Jesus says, "You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden; nor does anyone light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house. "Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven" (Matt 5:14-16). Do we even know how to do that? He has given us light in ourselves ... not our own. We're supposed to ... "let it shine." His light is meant to shine, not be hidden. How are we supposed to let His light in us be seen? We're supposed to do our "good works" in such a way that ... they hardly even see us. They don't think, "Hey, you did a good thing." No. They think, "Wow! God is great!!" So we have integrity when no one is watching. We are kind when it isn't expected. We are generous when it costs us. We are faithful in little things. We have the courage to do what's right when it's unpopular. It is people seeing that it's not us, but Him. It's not "normal." It isn't "self-serving." It isn't "ego-driven." It is rejoicing under trial (James 1:2-4) ... like Paul and Silas singing hymns in prison. It is giving self up (Php 2:5-8). It is loving each other when it makes no sense to anyone else (John 13:34-35). It is contentment in much and in little (Php 4:11-12). It is peace in turmoil (Php 4:6-7). It is sacrificing self as a matter of worship (Rom 12:1) and doing everything for His glory (1 Cor 10:31) It is ... something completely different.

News Weakly - 4/11/2026

Thank You, Mr. President
You have to wonder. The president decided to "honor" Easter with a post on Truth Social warning Iran to open the Strait of Hormuz (with language I don't put on this site) and ending with "Praise be to Allah." Now, what possible good can I draw out of that? Clarification of his ambivalence?

Positively Shakespearean
Like something out of Macbeth--"Sound and fury, signifying nothing"--Iran and Trump are all bluster and no content. There was Trump's "promise" to end Iran ... entirely ... followed by a ceasefire and an agreement to open the Strait of Hormuz, followed by a lot of shooting and the closing of the Strait. Nothing gained. No one stands at the top. Both claim victory and it's only the rest of the world that seems to be losing as oil prices and more continue to climb.

Media Bias
The headline: "March inflation soars to highest level in four years as energy prices rise." The facts: Biden's administration pushed inflation rates above 9% in June of 2022. The nation howled and things cooled down (not decreasing prices, just inflation rates). Now the media is keen to tell you inflation has "soared" ... to 3.3% in March ... which is "higher" than "the last four years." Except in March, 2022, it was 8.5%. As other outlets are reporting, the inflation rate is the highest ... since March of 2024 (and follows a low 2.4% in February, 2026). So ... who are they trying to fool? Putting things in perspective, in September, 2023, the average price of gas was $3.836. In March it was $3.64. In June, 2022, national averages peaked between $4.93 and about $5.07 per gallon, depending on which data set you use. From Trump's inauguration in January, 2025 until today, the average price of gas has been $3.10, with a low of $2.81 this last January to today's $3.64. I'm not defending the Iran conflict and I'm not happy about the prices, but please ... don't use biased, exaggerated, and false data to tell a misleading story because you hate the president.

Unceasing?
In a nod to an Orthodox Easter, Russia and Ukraine have announced a 32-hour ceasefire ... which they did last year and violated last year. Much like the "ceasefire" with Iran ... who still hasn't opened the Strait of Hormuz despite the agreement ... which appears to have not been a real agreement at all. "You will know them by their fruits" (Matt 7:20)

O Canada
A statement by a Canadian Member of Parliament got quite a reaction this week when they offered a new acronym for "LGBT." The acronym is "MMIWG2SLGBTQQIA+" and, apparently, is intended to reference "Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women, Girls, and Two-Spirit, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Questioning, Intersex, Asexual +." Now, "LGBT" was originally intended to convey sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression--ideas outside of the heterosexual and "cisgender" norms--so exactly what "Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women" has to do with it eludes me, but ... thanks for that. It really does highlight "political correctness" gone wild. (I had to laugh at the post that listed the acronmym as a "strong password.")

Fake News You Can Trust
I had to laugh at the Bee story about Thomas, Jesus's disciple, declaring, "I won't believe it until I see Him" followed with ... "He's right behind me, isn't He?" In international news, there's an informative item on exactly what all 73 letters of Canada's new LGBT acronym stands for. (In truth, it's only 16 characters ... much better, right?) Thanks for clearing that up. Then there's a Bee headline that, I fear, falls short: "Embarrassed Iranians Confess They Don't Actually Know What 'Ceasefire' Means." I think, based on the news of our day, neither does the U.S., Israel, Ukraine, Russia ... this list gets longer and longer.

Must be true; I read it on the internet.

Paul's Gospel

Romans, as a book, is an interesting anomaly. Paul wrote it to a church he didn't start. It was a church he hadn't visited. He was planning to visit them (Rom 1:11-13), but he wasn't familiar with it personally. Scholars believe Aquila and Priscilla were from there, exiled by Emperor Claudius with the rest of the Jews, so that may be where Paul got his information. So he's writing to a group of early believers and he wants to visit them ... so he wants to prepare them. What does the Apostle Paul think is of first importance this "church of the unknown," so to speak, will need to know? Well ... obviously ... the gospel.

I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that often I have planned to come to you (and have been prevented so far) so that I may obtain some fruit among you also, even as among the rest of the Gentiles. I am under obligation both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish. So, for my part, I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome. For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, "But the righteous man shall live by faith." For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. (Rom 1:13-19)

His obligation was "to preach the gospel" to everyone. Look what he says about this gospel. "I am not ashamed of the gospel." Why would he be ashamed of the gospel? Well, he tells of that in the letter to Corinth. The gospel is an offense to some. Jesus was a commoner, executed as a criminal by a most shameful means. The Romans would consider it outrageous. The Jews would consider it scandalous. But Paul ... was not ashamed. Why was Paul not ashamed? It's easy to miss this because of his "trail of fors" ... a series of "for" statements that require you to tunnel down and figure out what he's saying. "I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation." So, he's not ashamed because it is God's saving power. Don't stop there. First, this "saving power" requires belief ("for everyone who believes") without regard to nationality or human categories. Second, it is the power of God for salvation "for in it the righteousness of God is revealed." That's interesting. It is God's saving power because it reveals ... God's righteousness. God's justness, His equity, His "rightness" is displayed in the gospel.

