An Open Letter to Evangelicals

Dear Self-proclaimed "Evangelicals,"

Stop it!

The term, "Evangelical," has a meaning. Evangelicalism was started in response to fundamentalism which was started in response to liberalism. Fundamentalism was okay at the start but veered off into some far out directions. So the Evangelical concept kicked in. Evangelicals stressed conversion -- that people need to be transformed by being born again -- and biblicism -- a high regard for and obedience to the Bible -- and activism, especially in missionary endeavors, but also social reform, and, finally, "crucicentrism" -- the centrality of the cross of Christ. "Evangelical" has become a meaningless word. Like liberalism and fundamentalism and even catholicism before it, evangelicalism has drifted off into pointlessness. "We are definitely confident that you must be born again, but we won't stand on that and we won't be judgmental about it and, look, you can probably get to heaven in a number of ways." "We affirm the Bible! Except, of course, where we disagree with it. Then we're right and it's wrong." "Oh, activism? Yes, definitely! Well, maybe not over missionary work and maybe only in the current liberal agenda of social reform." "As for keeping the cross central, we do, but surely that's too narrow-minded and exclusive." And "evangelicalism" vanishes in a puff of smoke.

Now we have so-called "Evangelicals" campaigning for Trump. First, what does "Evangelical" and "campaigning for" any candidate have to do with each other? Standing for Christ and lobbying for politicians don't go together. An Evangelical could, perhaps, lobby for a politician, but not on the basis of being an Evangelical. Nothing in that original definition includes politics. Worse, you claim, "I'm getting out the vote for Trump in the name of Jesus." Have you heard the man? Do you not recall his own claims to sexual immorality, or his nonsensical (at best) tweets? Have you not seen him willingly dismantle attempts to make the planet better (something God commissioned humans to do) in favor of big business? In what world is Donald Trump a "good, moral guy" that should receive the commendation and support of anyone worth bearing the name "Evangelical"?

So, please, Evangelicals, stop. Do you want to campaign for Donald? By all means, do so. Just don't bring Christ into this. Just leave the "Evangelical" name at home when you do. Stop. Stop ditching the basics of evangelicalism and calling it "Evangelical." Ditch the basics if you want, but stop calling it that. Our world has decided to hijack so much of what we believe and value to mean something we don't. So "love" and "marriage" and "moral" and (most recently) "sex," for instance, have been stolen, twisted to mean something new, then reapplied to our foreheads as if we believed them in their new sense. Stop doing that, Evangelicals. You're not helping. The name of God is blasphemed among the unbelievers because of you. Please, just stop.

Motivated

Scripture is not silent on the subject of corporal punishment. Despite all that modern "science" tells us, the Bible is in favor of corporal punishment (Prov 10:13; Prov 13:24; Prov 22:15; Prov 23:13-14; Prov 26:3; Isa 30:31; Lam 3:1; etc.). In fact, Scripture says that God practices it (Heb 12:3-11). So where is the discrepancy? Why does "science" (I put this one in quotes because the "science" we're considering is psychology, and most scientists will tell you that's not science.) disagree with God? I believe the problem is what's behind the punishment. Most parents punish their kids at any given moment out of anger or embarrassment or irritation rather than out of love. They want the child to stop doing what they are doing. Bill Cosby used to joke (back when we were allowed to think he was funny) that parents don't want justice; they want peace.

So how would corporal punishment look if it was administered with the motivation of love rather than retribution or our typical, self-serving motives? It would look a lot more measured, a lot more restrained, a lot more principled, a lot more forgiving, a lot more caring. But the simple fact that so few today can even envision the concept of pain and love commingled tells us that love -- the biblical kind, at least -- is not in vogue. It is, in fact, a largely foreign concept to us.

That's what makes Peter's statement so hard to follow.

Above all, keep loving one another earnestly, since love covers a multitude of sins. (1 Peter 4:8)

On the surface it seems easy, but dig in, and you'll see it's not.

"Above all." There is no higher command, no higher calling, no higher motivation. Love. We are told to do lots of things, but love is the highest. It ought to be the motivation for everything we do rather than an unknown entity or a fuzzy affection.

"Keep loving one another earnestly." Continuous present tense, an ongoing action. Keep doing it all the time. Doing what? Not just loving one another; loving in earnest. Literally, loving with intent, earnestly, eagerly, with resolve, with purpose, with determination.

Why? "Love covers a multitude of sins." Now that one should give us pause. "Love overlooks sins"? No. "Love covers sins up"? No. Love "does not take into account a wrong suffered." (1 Cor 13:5) Love, in short, forgives. Now, that's not, "Don't worry about it." That's "That was wrong, but I'll pay the price myself." Like Christ did. Love, then, sees the things done against me, acknowledges them, and sets them aside so as not to get in the way of me loving them. It doesn't demand settlement. It pushes past injury. It seeks the best for the loved one.

Like that. Love like that. Choose to love like that -- continuously and with intent, setting aside wrongs done to love more. Whether it's in raising children or loving a spouse or loving fellow believers or pursuing unbelievers with the Gospel or ... wherever you are placed to love others. Always for their best. Never about you. Make love your primary and preferably your sole motivation -- love for God and love for those around you. At least, that's the plan. Now, if only we can figure out that "love" isn't just that warm-but-fleeting affection we're so enamored with.

It's Just Not That Bad

Sure, sure, we know. People do bad things. You know, "To err is human." Our own saying. But as almost every religion on the planet will tell you, it's just not that bad. As long as your good deeds outweigh your bad deeds in the end, you'll be okay. We find this concept denied on one hand and supported on the other when it comes to Christianity. Sure, we know that "All have sinned" and "The wages of sin is death," but, look, how bad can it be if God can just forgive it all? What's the big deal?

We have a problem with definitions here. First, we think of "sin" as a faux pas, a boo-boo, an embarrassing blunder, perhaps. Scripture considers it a transgression of the Most High and to violate the glory of the Most High deserves the ultimate penalty -- eternal death. Then we think that "forgive" means "to make little of." That's what we do, right? "Please, forgive me." "Oh, don't even think about it. It was nothing. No harm, no foul." Except that's not what we find in Scripture.

In Isaiah 6 we see God's prophet of the day, Isaiah, encountering God. Get that? God's designated mouthpiece meets God. This should be good, right? Isaiah describes the scene with the robe and the smoke and the seraphim crying, "Holy, holy, holy." (Isa 6:1-4) And Isaiah is terrified. Scholars tell us the language of his response is the unraveling of a person. "Woe is me! For I am undone; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts!" (Isa 6:5) Isaiah was coming apart in terror from being in the presence of the Holy One and not being holy himself. And God came down and patted his head and said, "Don't worry, little man. It was nothing. No harm, no foul." No, wait, rewind that. He did no such thing. No, God came down to the groveling prophet and thundered, "Grovel, you worm! Be afraid; be very afraid!" Okay, no, not that either. He neither minimized nor expanded the sin. Instead, "One of the seraphim flew to me, having in his hand a burning coal that he had taken with tongs from the altar. And he touched my mouth and said: 'Behold, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away, and your sin atoned for.'" (Isa 6:6-7)

God did not minimize Isaiah's sin. God did not squash him on the spot. God recognized that it was sin and atoned for it. He dealt with it.