Most of us don't think of the gospel in those terms. It's the "good news" of salvation ... and it is. It's about God's grace ... and it is. It's a good thing ... but Paul's primary thought was that the gospel displays God's righteousness, making it the power by which God saves. Now, Paul takes from there to the 11th chapter to lay that out, but that's his position. It's especially shocking because Paul begins with the premise that God's righteousness is first and foremost displayed ... in His wrath. "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men." Another "for" link. And the rightness of God's wrath takes Paul all the way from verse 18 of chapter 1 to verse 20 of chapter 3 to explain. Think of that. First, God's wrath is part of God's righteousness, and the gospel is intimately tied to God's wrath. (Spoiler alert: How God's righteousness is displayed in God's wrath is explained in Romans 3:21-28.) Are you ashamed of the gospel? I'd bet each of us is to some extent at some time or another. Are you aware that it is about God's righteousness? I'm quite sure most of us don't think of the gospel as being about His righteousness. And, since it is the power of God for salvation, I think we might want to think of it that way more often.

As Seen On T-Shirts and Bumper Stickers

Best T-Shirt Humor

Clever / Nerdy
"I'm not arguing. I'm just explaining why I'm right."

"Introverts Unite — separately, in your own homes."

"404: Costume Not Found"

"I paused my game to be here."

"Math: The only place where people buy 60 watermelons and no one asks why."

Dry / Deadpan
"This is my too‑tired‑to-function shirt."

"Running late is my cardio."

"I'm fine. Everything is fine. This is fine."

"I'm not lazy. I'm energy efficient."

"Professional Overthinker"

Absurd / Silly
"Ask me about my cat. No really. Ask me."

"I do my own stunts (on accident)."

"Powered by coffee and questionable decisions."

Best Bumper Sticker Humor

Classic One‑Liners
"Honk if you love silence."

"I'm not speeding — I'm qualifying."

"Driver carries no cash. He's married."

"My other car is also a disappointment."

"If you can read this, I'm not impressed. Most people can read."

Self‑Deprecating
"I brake for… oh look, a squirrel."

"I used to be cool."

"Caution: Driver singing loudly."

Dark / Sarcastic
"I'm sorry for driving so close in front of you."

"I childproofed my house, but they still get in."

"The closer you get, the slower I drive."

Nerd‑Flavored
"There's no place like 127.0.0.1"

"My other ride is a quantum fluctuation."

"Honk if you understand Schrödinger's cat. (Or don't. Hard to tell.)"

Wednesday

Wednesday ... from the Old English meaning "Woden's Day." It's a reference to the Germanic god, Woden, the equivalent of the Norse god, Odin, associated with wisdom, knowledge, and wandering. It's the fourth day of the week in most places, the third day of the ISO international standard calendar, and called "hump day" in many circles because it's the middle of the week and feels like you're on your way to the weekend now.

In Christian tradition, the Wednesday of Holy Week is "Spy Wednesday," commemorating Judas's decision to betray Jesus, a day of fasting and penitence. In Judaism, it's the day God created the sun, moon, and stars (Gen 1:14-19). It represents order and time, cosmic structure, and God's sovereignty over seasons and cycles.

"Wednesday," as "Woden's Day," has no significance to us except as a place marker. It lies midway between Sunday and the Sabbath, the God-given week (not in naming of the days, but as in the seven-day week). The Romans named the days after the visible bodies in the sky, named for their gods--Sun, Moon, Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, Venus, Saturn. The Germanic people adopted the names, but substituted their own terms for Mars (Tiw/Tyr - war god), Mercury (Woden/Odin - wisdom, travel), Jupiter (Thor - god of thunder), and Venus (Frigg/Freya - goddess of love and beauty). Other languages often use numbers (e.g. "first day of the week," etc.), but the Christians ignored the meaning of the names and kept them as markers. The primary reasoning was Paul's reasoning--other "gods" aren't real, so they don't matter (1 Cor 8:4-6). (Greek Orthodox tradition did change the names ... some numbers, but some with significance.)

Just a little light trivia, I guess. It's Wednesday, today. "This is the day YHWH has made; let us rejoice and be glad in it" (Psa 118:24). I'm okay with that.

Transmit-Receive

I worked for 10 years in the Air Force on avionics ... aircraft electronics--specifically navigation and communication devices. These specialized devices were designed to transmit ... something ... to a receiver that would analyze the transmission and understand what was intended. So, for instance, a carrier like a radio wave might be amplitude-modulated (AM) or frequency-modulated (FM) with information that is sent to a receiver that can detect the carrier wave frequency and then pick out the variations in amplitude or frequency that contain the information and feed it to the user. A radar (short for "RAdio Detection And Ranging") will send out a pulse that bounces off things and comes back at a known speed so it can be received and compared in intensity and time to paint a picture of what it was looking at. That sort of thing. It takes something that is intended to be sent to another place, puts that something into a transmittable format, and sends it. The other place must have the proper equipment to detect and translate that transmission and come to a proper understanding of its content. It is somewhat complicated, you see?

Humans do this constantly. You have an idea that you would like to share with someone else. Let's call them "B." An idea is not able to be sent, so you have to convert it into a transmittable format. We use verbal and nonverbal communication. You prepare that idea in this format and transmit it to B. B receives it, decodes it, and understands exactly what you were thinking ... in theory. As we all know, it doesn't always work that way. I write, for instance, that the parable of the sheep and the goats isn't about taking care of the disenfranchised, but about lives changed that produces action, and someone else reads it and translates it to mean I'm opposed to taking care of the disenfranchised. Not true. A mistranslation. I write about something Trump did or said without being condemning and they don't translate that as a discussion of an idea, but as a defense of Trump ... which I'm not intending. A mistranslation. I ask my wife, "Honey, why is this spoon on the counter?" I'm actually saying, "I'll put it away for you if you simply forgot it; I'm just making sure you want me to." She hears, "You're such a poor housekeeper and I'm tired of picking up after you." A mistranslation. Happens all the time for all of us.

Scripture says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1). That is, from the beginning, Jesus was the expression of God. Jesus was the living expression of God. In addition, Scripture is the expression of God. Jesus called God's word "truth" (John 17:17). Hebrews says, "The word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart" (Heb 4:12). Husbands are commanded to love their wives by cleansing them "by the washing of water with the word" (Eph 5:26). Scripture itself is God's self-expression and is fully sufficient (2 Tim 3:16-17). And we ... misinterpret it. We read it and hear it and run it through faulty internal circuits that twist it and pull it back out ... wrong. I read about a church that based itself on sex, of all things, based on 1 John 4:8 ... "God is love." "Well," they reasoned, "if God is love and love is sex, then sex is God and we're going to have ourselves a grand church." (As I recall, it was called "The Church of Light and Love.") So we take in a clearly transmitted signal ... from God ... twist it through our depraved hearts and minds, and spew out up to and including the exact opposite of what was intended. What we have here is failure to communicate. It is a receiver not properly tuned to the Transmitter, and we need to seek remedy for that.

At the Cross

When I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. (1 Cor 2:1-2)

We just came off of Resurrection Sunday. (More and more I'm preferring not to call it "Easter." The Greek behind the King James version's "Easter" (Acts 12:4) is actually "pascha" ... the Passover. "Easter" in its original language is "Ēostre", meaning "dawn." (One source says it's a goddess, but there's no proof. I'll go with "Resurrection Sunday.") It seems strange, doesn't it, that Paul wanted to know Christ crucified and not resurrected. We much prefer the resurrected Christ. Why "Christ crucified"?

Paul lists the cross as "foolishness to those who are perishing" (1 Cor 1:18) and a "stumbling block" (Gal 5:11). He says, "may it never be that I would boast, except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Gal 6:14). And this is how he wanted to focus on Christ. Why? Why not the triumph and joy of the Resurrection? Well, first, he did rejoice in the Resurrection (e.g., 1 Cor 15:12-18; Rom 6:4-7), so it wasn't excluded. It's just that he understood that the cross was an offense, "foolishness," a "stumbling block" ... and the absolute core of the gospel. So he described the crucifixion as "of first importance" (1 Cor 15:3-8). Jesus said, "The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many" (Mark 10:45). (Why do people dismiss Jesus's own words of being "the ransom for many" and claim to be followers of Christ?) The Resurrection is the "proof of payment," but the cross was the payment (e.g., Isa 53:5; Matt 26:28; Rom 3:25; Rom 5:9; Gal 3:13; Eph 1:7; Col 1:20; Heb 9:12; 1 Peter 2:24). It demonstrates the extent of God's wrath and the extent of our sin and the richness of God's love and holiness and the amazing magnitude of God's grace and mercy. The cross gives the believer a pattern for Christian living (Gal 2:20-21; Mark 8:34; 1 Peter 4:12-13; 1 Cor 15:31). The cross served as God's means to be both just and justifier (Rom 3:21-26).

A lot of people prove Paul's concern that the cross is an offense. We moderns are pretty sure it was barbaric and we're appalled that Christ had to endure it, so much so that some deny it--either, it didn't happen or it wasn't particularly relevant. It was barbaric, but it was essential, and Christ endured it for us willingly and thereby secured our "saved by grace through faith" as a gift. Because of the horror of the cross and Christ's willingness to endure it, we can know "He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things?" (Rom 8:32). For Paul, the cross is where sin is judged, where wrath is satisfied, where reconciliation happens, where love is displayed, where the old self dies, and where new life begins. Oh, dear Lord, teach me to love the cross and take it up as my own.

Big Love

We celebrate a unique and massive historical event on this day ... the Resurrection. Paul wrote, "I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures ..." (1 Cor 15:3-4). Christ lived a sinless life, died for sins He didn't commit, and ... was raised on the third day. "Of first importance." The message is clear. "For this is the way God loved the world: He gave His one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life" (John 3:16). First and foremost, then, the Resurrection is a message ... of the magnitude of God's love for His own.

Now, don't get all mushy here. We're not talking about mere "warm affection." We're talking about a hard core, gritty, "death for another" kind of love. Jesus said, "Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends" (John 15:13). Paul wrote, "One will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die" (Rom 5:7) and clarified, "But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" (Rom 5:8). Note the motivation: a demonstration of "His own love toward us." Scripture says He gave us new life (Jesus's resurrected life--Rom 6:3-7) "because of His great love with which He loved us" (Eph 2:4). So great is this love that Paul prays for the spiritual strength in believers so they "may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled up to all the fullness of God" (Eph 3:18-19). His love surpasses knowledge.

I hope, as you go about your Easter festivities, it isn't "Easter." I hope it's "Resurrection Sunday," a celebration of a kind of love not found in humans but only in God and in the love that God has "poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us" (Rom 5:5). Not just "warm affection" ... big love that exceeds our understanding even as we experience it richly in salvation and His Holy Spirit in us. We love because He first loved us (1 John 4:19). We're supposed to love as He loved us (John 13:34). It's a really big love.