Sin is no small deal. It exceeds our capacity to correct. It puts us under God's just wrath. It's a big deal, just as Isaiah rightly recognized. Forgiveness is not a dismissal of sin. It's taking it on yourself, assuming the payment, relieving the transgressor of guilt. It is exactly what Christ did for us on the cross. That is certainly not minimalism. We should have a more robust understanding of sin, its cost, and its remedy. Because he who is forgiven much loves much (Luke 7:47).

Think Bigger

I have worked with real engineers, smart folk who design complex things to do complex things all by themselves. So it always amuses me when they focus so much attention on building "this" without the slightest consideration of how it will work with "that" ... which it needs to work at all. It's called "linear thinking." They don't "look around." They don't consider all of the environment, all of the system. They do their task. And they do it well. But, of course, it doesn't work because they didn't consider it all.

We think too small. Most of the time our "think radius" is not much wider than our outspread arms ... almost literally. You see it in drivers who cut you off on the freeway because they weren't even taking you into account. You see it in people that block grocery aisles to find that one thing they desire while everyone else backs up behind them. You see it with people with smartphones ... well, almost all the time. So engrossed in that small rectangle that nothing else matters.

We need to think bigger. We need to look around us. We need to consider the ramifications of our choices. We need to think about how this option will affect that person and that option will affect all those others and not just me (Php 2:3-4). We need to take into account customers and friends and family and fellow church members and ... people everywhere, it seems. Not just ourselves.

We need to think even bigger. This world is not our home. Jesus said, "You are not of the world." (John 15:19) So why are we thinking about nothing but this world? Why are we worrying about what others will think when we obey Christ or stand for the Truth (with a capital "T")? Why are we working hard for that next latte when there are eternal things to tend to? Why are we evaluating ourselves and others by the world's standards when we have so much more?

Oh, we need to think bigger. Not just the left turn we need to make without cutting off other drivers. We need to have an eternal view in a crowd of earth-bound people who can't see past their own noses. Think bigger.

Unclear on the Concept

It seems like every day we have a new record for COVID-19. A new daily high. A new demographic. New deaths. The numbers just keep going up. I had to use the Walmart bathroom the other day. You have to wait in line to get into the store because of COVID precautions. They have markers everywhere -- "Stay 6' apart." You have to wear a mask. In the bathroom they logically removed the paper towels to avoid contact transfer ... and left the air dryers so you could blow that stuff all over the room. Unclear on the concept.

We're all running around careful and cautious and completely confused. Take gloves. What are they for? Gloves provide a barrier between your hands and the outside world. They do not prevent the outside of your gloves from picking up any viruses laying about. Nor do they keep you from touching your face with said viruses. Nor do they keep fast food workers from spreading said viruses to the food packaging they just prepared for you ... meticulously with gloves to keep you safe. Only they don't. And we have a false sense of security because "She wore gloves when she served us."

Take the COVID prevention measure, "Don't touch your face." Do you have any idea how many times a day you touch your face? Of course you don't. Because we do it unconsciously. By reflex. Scratch an itch. Brush away a hair or a bug. Adjust our glasses. One study said the average person touches their face 3,000 times a day. A recent report in March said that medical professionals touched their faces an average of 19 times in a 2 hour period. I mean, sure, it's a no-brainer. Don't touch your face. But just try to comply.

Take masks. Seriously. I mean, take masks seriously. The primary purpose of wearing masks is not to keep you from inhaling someone else's viruses. They're not that good. And you have too many gaps to prevent them from coming around. They might filter some, but that's not the primary point. The primary point is that your nose and mouth are covered so that any particles leaving your nose and mouth will be stopped at your mask. Yes, close to your face. That's okay; it's coming from you anyway. Your microdroplets of spittle infested (theoretically) with coronavirus will be caught in the face covering before it departs and others will be safe. It doesn't work in reverse very well because, as it turns out, the virus itself is smaller than almost all mask holes on the market. Only the N95 or better is small enough. But for those to be effective in protecting you, they would have to be fitted to eliminate gaps, and they're begging us not to buy those, but to leave them for medical people. Fair enough. So if you want to keep yourself from being infected, all you have to do is wear one of those hazmat-type body suits where you're completely enclosed with your own oxygen supply and all that. Oh, you have one of those? Good! Except when you go to get out of it, be careful. The outside is possibly infested. Oh, you don't have one of those? Too bad. That cloth face mask isn't going to protect you. It was never intended to.

Understand what I'm saying. They're not pointless. They're fairly effective for others around you. They are helpful especially because so many COVID carriers are asymptomatic and never even become symptomatic. Because, as it turns out, this virus is much more benign to the everyday everyman who is generally healthy than we've been led to believe. But that's because we are unclear on the concept. Unclear on the reporting methods. Unclear on the reports' purposes. Unclear on the danger or lack thereof. Unclear on the impact of being unclear. Do nothing? No! Wear your mask for the sake of others. Wash your hands often for your own sake. Do what you can to avoid touching your face. But you have to know that quarantining yourself with other people and doing all these masks and gloves and such -- all good things to do -- still don't put you out of harm's way. That's not in your purview. You'll have to find Help elsewhere.

God Wins Every Time

We had a dear friend from church. She was an elderly lady and many of these elderly ladies have a lifetime of tales to tell about their walk with the Lord. You know the kind. There is something more precious, more real, more gripping about their love for Jesus because they've lived it so long, cemented it with more experience, sealed it with more practice. And it is reflected in their love for others.

Well, one day quite recently she -- let's call her Ellie -- tried to log into the Zoom Life Group gathering. Ellie was about to ask for prayer when she made some strange remarks and dropped out. Not long thereafter we found out that she had had a potential stroke. Days later she came home from the hospital without a stroke. Instead, the doctor found a brain tumor. Not only that, a terminal brain tumor. Only months to live.

Well, Ellie was really something to see. She perked right up. Aches and pains and worries about her weight or her sore joints were gone. She saw clearly that she had nothing to lose but the chance to glorify God by sharing Christ with anyone who would listen. "Let me tell you about my Jesus." She was slowed physically by the rascally tumor (which she named), but she wasn't deterred emotionally or spiritually. She was on a mission to share her love for Christ with anyone and everyone, believers and unbelievers alike.

It has been a few months now and a day after we had dinner with her we received word that Ellie was in distress. The tumor was affecting her motor skills and her memory and was confusing her. It was painful to watch. It was kind of like watching one of those TV series named for your favorite doctor or cop character or whatever. He finds himself in dire straits. Even at risk of death. Oh, no, the bad stuff is happening! And you feel tense about it. Oh, it's foolish, of course. If the character were to die, the show would be over. That won't happen. So you take the scary ride even though you know how it comes out.

We knew how this would come out. Ellie would go home to be with her precious Savior. She did just that Saturday morning. It would have been fun if she were to have had that tumor healed. But it didn't matter. God wins. Every time. No matter what. So we took the scary ride and we held our breath. We wept with her as she wept and we prayed for her in her difficult moments. And we waited to see what God would do. We walked with her through the valley of death fearing no evil. Because God wins every time. He won, again, yesterday morning, when He called Ellie to her eternal reward. We will miss you, dear sister.

News Weakly - 7/25/20

How to Win Friends and Influence Voters
According to Business Insider, "Joe Biden has said four Black women are among those being vetted to be his vice president." I would think that would be a no-brainer after his mind-numbing, "You ain't black if you don't vote for me" comment. On the other hand, the Democratic party has been the anti-black party since the 19th century and that hasn't stopped black people from being on board, so ...

Mean Ol' Israelis
Israel reportedly launched a missile strike at Syria and killed 5 "Iran-backed fighters." Mean ol' Israel. Killing people for no good reason. Just because Syria and Iran favor the total annihilation of Israel is no reason to be shooting at ... what was the term ... oh, yeah, "Iran-backed fighters." Why is mean ol' Israel shooting at peace-loving Syria and their "Iran-backed" pals? (And it's interesting that while the reports say Damascus was targeted, there were no reports of civilian injuries.)

Because We Say So
Whole Foods has been sued by workers who wanted to wear BLM face masks at work and were told they couldn't. Silly store managers pointed to some useless "company dress code" that doesn't allow "any visible slogans, messages, logos or advertising that are not company-related, on any article of clothing." The company is clearly led by narrow-minded racists. Even if some of them are black. Now, if they had tried a pro-Trump face mask and been disciplined, no one would take the case because that would be the right thing to do. In fact, some of the same folk might have sued Whole Foods for allowing a MAGA mask. But we only follow the rules we approve and the only rules we approve are the ones that let us do what we want and not the ones that benefit our opponents. "Because we say so."

Fight Fire with ...?
I don't know the facts. All I know is what is reported by the media. So I won't make a judgment call here. According to the news, the St. Louis couple who waved their guns at trespassers will be charged with felony unlawful use of a weapon. As I said, I don't know all the circumstances. What I find odd in this story is St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner's words. "It is illegal to wave weapons in a threatening manner -- that is unlawful in the city of St. Louis." Really? So if, say, Bob over there is having his home invaded and pulls out a shotgun and waves it in a threatening manner, he has a felony weapons charge coming? I kind of thought that waving a weapon for, say, home defense was hopefully the point -- to stop people from harming you. Apparently not. You can own a weapon, but you better not threaten to use it.

Trump is a Jerk -- Neener-Neener
I am not a Trump fan, but even I can see the level of hate-Trump syndrome the media has. For awhile now they've been telling how stupid he is for not wearing masks. Of course, when the CDC told us masks weren't of much use, the White House put out a recommendation to wear them and the CDC reluctantly went along. Now Trump tweets that wearing a mask is patriotic and they're upset with him again. Do you suppose if he tweeted "I love CNN" they'd go out of business ... voluntarily?

Truth in Advertising
We have rules in this country. Like "truth in advertising." It's the law. If a company presents false information in an advertisement, they can be in trouble for "false advertising." On the other hand, the law specifically does not apply to political ads. So I don't know what all the furor is about over a Trump ad on Facebook. Apparently there is an ad showing Trump in a peaceful America contrasted with a photo of riots ... which actually came from a pro-democracy protest in the Ukraine in 2014. Worse, it references "Evangelicals" who are ready to help re-elect this guy. To be clear, I don't like Trump ads. Can't stand them. To be fair, I don't like any political ads. Primarily for the simple reason that they have no need to be truthful. And, they're not. Given the status quo of false advertising among politicians and the biblical reference to one called "the father of lies," what do you suppose I should conclude about most politicians?

Irony?
The report says that the mayor of Portland was tear-gassed by federal law enforcement during a protest Wednesday. Remember, this mayor has sued the government to get federal law enforcement out of his city. Mind you, the story says it was "a chaotic display of violence and mayhem" that included protesters throwing flaming bags of garbage at the federal courthouse -- precisely the kind of event where you might need some law enforcement not using lethal force. But the protesters believe that they need no enforcement. Get rid of the police. To which I ask, "Who you gonna call?" when rioters show up at your house?

A Silver Lining
We've been watching the "cancel culture" at work for months now, tearing down history, heroes, and anything else they can get their hands on. It's crazy. But now we get a silver lining. Planned Parenthood of Greater New York is removing the founder's name because of Margaret Sanger's "racist legacy" -- her well-known connection to eugenics and her aim of eliminating the black race. At least they've admitted it. So ... do you think anyone is listening? Naw. Facts haven't bothered that crowd in the past.

Is It Wrong That I Laughed?
I am in the habit of putting up something here at the end for comic relief from the Babylon Bee. Was it wrong that I laughed at this headline?

Froot Loops Finally Changes Offensive Name To LGBTQ Loops

"Gender" Confusion

We are still debating gender in our society these days. One side says, "You are the gender you feel you are regardless of what you're born with" and the other says, "That's nonsense; you are the gender you're born with and to feel differently is confusion." Please note: "confusion" is not an insult. They used to call it "gender confusion" themselves, but it sounded insulting so they switched to "dysphoria" -- "a state of unease or generalized dissatisfaction." I think, however, that we all have "gender" confusion. I don't mean the kind we're arguing about. I mean with terminology. We are imprecise with our words (How can we be precise when they are constantly shifting?), so we are imprecise without understanding -- confusion. So let's see if we can ease this end of the discussion a bit.

We have two words we often use interchangeably: "sex" and "gender." They are not technically interchangeable; we just do it. "Sex" refers to essentially chromosomes -- XX or XY. "Sex" refers to anatomy, specifically of the reproductive system. In the science world XX is female and XY is male and never the twain shall meet. (We will set aside "intersex" for the moment because that has nothing to do with this part of the conversation. "Intersex" and "transgender" are apples and oranges.) "Gender," on the other hand, is a reference to what we refer to as "masculine" and "feminine." It is the expression of male and female sex as we understand it. This is obvious in our current "no binary gender" world when "he" feels like he's a "she" and then assumes feminine characteristics and appearance (or vice versa). We all know what "masculine" and "feminine" characteristics and appearance look like ... and that's "gender." In those terms, "gender confusion" per se has always been around. We've always had girls (sex) who were "tom boys" (gender) and guys (sex) who were "effeminate" (gender). But even then we all understood "sex" and "gender" and what was what. Like the old song said, even a child "knows one sex from the other; all he has to do is look" ("Doin' What Comes Natur'lly," 1946).