News Weakly - 4/4/2026

Filed Under "Stupid Americans"
The weekend brought us "huge crowds" of "No Kings" protests across the U.S. and Europe. I titled this with "Stupid Americans" because ... we don't have a king. (Europe wouldn't understand.) The legislative and judicial branches still block our president. (We call it "checks and balances" and it's working.) Trump is doing things that are "edgy," but not original. Other presidents have done the same kinds of things. His rhetoric is, perhaps, "emperor-like," but he's no king. Hey ... I guess the protests worked! (end sarcasm). (Okay ... only joking. I never actually end my sarcasm.) (And ... please ... don't read this in defense of Trump. I'm just pointing out the foolishness of the "king" claim.)

Mixed Messages
Two unconnected stories ... one connected theme. First, Spain closed airspace to the U.S. military and blocked access to shared bases over the Iran conflict. Sure, we're still allies ... just not welcome. A mixed message. In an unrelated story, Washington Governor Ferguson signed a "millionaires' tax" into law. Again, the message is clear. "We don't like the rich and we can probably do without you here. Ironically, Ferguson is reported to be worth $5 million himself. (Mind you ... Washington has no state tax on wages ... until now.) So ... they need the business and income the rich bring ... but would like to penalize them for it. Another mixed message.

Puny King
The 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States assures anyone born on U.S. soil is a U.S. citizen at birth. That hasn't changed ... and, yet, Trump is trying to change it. Not with a constitutional amendment, but on command. He's ... miffed that the Supreme Court seems inclined to rule as every Supreme Court prior has ruled on the question for "historical, textual, and practical" reasons. Trump actually attended the first session ... literally with a front row seat ... to watch the repeated message that we have no king in America play out for the public ... again. In the Avengers movie, the Hulk beats up Loki, then walks away, saying, "Puny god." I'd say Trump is a "puny king" if that's what he claims to be. (Oh, and, Mr. President ... we aren't the only country in the world with this birthright law. There are over 30 more.)

Your Best Source for Fake News
How did he not see this coming? The Bee helpfully points out how stupid Judas Iscariot was for dipping bread with Jesus right after Jesus told them His betrayer was the one who dipped his bread with Jesus. While everyone else was saying, "Is it I?", Judas was answering with an obvious, "Yes! It's me!" In other news, Trump was the first sitting president to attend a Supreme Court hearing this week. What you may not know is he did it disguised as Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Sneaky, eh? And, finally, this story about a scientist who has come up with a revolutionary device to give kids exercise by providing them with a bicycle that uses pedals for power rather than electric motors. Sheer genius! Why didn't we think of that earlier? (As an almost completely sidenote, I coined a new phrase this week. "He's a genus!!" It means, "He's one of a kind." On par with my normal bad "Dad jokes," I suppose.)

Must be true; I read it on the internet.

Good What Day??

Tradition is pretty heavy and pretty lengthy on the subject of Good Friday (an interesting enigma calling the illegal murder of the Son of God "good" ... and knowing it was). Everyone knows Jesus died on Friday. But ... did He? What do we know and why even ask?

Here's what we know for certain. Jesus rose "after the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week" (Matt 28:1). A Sunday morning resurrection isn't just tradition ... it's biblically explicit. Good. Nailed that one down. We know that they had to bury Him quickly because "it was the preparation day, that is, the day before the Sabbath" (Mark 15:42). And, of course, as we all know, the "Sabbath" is Saturday, so ... we conclude it was Friday ... but ... is it? As it turns out, during Passover, the first day of Unleavened Bread is also a Sabbath (called a "High Sabbath"). So ... it may not have been Friday. It just had to be the day before a Sabbath. And, historically, it might be noteworthy that in AD 30, the first day of Unleavened Bread occurred on ... Thursday. That would make Friday a High Sabbath (John 19:31) and put 3 actual days between the Crucifixion and the Resurrection. And Jesus said He would be "three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" (Matt 12:40).

Friday is the longstanding tradition for the Crucifixion, which aligns days of the week and events as we have them now. A "Thursday" view takes Jesus's words more literally. A "Wednesday" preference gives Him a full 72 hours in the grave. Both Thursday and Wednesday would seem to move events on our "Holy Week." "Palm Sunday," for instance, might be ... earlier. But, given John's "six days before the Passover" (John 12:1), that's not necessary. In Luke's version, the women who had come with Jesus watched where He was buried and "returned and prepared spices and perfumes. And on the Sabbath they rested according to the commandment" (Luke 23:55-56). In Mark's version, they bought spices "when the Sabbath was over" (Mark 16:1). Doesn't that require a Sabbath, a non-Sabbath, and a Sabbath? That would support a Wednesday crucifixion followed by a High Sabbath on Thursday, a non-Sabbath on Friday, and a standard Sabbath on Saturday. Or ... not ... if the spices they bought were on Sunday early for a "second treatment" as it were. All interesting conjecture.

In the end, it doesn't really matter. Here's what we know. Jesus fulfilled prophecy perfectly. Luke says it was the third day (Luke 24:7, 21). Paul wrote He was "raised on the third day" (1 Cor 15:4). That's how it happened. Luke and Paul were close to it and neither had a problem with when He died and when He rose being "three days" and fulfilling prophecy. We should also note that the Jewish mind didn't tell time like we do. In Jewish time reckoning, any part of a day counts as a whole day (e.g., Esther 4:16-5:1), so Friday ... Saturday ... Sunday count as three days. The whole "three days and three nights" is considered idiomatic and doesn't require a literal "three days and three nights." So ... in the end, it doesn't really make any difference. I just thought it was an interesting investigation worth considering.