So while we debate this stuff with each other, it turns out we've been in perfect agreement and still shouting past each other. We will use a phrase like "biological sex" to describe what they were born with and then "gender identity" to describe how they feel about their gender ... and both are accurate. Then we'll be offended when they say, "This one identifies as a female" (gender) and argue, "But, he was born a male" (sex). Again, both are accurate. The problem arises when "how I feel about my gender" becomes the definition of "my sex." In one of my favorite Bugs Bunny/Daffy Duck/Elmer Fudd cartoons, Bugs tricks Daffy into making Elmer shoot Daffy. When he gets his beak back in place, he discovers the reason: "pronoun trouble."

Daffy had no idea how much trouble pronouns would become. Now they're reasons for lawsuits, lost jobs, and criminal accusations.

I have not solved the question for a single person at this point. Not my aim at this point. I just hope that we can take one step back to start to take steps forward. One's sex refers to the body and that is a birth condition, not something assigned by a doctor or a parent. Gender is the expression of maleness or femaleness and everyone has options in that area. Always has. Regardless of whether or not it matches your sex, we all still know what masculinity and femininity look like. No reason to keep arguing over that. All that's left is the definition of reality. Is it how I feel or what is actually real? That's the discussion we should be having. Oh, no, we won't. Because we, as a society, have generally rejected Truth (John 14:6) and operate blindly (2 Cor 4:4) as children of the father of lies (Jer 17:9). But I can dream, can't I?

Forgive Us our Debts

Forgiveness. It is in very short supply in our society today. Ours is the "cancel culture." Violate one of our cardinal rules and you are not only in violation -- you are out ... as permanently as we can make it. (That is, as long as your not one of the insiders.)

Forgiveness, however, is critical. When the disciples asked their Teacher to teach them to pray, one of the fundamental components of prayer offered by Christ was "forgive us our debts as we also have forgiven our debtors" (Matt 6:12). What can we learn from this?

Since this is a fundamental component of prayer, it must be true that forgiveness is critical. And that leads us to conclude that we all need it. None of us are without sin. Still. All of us need to confess (1 John 1:9). Our sin is paid for, once and for all, but in order to remain in close relationship we need to confess sin. To "confess" is literally to "say with." Confession, then, is agreeing with God about what He calls "sin" in our lives. To deny sin is a lie (1 John 1:8, 10). While we often like to see ourselves on the "moral high ground," if we don't see ourselves as sinners, we're lying to ourselves.

Another thing we can learn is that sin incurs debt. Some use the word "trespasses. The Greek there is ὀφείλημα -- opheilēma. It is a pecuniary term meaning "to owe." So, while we certainly owe God obedience -- "no trespassing" so to speak -- the idea in the Greek is a debt. So in Paul's letter to the saints at Colossae, he said that Christ had "canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us." (Col 2:14) Sin, then, incurs debt between us and God. It isn't minor. We owe perfect obedience (Matt 5:48) and anything less requires "payback." Except once perfect obedience is lost, how do you pay that back? How do you proceed with better than perfect obedience to pay back that missing part? Can't be done. So it is a debt we incur and a debt we cannot pay. Thanks be to God for His indescribable gift!

One more important lesson here. In giving us that necessary component of prayer -- requesting forgiveness -- He followed up with some critical explanations. (Interestingly He didn't follow up on any other explanations of other components; just this one.)

For if you forgive others for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions. (Matt 6:14-15)

Yikes! Jesus declared our own forgiveness as contingent on the forgiveness we give others! Paul told the church at Ephesus, "Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you." (Eph 4:32) So we are to forgive (it is a command) as God has forgiven us in Christ. God didn't forgive on the basis of our restitution, but on the basis of Christ having paid the price. Mercy and grace. So, too, are we to forgive. And if we don't forgive, we shouldn't expect mercy and grace from God.

Port these into today's environment. We are a "cancel culture" that is unwilling to show grace, unwilling to show mercy, unwilling to forgive. The mere idea of restoring the fallen is offensive to us as a society. I beg of you, dear Christian, that this doesn't describe you. I urge you not to fall for that line of thinking, that attitude. Because it will not go well for us if we refuse to forgive. "If you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions." Don't be that person.

No Justice

That has been the chant, right? "No justice, no peace." The complaint is that they didn't think justice is being served and they demanded that it is. That doesn't seem like an excessive desire. We do expect justice to be served. Well, mostly.

Scripture talks about God's mercy. Now, mercy is not justice. It is, in fact, justice contravened. Justice is getting what you deserve and mercy is not getting what you deserve. For everyone else we demand justice, but for our own sake we do like mercy over justice.

Odd thing. I argued in the past that Christ paid for our sins on the cross. Well, I didn't argue it. I pointed it out in Scripture. Paul says that we have "been justified by His blood." (Rom 5:9) "You who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ." (Eph 2:13) "It was the Father's good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven." (Col 1:19-20) And more. The term that Scripture likes to use is "redeemed" -- to buy up or pay the price. "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law." (Gal 3:13) "You were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ." (1 Peter 1:18-19) And more. Jesus "gave Himself as a ransom." (1 Tim 2:6) A ransom -- the redemption price. I'm not making this stuff up. But they protested. "Not true!" They were sure that we are saved just because God is merciful -- contravening justice.

You understand, I hope, what they're saying. "We demand justice! Well, no, not for us. And certainly not from God. No, we want mercy for us." But God is so clever. He figured out how to do both. No, they don't accept that, but it's all over the New Testament. Christ died to pay for our sins (justice) in order that we can be shown mercy. It demonstrates God as both "just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus." (Rom 3:26)

Me? I don't want justice. I can't afford justice. I don't want "fair." I could not stand to receive from God what I deserve. Nor do I want to nullify God as just. So I think I'll leave Him as He is, both just and justifier, a truly marvelous God. The Judge of all the earth that does what is just and shows mercy. One of a kind. My Savior.

Broken

The human is an odd creature. I use "creature" here intentionally. We are not a cosmic accident, the product of chance, some highly evolved, superior animal. We are creatures -- creations of the Creator. We are perhaps His highest creation, but we are nonetheless creations. Which makes us odd.

We live our lives here on Earth for a limited time. Everyone is worried about the percentages of people dying of COVID, but in the end the death rate from being born is 100%. We are all here for a limited time. Yet we live like we'll live forever. We take unnecessary risks and do things that will neither serve our time on this planet well nor, especially, our time in eternity.

We are creatures put here by God for God's purposes, but we live as if it is "all about me." It's about my pleasure, my comfort, my best interests, my personal preferences.

We are offered eternity by an eternal God with all the wonders and delights that God's eternity will provide, but we're disdainful of that and prefer the immediate, the here and now, the short-lived for people who are short-lived. So instead of an eternal view on, say, sexual relations, we prefer the immediate, short term satisfaction and ignore God. God offers us involvement in His infinite and essential work and we prefer to pursue the finite and unimportant work of making money, gathering fame and power, and the rest of the world's sandcastles. God offers us love, joy, and peace which we say we really want, but substitute lust, momentary happiness, and a few minutes of quiet instead.

At the core, we are not the center of the universe. We are creations of the Center of the universe. It is not about us; it's about Him. We are not the protagonists in this story; we're the fillers. We're the characters that populate the story around the main players -- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Amazingly, God loves the fillers. In fact, He offers to adopt the fillers. But we miss the point even after being adopted and still think it's all about us.

We're not merely odd because we are so shortsighted that we can't see the truth about ourselves. We're odd because we miss so very much that stands in front of us, offered by the hand of God, right there for the taking. All we have to do is give up our self-righteous, self-aggrandizing position and accept His gifts of grace, mercy, love, adoption, relationship, eternal life, and so much more. It's not like we're clamoring in this life for the good stuff. We're finding pleasures in the trash heap while we're offered treasures in His presence. We are ... broken, out of order, malfunctioning. He can fix that.

Programming Note

Given the choice of me continuing to do battle with a particularly hateful troll at my new blog, returning to this site and learning how to blog with the new process, or stopping altogether, the majority of responders told me to try it here again. So, I'm trying it here again. For a short time I'll use both locations and post the same thing in both places. We'll see what happens. Thank you for your advice and attention.

Be Ready to Give a Defense

I watched a movie a few months back titled The Reliant. The story was set in a fictional time of rioting and unrest in America. A small town family gets caught up in it. The father (Kevin Sorbo) is killed and the kids (from young adult to maybe 8) flee to the forest to hide. The movie is about faith. "The Reliant" refers to the question, "Can we rely on God?" And the characters ask some really meaningful questions with some really meaningful answers. For example, after a death, the oldest son is angry at God and dueling with his sister over it. "Would Dad have let her die?" "No, of course not." "Why?" "Because he loved her." "So, Dad loved her better than God did?!" Those kinds of tough questions. Watching the movie, I was testing my own responses to the questions. What would I answer? How could I say? And I wondered, "What responses would others give?"

We are commanded to always be "prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you." (1 Peter 3:15) We understand that to mean to be ready to defend the faith. And, sure, that's in there. That's actually what Jude says. We are "to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints." (Jude 1:3) But Peter's version goes a little broader. It's not just about "the faith." It's about the hope we have. And, surely, the faith is a major portion of our hope. But the people asking the hard questions in that movie were believers, not skeptics. How are we at having answers for them?

Skeptics are everywhere. No surprise. Not even a complaint. And while we are supposed to contend for the faith and be ready to make a defense for the hope we have, my concern is for the people that should have the answers. Believers. Those with the Spirit and with God's Word. How do we answer life's tough questions? Hopefully not with platitudes and misguided false claims. We need to be ready to make a defense for unbelievers and for believers. Are you ready?

Diagnosing Sin

All Christians are "repeat offenders." In general, none of us in this life are free of the sin from which we are saved (1 John 1:10; 1 John 2:1). And each of us have what we call "besetting sins," those particular sins that just keep coming back. We commit them, we repent, we confess, we turn, we call out for help ... and a day or a week or a month later we find ourselves right there again. It is true for all of us. Paul wrote what we all feel. "Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?" (Rom 7:24)

We all have it, but why? It's a part of being a human with a sin nature. We won't be free from that this side of heaven. We all suffer from precisely Adam and Eve suffered in the Garden. We all hear in our ears, "You can be like God." (Gen 3:5) We are overgrown children telling our Authority, "You're not the boss of me!"

As believers, while we may recognize it, we don't like it. We long to please the Savior rather than contradict Him. We want to be obedient children of our Father. So it pains us. It goes against our new nature (1 John 3:9). What's a brother to do?

Jesus offered His own insight on the matter. He offered an outstanding diagnostic tool. He told His disciples, "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments." (John 14:15) How is that a diagnostic tool? Well, according to Jesus, if we love Him, we will obey Him. So ... if I am failing to obey Him "here" or "over there," what is the root problem? A failure to love Him. It's as simple as that.

You see, when you love, you love to please the one you love. You don't do it as duty; you do it because it pleases you to do it. When we fail to obey, it's because we love something more than we love Him. Humans always act according to their strongest inclination, and in those moments that we sin, our strongest inclination is not to love Christ. It is to love lust or fame or money or pride or ... any of the hundreds of things we fall into. It is, in the end, nothing more or less than idolatry. We love a substitute for Jesus.

We are told to flee sin (1 Cor 6:18; 1 Cor 10:14; 1 Tim 6:11; 2 Tim 2:22). Right choice. But we need a direction. We need not merely to run from, but to run to. And Jesus gave us that direction. If we fail to obey, it is because we failed to love Him. Correct that. Run from our sin to His arms. An excellent remedy for sin. Who do you love? If you're sinning, it is currently not Christ. Recognize it and change.

Little children, keep yourselves from idols (1 John 5:21)

Adam's Error

Here's a little tidbit I never caught before. In the story of the Fall in Genesis 3, the serpent had a conversation with Eve. He asked her to question what God said. He told her God lied. He convinced her that if she ate the fruit God forbade, she would be "like God." (Gen 3:1-5) The serpent only talked to Eve. The serpent only deceived Eve (1 Tim 2:14). Now, we know that Adam sinned as well, that "she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate." (Gen 3:6) But Adam's error wasn't that he was deceived by the serpent; Adam's error was that he "listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree." (Gen 3:17) Eve was led astray by the serpent; Adam was led astray by Eve. Adam preferred Eve to God.

The outcome we know. Creation was subjected to futility (Rom 8:20-21; Gen 3:17-18) and Adam and through him all humans were sentenced to hard labor (Gen 3:19). Eve (and all women since), on the other hand, received her own sentence. "I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, in pain you will bring forth children; yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you." (Gen 3:16) Now, that phrase, "your desire will be for your husband" isn't emotional or sexual desire for her husband, but the desire to rule (as illustrated in the next time the term is used in Gen 4:7). For women, the result of Eve's being deceived by Satan was pain in childbirth and a lifetime of head-butting with the leadership God ordained in the form of her husband.

It has ever been thus. In today's world the curse is winning. For a century or more women's voices have grown louder and louder, more overt in their "desire for her husband" and in rebellion against God's rule. We call it "feminism" and consider it noble and normal even in the church because, after all, it's been with us all our lives. So when Paul says, "I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet" (1 Tim 2:12), we are outraged, even in the church. "He didn't mean that." Responses range from "Paul was a misogynist" to "Paul was only talking about in his day when women were uneducated and suppressed." They all mean, "No, that's not true anymore." They don't care that Paul gives his reasoning.

For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. (1 Tim 2:13-14)

Paul bases his reasoning in creation order and God-given responsibilities (1 Cor 11:2-3), but that doesn't matter. Women (and men who have listened to them) boldly stand and say, "We will not go gently into the night. We will stand against God's oppression of women." Thus demonstrating God's analysis (Gen 3:17) and proving God's curse (Gen 3:16) and affirming Paul's reasoning (1 Tim 2:13-14).