Just Like Judas's Kiss

To this day, a "Judas" is someone who betrays under the guise of friendship. They get close, personal, even "affectionate," then they stab you in the back. The event was marked ... by a kiss (Luke 22:47-48). It wasn't just that Judas betrayed Jesus; he betrayed him with a sign of love and devotion while being disloyal. He betrayed Jesus through an affectionate gesture. And I ask myself ... do we do that?

I'm afraid we do. Like ... someone brings a problem to you and you tell them, "I'll pray for you" ... and don't ... a sign of concern while refusing to love. We sing worship songs with great passion while refusing to reconcile with someone we've wronged (Matt 5:23-24). We volunteer at church or give to Christian causes while ignoring clear sin in our lives. We use "Christian" as a ploy to gain trust or influence without having His character. We obey the commands that are easy while we refuse the commands that are hard. We treat Jesus like a consultant rather than as Lord.

I bet you could come up with many more examples. I know I have in my own life. It hurts. And when I see it in the light of "just like Judas's kiss," it cuts me deeper. Judas didn't renounce Jesus ... He approached Him and signaled love and loyalty. He offered closeness without surrender. I ask myself how much of what I'm doing too closely mimics Judas in the garden? How about you?

Those Darn Sheep and Goats

On that Tuesday after the Triumphal Entry, Jesus taught the parable of the sheep and the goats (Matt 25:31–46). The parable is one of Jesus's most frequently quoted teachings—and also one of the most frequently misread. Much of the confusion comes from lifting the parable out of its context or assuming Jesus is giving a simple moral lesson. Several patterns of misunderstanding show up consistently.

Many readers assume Jesus is saying that people enter the kingdom because they fed the hungry, clothed the poor, or visited prisoners. This interpretation treats the parable as a checklist for earning eternal life. But this reading is obviously wrong because it contradicts Jesus's broader teaching on grace, because the parable's context points to something more specific, and because the primary teaching of the gospel is "saved by grace through faith apart from works." This is not a teaching on "saved by works" or "losing salvation if you don't help the poor."

A second major misunderstanding is assuming "the least of these" refers to all poor or marginalized people everywhere. While Scripture elsewhere commands compassion, this parable uses a more specific phrase: "the least of these my brothers." Clearly Jesus is referring not to the poor in general but to a particular group—His messengers or His people under persecution. It isn't a call for a "social gospel" (especially not as a means of salvation," but a call for changed lives that change how we love one another ... especially where "one another" refers to fellow believers (John 13:34-35).

Many assume this is a universal final judgment of every person who has ever lived. But some interpreters argue that Jesus is describing a specific judgment of the nations in a prophetic, end‑times context. I would argue it's a parable and isn't intended to refer to a specific "judgment event," but to God's general judgment of His people. They aren't "sheep" or "goats" because of what they do. They do what they do because they are either "sheep" or "goats." Like James, it's saying that living faith acts (James 2:14-22).

When the parable is reduced to "be nice to the poor," its deeper force is lost. Several themes emerge when read in context:

1. Identification with Jesus's people

Jesus so closely identifies with His followers—especially the vulnerable, persecuted, or marginalized—that how others treat them reveals their true allegiance.

2. Evidence, not cause, of righteousness

The sheep are not surprised because they earned salvation; they are surprised because their acts of mercy flowed naturally from who they were. Their compassion was the fruit of belonging to the King, not the price of admission.

3. A revelation of hidden loyalties

Just as sheep and goats look similar in dim light, the righteous and unrighteous may appear similar outwardly. The judgment reveals what was true all along.

Why is this parable so often misundersood?

• A Preference for Rules: We prefer simple rules—"help the poor"—over complex eschatological teaching. We still tend to think of "saved by works" even while extolling "saved by faith apart from works." "Surely salvation must include some element of works … right?" The notion of "changed from within produces necessarily a change from without" just seems too difficult to take.
• Cultural distance: We miss the significance of mixed flocks, the identity of "brothers," and the prophetic setting. We often fail to distinguish between "His sheep" and everyone else even though He clearly did (e.g., John 6:44-47; John 6:64-66; John 10:14-18; John 10:26-28; John 17:6-10).
• Selective reading: The parable is often quoted without the surrounding chapters that frame it. Scripture must be read in context of itself and interpreted by Scripture and not personal preference.

When the parable is read within Matthew's narrative and Jesus's eschatological teaching, it becomes less about generic humanitarianism and more about how people respond to Jesus by how they treat His representatives—especially when doing so is costly. Do our actions demonstrate our new nature, or do they reflect the old nature? That's a critical question.

The Tuesday After the Triumphal Entry

The Tuesday after Jesus entered Jerusalem in that last week that ended in His crucifixion, Jesus was busy (Matt 21–25; Mark 11–13; Luke 20–21).

1. Returning to Jerusalem and teaching in the Temple

Jesus and the disciples come back into the city from Bethany. This is the day the disciples notice the withered fig tree (Mark 11:20–21), which becomes a lesson on faith and judgment.

2. A series of confrontations with religious leaders

Tuesday is the day when:

• The chief priests, scribes, and elders challenge His authority.
• The Pharisees try to trap Him with questions about paying taxes to Caesar.
• The Sadducees challenge Him with a question about resurrection.
• A scribe asks about the greatest commandment.

These exchanges expose the leaders’ motives and highlight Jesus’s wisdom and authority.

3. Teaching through parables of judgment

Jesus tells several parables aimed directly at Israel’s leadership:

• The Two Sons
• The Wicked Tenants
• The Wedding Banquet

Each one intensifies the theme that Israel’s leaders have rejected God’s Messiah.

4. The denunciation of the scribes and Pharisees

Matthew 23 records Jesus’s “woes”—a blistering critique of hypocrisy, spiritual blindness, and religious showmanship. This is one of the most dramatic public confrontations of His ministry.