I hadn't seen before that Adam's error was listening to his wife when she urged him to defy God. Having seen it, I can't unsee it. Sin happens in all households, but this one is as prevalent in Christian households as it is in unbeliever households. The Bible holds that women are made in the image of God (Gen 1:27), co-heirs and worthy of all honor (1 Peter 3:7), not to be devalued or diminished, but they have their own particular essential role to fulfill (Gen 2:18) as do men (Gen 3:17-19; 1 Cor 11:3). Just as in the Garden, we've jettisoned that structure and, in doing so, diminished both men and women. We celebrate wives who will not submit (Eph 5:22-24) and castigate husbands who will not love (Eph 5:25-28) and turn God's creation order and roles on their heads and call it "good." I expect no less of those who are hostile to God (Rom 8:7). Christians, what's your excuse?

Hands On

Deism was a belief popular in the 18th and 19th centuries. There were more than a few of America's founding fathers that were deists. Theism is the idea of a God who is there, so to speak. Deism is the idea that God set it all in motion and then just stepped back. So both views include God, except deism removes Him one step from our lives. Deism isn't so prevalent anymore, but I think most of us are practical deists. Sure, we acknowledge God, but, for the most part, we see ourselves as on our own and pray at times for God to intervene, to step in and act when we aren't able to handle things. Practical deism. Not biblical theism.

The biblical perspective of God and His creation is one of a "hands on" relationship. We imagine that the world runs on physical laws and such -- physics, gravity, forces, etc. -- but Scripture offers a different notion. speaking of Christ, we read,

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by Him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities — all things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. (Col 1:15-17)

"In Him all things hold together." Along the same lines, Paul told the Athenians, "In Him we live and move and have our being." (Acts 17:28) Our living, our moving, our very being is completely and constantly maintained by Him. No deism there.

There is another critical "hands on" aspect of Christ. Jesus said, "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand." (John 10:27-29) We are often concerned about salvation. Where does it come from? How do we get it? Can we lose it? Can we have assurance? In this little conversation, Jesus answers some of that without equivocation. Jesus's sheep follow Him; He gives them eternal life. That's where salvation comes from. He gives it. Can you lose it? He says, "They will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of My hand." No, you can't. But it's not because of you. It's because He is "hands on" here. We don't know we will be saved because we are confident in our ability to maintain our salvation. We know we will be saved because of Whose hands we are in. He holds us.

Existence itself is a product of Christ's constant touch. He alone originated us and He alone holds us together. It is a moment-by-moment act, an ongoing, continuous work of Christ that we exist at all. It is the absolute opposite of a "get it started and step away" deism. Beyond that, salvation is a product of Christ's work and is maintained for us in another moment-by-moment act, keeping us safely in His hands where none, not even ourselves, can remove us. Again, this is not deism. I think we put way too much trust in our own power and will to get us from point A to point B. God's Word indicates that we exist by His constant hand and we are saved by His constant hand. That's a hands-on God. And it's the God I need to trust.

The Depths of Depravity

We are facing big problems these days. Well, let's be honest. We're just facing them anew as we have in previous decades and even centuries. The biggest one -- or, rather, the loudest one -- is racism whose far-reaching tendrils work their way into all sorts of segments of our lives. Our approach is varied. Some want to pass new laws to make racism illegal. Some want to eliminate police because that will help solve racism. Others want to eliminate white people¹ because that will help solve racism. Maybe if we take down all symbols of racism from the past we'll be free of it in the future. Maybe if we "cancel" anything and anyone who ever said or did a racist thing, we can stomp out (quite literally in some cases) racism.

It won't work, you know. It's not going to happen. Certainly not in these ways. Because the problem isn't where the loudest voices think it is. And the fact that the loudest voices are able to convince so many others who are listening says that so many don't know what the problem is either.

"Humanistic Psychology" is actually a fairly new concept on the market in historical terms. It is the psychological term that is premised on the idea that people are basically good. The thinking goes that humans are good at their core, so if something goes bad, it is caused by external forces. Poverty gets the blame a lot of the time. Or bad parenting. (Well, at least, that used to be considered a factor.) And, of course, there are many more factors to blame, including today's police forces, white racism, male sexism, corporate greed, and so on. So the approach is that we simply have to fix these problems and people will be free to be themselves -- basically good. Character development is not important; just remove the obstacles to good behavior and people will be good. One fundamental problem with that approach is that someone will have to explain why all those evils that are causing evils are occurring, too. That is, without a source of evil, you have a hard time explaining the source of evil and, thus, no means of finding a remedy.

The prevalent concept of the basic goodness of humans is why we cannot even begin to approach a solution. If you believe that people are basically good, then you believe that you are basically good and if you are basically good, then those that disagree with you are bad, and the more power you and those who think like you have, the better off the world will be. On the other hand, the Bible says we are conceived in iniquity (Psa 51:5), "estranged from the womb" (Psa 58:3), with blinded minds (2 Cor 4:4) and deceitful hearts (Jer 17:9) and hearts intent on evil from our youth (Gen 8:21). (And more.) Only one human being in history ever dodged that bullet -- Jesus of Nazareth. The rest of us are born sinners. In biblical terms, "There is no one who does good, not even one." (Psa 14:3) 

In this way, then, racism is systemic. That is, racism is sourced in the sin nature of every human being on the planet. So is sexism, hate, and every sort of evil you want to name. (Yeah, yeah, we may disagree on just what things are evil, but my point is that every genuine evil is sourced in our own sin nature.) So racism is "in the system," so to speak, produced by human sin nature. But since humans have sin at their core, it touches everything they do. That would include evils they do as well as the laws they make to fight evil, the policies and methods they use to change people, all of it.

Having sin at the core, we have a real problem, then. Having blinded minds and deceitful hearts, we have difficulty even recognizing evil, especially in ourselves. This is so clearly demonstrated in the "people are basically good" principle which is so patently wrong yet drives all our efforts to solve these problems. That's why removing law enforcement or creating better policies or changing government or eliminating white people won't touch racism. It doesn't touch the root cause.

We humans can take steps to mitigate the evils we perpetrate. We can pass laws and make policies and produce traditions and customs for good. But we can't do that without having an objective good as a standard. And we, as a society, have tossed that out. America (and the world) needs healing, solutions, help. We won't find it in the current approach of "better plans" or laws or policies or, of course, vitriolic hate. Since the problem is our individual sin nature that is common to all, the solution needs to address that sin nature in individuals. If we fail to do that, expect to see more and more failed solutions. Like Prohibition in the early 20th century in America which failed to solve a real problem because it failed to address the real problem, our current "solutions" won't be solutions at all. And since we as a nation have largely rejected the real solution to our sin nature, I expect we'll see more and more failed solutions in our future.

Where am I going with this? Really not to a defeatist conclusion. I'm aiming to check myself for my sinful actions and attitudes (Psa 51:10-12). I fool myself if I think I'm free of them. And I'm going to encourage fellow believers to do the same for themselves. And I'm going to point all Christians (including myself) to Jesus's command to "Go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you" (Matt 28:19-20) -- to share the solution with others. Because my God is not a failed solution. Christ is, in fact, the only solution to the depths of human depravity.
________

¹ You will think I'm being alarmist or, at best, using hyperbole with the suggestion that there are those who would wish to eliminate white people. I am neither. From Harvard Magazine in an article about a journal titled Race Traitor, "Make no mistake about it: we intend to keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females too, until the social construct known as 'the white race' is destroyed — not 'deconstructed' but destroyed." They may not be a majority, but they are not imaginary, either.

The Wrong Side of History

I'm sure you've heard the term, or, rather, the warning. "If you hold your position, you'll find yourself on the wrong side of history." Or something like it. The idea is that things change in history and these changes are always for the better, so if you don't change with them, history will show that you're a loser. It's the idea that "newer is better," that "progressive" is enlightened and improvement. Now, certainly things change with history, but I question the second premise. Always for the better? But if that's not the case, the whole thing comes apart. And, in fact, the whole thing is problematic. The phrase suggests that history will judge you. Very odd. The notion is that history -- time itself -- leads to ever increasing morality on its own.

Of course, there are all sorts of problems here. History is not a being, but we're suggesting here that it gets to judge you and me. Clearly not the case. So who does? To be on a "right side" or a "wrong side" of history requires a judgment -- a moral judgment. Whose judgment will be used? The very concept of the "wrong side of history" implies a force, a source, an author, as it were, that is pushing history along from bad to better. What source? What makes us think it is true? Historically, can we claim, "Every course change we've made is always for the better, always for the right"? I think that would be a phenomenal kind of nonsense since we all know better. "The wrong side of history" is an entirely problematic position when its removed from any viable source or moral absolutes.

History, on the other hand, is not random. Biblically, God says, "I am God, and there is none like Me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, 'My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all My purpose.'" (Isa 46:9-10) Now that's a view of history with a source and with absolutes. From this perspective, then, it is possible to be on the "wrong side of history." If history is actually "His story" -- the story that God has written and is maintaining for eternity -- then the "wrong side of history" is the wrong side of God and the "right side of history" is cooperating with His plans, values, and directions. Of course, that won't win us approval of those who are claiming we're on the wrong side of history for approving of that which God approves, but is it really their approval we're seeking?

News Weakly - 7/4/2020

Not Surprising
The story is that retirement applications are up 19% in the NYPD. A retired officer lists three basic reasons: 1) lack of support from political leaders, 2) tense relationship between police and the community, and 3) officers who are hated by family members because they are officers. All seem reasonable. All are offensive to me. Especially that last one, where loud voices (not a majority; just loud) of hate have turned family members against officers simply for being police officers. Oh, and, shock of shocks, "There's also been a recent spike in crime citywide." None of this should be a surprise. Sad, but not a surprise.

Banned Words
Graham Linehan was banned from Twitter permanently for the patently stupid idea that there are X chromosomes and Y chromosomes and the combination of those two and not one's feelings determine one's sex. To be precise, he tweeted, "men aren't women tho" and was banned for "hateful conduct." According to the story, he was "suspended from Twitter for after breaching the social media site's rules on using banned words." Banned words? Welcome to the thought police?

Trust in Princes
You thought we had a majority, right? You thought we had conservative judges. We could now take back the judiciary. You were wrong. Two of our "conservative" judges essentially rewrote the dictionary for us in terms of "sex" and biology for us in terms of gender. And now John Roberts has sided again with the forces of evil who wish to terminate the lives of the most defenseless humans and struck down Louisiana's attempt to mitigate the murder. Now, perhaps, you can see why we're told not to "put your trust in princes" -- not to expect earthly powers to protect you from satanic ones. Turns out they're largely on the same side. Who will save the children? Not your conservative judges.

On July 1
This data comes from July 1. They keep updating it. According to the CDC, from February 1, 2020, to June 27, 2020, 112,226 people had died of COVID-19 or COVID-19-related problems. According to the data, fully 33% of those deaths were in the over-85 age group. When you factor in the 75-84 group, you're now just under 60%. One more step, the 65-74 year old group, and you have over 80% of all deaths. Add in the 55-64 age group and it's more than 92.5%. Below the age of 55, the deaths account for just under 7.5% of all deaths. We are currently seeing a surge in cases among the 20-44 year old age group (a surge in detection, not in deaths) ... which, combined, total just 2.6% of all deaths from anything COVID-19. But we're in panic mode now because of the "surge" (which is largely fed by testing people who have no symptoms but get tested anyway out of fear and find out they have it ... and it has no effects). Now, I am in the 55+ age group -- 92.6% of the deaths -- so if it will make you happy, I'll stay home in isolation if you just let those 20 to 54-year-olds go back to normal because of the sheer unlikelihood that any of them will suffer consequences from COVID. Have them wear masks, wash their hands, all that safe stuff, but don't lock everyone down. We are penalizing the well with the infected. But, I suppose, it's what we do. Quarantine the healthy with the sick; punish the innocent with the guilty. They will continue to report the horrible numbers of new cases every day and we'll all panic and go back to whatever it takes to destroy the lives and welfare of the majority of our people in order to save lives, because they won't tell you the infinitesimal impact the Wuhan virus has on the vast majority of our population. How is that not "terrorism"?

What's Important
The news item said that a Black transgender was fatally shot in Dallas. Very sad. These things should not be. But that's just me ... pro-life, you know? Since it was a Black transgender (When did we start capitalizing "Black" in that context?), I suppose the police shouldn't investigate because, after all, you can't trust the police. Too much snark? Yes, I suppose so. But the real news was that the police "deadnamed" the victim. I had to look that up. "Deadnaming" is when someone uses a transgender person's birth name instead of their new, preferred name. It often goes right along with "misgendering," where the "incorrect" pronoun is used. So, to refer to Bruce Jenner as Bruce Jenner and "him" instead of Kaitlin Jenner and "her" would be "deadnaming." And killing Merci Mack in Dallas was bad, but deadnaming -- recognizing the biological sex and birth name -- now that is pure evil. More proof that the police are haters.

The Slope Slips
"Yours is a slippery slope argument," they said. "That is not a valid argument," they said. Well, it's not valid until it happens. And it has. The argument went something like, "If you redefine marriage from the definition it has had for all time -- a man and a woman -- to this new "same-sex" thing, where do you stop? Polygamy? Objectophila? (Look it up.) Polyamory?" Well, it was a slippery slope argument and now it's fact. The city of Sommerville, MA, has passed an ordinance to recognize polyamorous relationships. "It's not the place of the government to define a family." On what basis, then, do they exclude polygamy? Or all those other things I don't even care to think about let alone name? Stay tuned for greater perversions going mainstream in a city near you.