5. The Olivet Discourse

Leaving the temple, Jesus goes with His disciples to the Mount of Olives and delivers His longest prophetic teaching:

• The destruction of the temple
• Signs of the end
• The coming of the Son of Man
• Parables about readiness (Ten Virgins, Talents)
• The final judgment (Sheep and Goats)

This discourse is the theological climax of Tuesday.

6. The plot to arrest Jesus intensifies

While Jesus teaches, the chief priests and elders meet to plan His arrest “by stealth” (Matthew 26:3–5). Judas’s arrangement with them likely occurs late Tuesday or early Wednesday.

Why Tuesday Matters

Tuesday is the last day Jesus teaches publicly. It’s the day:

• His identity is unmistakably declared.
• His opponents are fully exposed.
• His prophetic mission is laid out in detail.
• The countdown to the cross accelerates.

It’s a day of clarity, conflict, and final invitation.

I Didn't Know This

Filed under "I didn't know this." Apparently, last year, the IRS reinterpreted the decades-old tax code that prohibits churches from direct political engagement. Can you imagine? In response to a lawsuit from a Christian media group and a couple of churches, the IRS has challenged the provision under the Johnson Amendment, arguing that it infringed upon the First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Now ... churches are legally free to "speak their minds" on political matters inside their doors, so to speak. I mean, a pastor can tell his congregation from the pulpit, "You should vote for this candidate" freely. What churches can't do is make a public campaign of it. They can't spend money on it, form a political group under the church's auspices, start an advertising campaign ... that sort of thing. This is a major event, freeing pastors to follow God's leading in their preaching.

Having said that ... I'm not sure how much of that I think is relevant. Yes, when a government entity enforces sin on a society or a church, it can and should be addressed. Endorsing a political candidate? That seems less ... biblical than political. I think Christians are already more immersed in politics than Scripture and this might aggravate that condition. On the other hand, the government has had its hand on the church's mouth over this, holding the purse strings as it were ... very much like blackmail. In fact, I wrote about it here.It's interesting, though, because the ruling came and went so quietly. You see, because it was judicial and not legislative, it flew under the radar for the most part ... as if they didn't want us to know about it. No ... that can't be.

A Psalm for Sunday

The Psalms have been a part of worship for true believers for centuries. There was a time in the Church when the only allowable songs were the Psalms. Isaac Watts changed all that. As a youth he told his father, "These psalms we sing in church every Sunday are boring." His father told him, "If you think you can do better, write some songs." And he did. He rewrote Psalms and introduced non-biblical hymns to the Church. During his lifetime he wrote over 600 hymns and poems. I'm not suggesting it was a bad thing. After all, the Scriptures say to teach one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs. But in our haste to move to new stuff, it's dangerous, I think, to forget about the original worship songs. After all, these are God breathed.

With that in mind, then, today's entry will be a psalm. Maybe you can keep it with you today and savor it while you worship the Lord. Without further comment, then, here is Psalm 92.

¹ It is good to give thanks to the LORD And to sing praises to Your name, O Most High;
² To declare Your lovingkindness in the morning And Your faithfulness by night,
³ With the ten-stringed lute and with the harp, With resounding music upon the lyre.
⁴ For You, O LORD, have made me glad by what You have done, I will sing for joy at the works of Your hands.
⁵ How great are Your works, O LORD! Your thoughts are very deep.
⁶ A senseless man has no knowledge, Nor does a stupid man understand this:
⁷ That when the wicked sprouted up like grass And all who did iniquity flourished, It was only that they might be destroyed forevermore.
⁸ But You, O LORD, are on high forever.
⁹ For, behold, Your enemies, O LORD, For, behold, Your enemies will perish; All who do iniquity will be scattered.
¹⁰ But You have exalted my horn like that of the wild ox; I have been anointed with fresh oil.
¹¹ And my eye has looked exultantly upon my foes, My ears hear of the evildoers who rise up against me.
¹² The righteous man will flourish like the palm tree, He will grow like a cedar in Lebanon.
¹³ Planted in the house of the LORD, They will flourish in the courts of our God.
¹⁴ They will still yield fruit in old age; They shall be full of sap and very green,
¹⁵ To declare that the LORD is upright; He is my rock, and there is no unrighteousness in Him.

News Weakly - 3/28/2026

Unmasked
For some time now, ICE agents have worn masks while on duty to ... keep themselves safe. Other law enforcement does it, too. They don't want to be identified and face reprisals. (Get it? "Face" reprisals. Sorry.) Luckily, New Jersey Governor Mikie Sherrill eliminated that safety measure, banning officers from wearing masks. That way, the public that hates ICE will know who to attack later on. Thanks, Mikie. (I hope my sarcastic tone isn't too biting.)

No-Brainer
A Christian school in Houston made the news when they rejected a government voucher plan that they had originally backed, claiming it compromised "biblical rule." Now, on one hand ... if you receive funds from the government, you can, essentially, no longer say things opposed to the government, and that would put Christians ... people or schools or churches ... in exactly the same position that the early disciples were in (Acts 5:27-29). On the other hand, come on, guys ... are you there to make money or "obey the Bible"? Apparently the latter. I actually sympathize ... with the school.

Disproportionate
Iran continues to stand firm against overwhelming forces in their fight against Israel and the US ... by essentially turning the Strait of Hormuz into a "toll booth." They're trying to make a strangle hold on the world's supply of oil and goods through there, thereby harming the world in their fight with Israel and the US. That seems reasonable ... to someone. We'll see if the assassination of Alireza Tangsiri will change that situation.

Uncommon Sense
The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has determined that biological males who identify as females are not welcome to compete in women's events in the Olympics beginning in 2028. Some see this as "anti-trans." I ask you to consider that it is not. It is a matter of safety and reason to disallow biological male athletes to compete against female athletes. If it was "anti-trans," the ban would be against females who identify as males, too. No such ban. Please ... be reasonable. Men and women are not alike.

Sign Here, Mr. President
President Trump's signature will appear on paper currency starting this summer ... demonstrating that his promise to refuse to sign another bill wasn't real. Okay ... not that kind of bill.

He Did WHAT?
A Secret Service agent assigned to Jill Biden accidently shot himself in the leg while on duty. I can't even ... this doesn't look good for him. I won't speculate in the possibility of influence of the former president.

Your Best Source for Fake News
Trump is claiming to be negotiating with Iran, but Iran denies it since all its leaders are dead, especially on the death of Alireza Tangsiri. In another story in the Iran War, apparently the Pentagon has issued Crocs to the 82nd Airborne Division in order to allow President Trump to truthfully say that he has not put any boots on the ground. See? You can trust our politicians. Finally, in religious news, the United Church of Christ has unveiled the new Morally Gray Edition of the Bible, removing all those "black and white" moral instructions in favor of a more modern "morality rainbow." I mean, why trust God to tell you what's right and wrong, right?

Must be true; I read it on the internet.
________
^{(Postscript: I put that last line in there every time just as a subtle reminder that this last section is ALWAYS "fake news." Please don't confuse it with actual news ... just ... somewhat related.)}

Dead or Alive?

Martin Luther started the Reformation ... sort of by accident. His 95 Theses were put on that Wittenberg door as a standard call for academic debate. It turned into so much more. Luther's primary position was "justification by faith alone." This was breathtaking in a way because who thinks that people get to heaven by ... faith? Everyone knows that good people go to heaven and bad people go to ... the other place. So Luther bucked the unbelieving and believing world with his position ... that he conveniently got from Scripture. The Roman Catholic Church strongly opposed the idea. They warned that this doctrine would allow people to sin at will. The doctrine of "Justification by faith apart from works" was what was called a "forensic justification" in which God simply ... declared the sinner justified without any deeds in view. It was a legal or judicial act on God's part. Rome protested. At some point, Luther countered: We are justified by faith alone, but not by faith that is alone.

James writes about a faith that is "dead, being alone" (James 2:17). That faith, he says, is useless (James 2:20). "What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him?" (James 2:14). No ... it can't. So how do we distinguish dead faith from ... saving faith ... because dead faith isn't just dead ... it doesn't save. And I suspect a lot of people have "dead faith." James points out that dead faith believes the facts just fine. "You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder" (James 2:19). Someone once pointed out that just believing in God simply qualifies you to be a demon. It's not believing facts. What is it? It's works. James says that faith is demonstrated as genuine ("justified") by works (James 2:24). And not just James. Paul gave us his memorable and definitive, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast" (Eph 2:8-9), followed immediately by "For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them" (Eph 2:10). It's not "either-or" ... it's "both-and." Salvation is by faith alone, but it's a faith that is shown to be alive by the changes wrought in our hearts and, subsequently, our lives.

Over against the Catholic complaint that justification by faith apart from works would create bold sinners, Scripture argues that justification by faith apart from works produces changed sinners. It's a heart change. It changes our "want to." It might even rightly be said we can sin all we want to ... as long as we mean that our "want to" has changed and we won't want to sin at all. Paul expresses this in Romans. "The good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want" (Rom 7:19). Living faith ... saving faith ... looks like that ... a change in our "want to" and a gradual shift from sin to obedience. It's not a wish or a possibility. Paul wrote, "Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come" (2 Cor 5:17). How about you? Is your faith living or dead? Do you sin freely or hate it? Does your life reflect a living faith, one accompanied by works, not to activate or accomplish faith, but as a sign of it?

Have a Heart

We've talked about the issues of the heart recently. Jesus warned that our sin problem is a problem of the heart (Matt 12:34-35; Matt 15:17-20). We often think in other terms. We think, for instance, about orthopraxy ... right living. There are things we're supposed to do. Or maybe you lean toward orthodoxy ... right thinking--the truth. These are things we can and should address, but the real problem, according to Scripture, is the heart. So Jesus said, "You shall 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. No small command.

So, we can fix head problems with information and behavior problems with instructions in obedience, but how do we fix this fundamental heart problem? We can't. The heart is deceitful (Jer 17:9). The natural human is hostile to God (Rom 8:7). Jesus never said, "Try harder." He said, "You must be born again" (John 3:5-8). What we need is that "new heart" promised in Ezekiel (Ezek 36:26). And we need an ongoing "washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit" (Titus 3:5). In Philippi, it was the Lord who opened Lydia's heart (Acts 16:14). You don't "fix" hearts. They have to be remade by God.

Our fundamental problem, then, is not that we do bad things. It's not that we're ill-informed. Our fundamental problem is the heart. You can't fix that with good information or positive behavior. It can only be fixed supernaturally and changed supernaturally (Gal 3:2-3). The change wrought by the Spirit is first evidenced in faith which is impossible before we are given a new heart. The next is repentance, again only produced by the Spirit and exercised in us. Then it is a new desire, never before possible ... the desire to know and obey God. The easiest evidence of the heart condition is what you love. You see, "where your treasure is, there your heart will be also" (Matt 6:21). And after that the heart is shaped in an ongoing transformation (Rom 12:2) produced "by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit" (Titus 3:5) and God's word (John 17:17). So ... sure ... seek to know Him more. Work to obey Him better. But, above all, "Watch over your heart with all diligence, for from it flow the springs of life" (Prov 4:23). What do you treasure? What influences are you allowing into your heart?

Unexpected Sufficiency

In Paul's 2nd epistle to the church at Corinth, he writes about his famous "thorn in the flesh" (2 Cor 12:5-10). Just what was that thorn? Well, we all know he had an eye problem (Gal 4:15; Gal 6:11) because he needed someone to write his letters for him. Or ... maybe it was a speech problem (1 Cor 2:1-4; 2 Cor 10:10). Okay ... no ... we don't know. I think, in fact, it's deliberately vague because we don't need to know. What do we need to know?

Three times I pleaded with the Lord about this, that it should leave me. But He said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for My power is made perfect in weakness." Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me. For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities. For when I am weak, then I am strong. (2 Cor 12:8-10)

Paul lays out a key concept here that affects every aspect of our lives. It is the simple and straightforward statement that "My grace is sufficient for you." If that was a period ... dead stop ... it would be enough. His grace is sufficient. End of story. Stop worrying about it. But He didn't stop there. Christ went on to say, "My power is made perfect in weakness." Do you hear that? His power is perfected in ... you ... your weaknesses, your shortcomings, your inabilities and failures. Our weaknesses remove the illusion of our own sufficiency. I coined my own phrase, "delusions of adequacy," because we all suffer from the lie that we are capable. We're not. Our weakness demonstrates relentlessly our need for and dependence on God. That "made perfect" is literally "to finish, to carry out into full operation." In our weakness God's power can be put on full display. It's like when Paul wrote, "For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble ..." (1 Cor 1:26-27). It's God's "I don't need your help; I've got this."

Notice, though, one more vital thing. Paul could acknowledge Christ's words. He could nod and say, "Okay, I'll accept that." But ... he didn't. He ... embraced it. He "boasted" in it. In fact, he boldly declared, "I am content with" all these weaknesses. Not, "I'm content in spite of them." No. He was carrying out his own claim that "we also exult in our tribulations" (Rom 5:3), that "in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him" (Rom 8:37). He found victory in weakness. He didn't just accept it. He said, "When I am weak, then I am strong." Are you? He doesn't say, "When I am weak, then He is strong." No ... Paul found strength in his own weakness because he absolutely depended on God's grace. What about you? Is God's grace sufficient for you? Is He your only hope?

My Father's Business

At the ripe young age of 12, Jesus went with His family to Jerusalem where He ended up left behind ... in the temple (Luke 2:41-52). When they found Him, they asked why He did that to them. His answer was, "Why were you looking for Me? Did you not know that I must be in My Father's house?" (Luke 2:49). Sort of. The King James says "I must be about My Father's business." The Literal Translation of the Holy Bible (LITV) says, "I must be busy in the affairs of My Father." The Young's Literal Translation (YLT) says (in Old English), "Did ye not know that in the things of My Father it behoveth Me to be?" (Yeah ... wade through that one a moment.) What was Jesus saying?

As it turns out, there is no noun in the original text for "house" or "business" or ... anything in that sentence. It is most literally "The things of my Father." So ... what is He trying to convey? Well, first of all, Jesus is declaring a unique relationship with YHWH. He calls God "My Father." He doesn't call Him "our Father" (not here). He is claiming a direct divine identity. Second, He is saying this divine identity compels Him to act a certain way. "I must." What does that "must" entail? He must preach the kingdom (Luke 4:43). He came to give Himself as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45). His Father's will was His food (John 4:34). He wasn't declaring Himself really smart; He was saying He was being an obedient Son. And the thing He must be about was ... whatever was His Father's to be about. He had to be about His Father's "things" ... teaching, listening, preaching ... dying. His life would be dedicated to His Father's ... business, kingdom, everything that was His Father's to be about.

Jesus sounds a bit ... arrogant ... to our ears. "Show a little respect, boy. This is your parents you're speaking to." He wasn't. He was asking, "Didn't you know that I must be occupied with the things of My Father?" He was expressing a unique relationship with YHWH and a unique obedience to YHWH and with all that YHWH wanted. It wasn't just a path. It was His purpose, His identity, His necessity. He knows who He is. He knows whose He is. He knows what He must do. He knows where He belongs. It is the root of His entire life and ministry ... and results in our salvation. Perhaps, in a world vying for our attention at every turn, a singular dedication to the things of our Father who is in heaven would be a good focus for us, too.

Not My Will

Scripture indicates that Christ "emptied Himself" for the purpose of "death on a cross" (Php 2:5-8). The original plan, from the creation of the world, was His death on our behalf. So it strikes me as strange that Jesus would be in the Garden of Gethsemane praying, "My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will" (Matt 26:39). And yet ... He did. And I think we can learn more from this prayer than you might see at first look.

There are two basic components here. The first is His request, and the second is His ultimate aim. His prayer to His Father was, "Let this cup pass from Me." Now, He came for this purpose, so it sounds strange, but ... He asked. That tells us that we ... can ask. Jesus speaks of asking whatever you want (e.g., Matt 21:22; Mark 11:24; John 14:13-14). Ask. Ask without restriction. "Let your requests be made known to God" (Php 4:6). Like Jesus who knew what the plan was and asked anyway, we can and should ask ... without ceasing (1 Thess 5:17). That was Jesus's request, but the other part is His purpose. "Not My will." Isn't that interesting? I mean, we take it for granted because we've heard it so many times, but ... think about it. Do we pray that way? No. We get mad when He doesn't come through per our request. We get miffed or hurt. We moan and complain. But if we actually asked, "Not My will, but Yours," our response would be different. It would be, "Well, I guess this is God's will." It would be "God gives and God takes away; blessed be the name of the Lord." It would give us cause to "give thanks in all circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you" (1 Thess 5:18).

I think there would be so many benefits to us as Christ-followers if we prayed for His will, expected His will, and sought His will in everything at all times ... while we ask for whatever we want to ask. It was a nice phrase in Jesus's prayer, but I think it was actually His central theme ... and should be ours, too. Imagine a life ... a prayer life or the rest of life ... lived with "Not my will, but Yours" at its core.