New Plan for Unity
"One nation ... indivisible ..." If we are to achieve this ideal, we need to be united. And the NFL has a plan to move toward it. Before they play the Star-Spangled Banner at the beginning of Week 1 games, they will play "the Black national anthem." (Again ... when did we start capitalizing "black" in that context?) Because clearly the way we can be united is to present the United States of America as two nations divided -- black and white. Makes sense to me ... oh, wait ... no it doesn't!

Inclusivity
In Hollywood actors are taking the pledge in the name of inclusivity to "never to take a role where they have to act like someone they are not." Good for them. It can only improve Hollywood, I'm sure.

In related news, Disney is promising to have Winnie the Pooh voiced by a real bear in the future. Equality at last.

Must be true; I read it on the Internet.

A Short Observation

I wanted to do something about Independence Day. I know, it's tomorrow and, I know, we're just observing it today, but tomorrow is my News Weakly slot, so it would have been today. Unfortunately, it doesn't feel at all like we enjoy independence in America these days. So I'm going a different direction.

Arguably the best known Bible verse today is Matthew 7:1. Say it with me. "Judge not!" Because that is the theme of our culture ... at least toward people like Christians with biblical moral values.

Why do I put that caveat in there? Well, because, quite clearly, our current culture is steeped in judgmentalism. We are lapping it up and pouring it out liberally, even violently. We are absolutely sure that anyone who ever once said or did anything that we find offensive by today's standards should not only be judged; they should be canceled ("cancelled" if you're from the UK). Judge not? Oh, don't even bother. We're tearing down monuments, even to those who didn't offend. We're defunding all police because some police are corrupt. We are on an "offended" hair trigger and we will pull the trigger if anyone twitches. We are, currently, more of an "all-in" judgmental society right now than a "judge not" society.

That what makes it so ironic. Pulling out the "Judge not" verse to throw at Christians who are forced to draw biblical conclusions about "sin" and "morality" isn't very smart. Look at what it actually says.

"Do not judge so that you will not be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you." (Matt 7:1-2)

Jesus didn't say "Judge not" in a vacuum. He explained it. If you judge, expect to be judged. If you judge, expect to be judged by your own standard. (So He follows this with a warning to check yourself first (Matt 7:3-5).)

What is the current standard by which our culture is judging? "I am offended, and you get no grace, no mercy, no chance to recover. There is no forgiveness possible. You offend -- ever -- and you get canceled, torn down, defunded, ruined. End of story." Won't that be a kick in the pants if they get judged by the same standard that they're using?

In All Your Ways

We live in a world inundated with technology and, therefore, information. We have TV, Internet, smartphones, newsfeeds, the media in all sorts of forms ... lots and lots of info. We have YouTube and Google and Facebook and Twitter, all willing to give you free of charge "the truth" to enlighten your life. On top of it, we're in an election year when we choose new leadership. Hopefully leadership that will improve our lives and that of our nation. And, of course, we have "issues." We have COVID and BLM and global climate change and ... well, you know. So, to varying degrees with varying force we seek ways to mitigate the problems with the information and tools we have at hand and hope to see improvements, to make a better world. Vote in the right people. Make new laws to outlaw racism and mean people. Make better policies, preferably without police. Ban evil. Of course, we're doing it in counter directions because the "evil" you wish to ban may be the "good" others are trying to force on you or vice versa. But that's our aim.

You've heard the verses, I'm sure.

Trust in the LORD with all your heart and do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge Him, and He will make your paths straight.
(Prov 3:5-6)

That's ... interesting. Simplistic, perhaps. Not "current," certainly. I mean, where's the "check YouTube" or "follow the right media outlet" kind of things? Nothing in that text suggests "vote for the right person" or "campaign for better laws" or anything like that. Well, of course it doesn't. They had nothing like it at the time. Solomon, who wrote it, had no idea that we'd have Google or CNN or Congress or a president to vote on. So he just offered a simple "Trust in the LORD" approach and argued against trusting your own understanding. Imagine that!

Your response here likely expresses your heart. Me? I don't trust the media. I have no reason to think that Google or Facebook or CNN or Fox are reliable sources of facts, let alone wisdom. I have no reason to trust YouTube's "the truth about" searches because all of it is produced by people whose minds are blinded (2 Cor 4:4) and whose hearts are deceitful and desperately wicked (Jer 17:9). I am not counting on a better president (nor fearing a worse one) or better (or worse) laws or more accurate reporting. "Do not trust in princes, in mortal man, in whom there is no salvation," Scripture says (Psa 146:3). Instead, "It is better to take refuge in the LORD than to trust in princes." (Psa 118:9) Whether it be princes of industry or princes of government or princes of media, that's not where I'm going to place my confidence. My constant aim for me is to trust in the LORD with all my heart, to renew my mind rather than conform to the world (Rom 12:2) and trust in people hostile to God (Rom 8:7). You go with what you think is best. I think I'd prefer to change course to God's way.

The Emperor's New Clothes

In the famous Hans Christian Anderson tale, The Emperor's New Clothes, a vain emperor is duped into paying large sums to a shyster for the finest clothing that can only be seen by the brightest and best in the land. "If you're stupid, you can't see it." Now, it's a tale, so wondering about the particulars is fairly pointless. Questions like, "But, if you're going to be seen by stupid people, wouldn't you want to wear something they can see?" are beside the point. So he bought the line and walked out naked in his "finery" and was called out by an innocent child who cried, "But ... he hasn't got anything on!"

What happened? Why did the emperor fall for it? Why did the crowds keep quiet and even cheer as their naked leader walked by? Why did this kid call it when no one else would?

There is a parallel in a story in the Gospels. The chief priests and elders were challenging Jesus's authority. He offered to answer their question. "I also will ask you one question, and if you tell me the answer, then I also will tell you by what authority I do these things. The baptism of John, from where did it come? From heaven or from man?" (Matt 21:24-25) The account gives us insight into their thinking as they discussed their answer among themselves.

"If we say, 'From heaven,' He will say to us, 'Why then did you not believe him?' But if we say, 'From man,' we are afraid of the crowd, for they all hold that John was a prophet." So they answered Jesus, "We do not know." (Matt 21:25-27)

Notice the line of reasoning. It was never once "What is true?" It was always based on "How will our response make us look? What will make us look bad?"

That's the same concept in The Emperor's New Clothes. The emperor didn't want to be viewed as less than the brightest and best; nor did his advisors. On parade, the crowd didn't want to be seen as unpatriotic or stupid. It was only this child, unfettered by the fear of what others might think, that was able to offer the truth.

We're living there now in America. The truth is that the Bible clearly calls homosexual behavior a sin (Rom 1:26-27; 1 Cor 6:9-10), but we're pretty much silent on it because people will diminish us for it.

The truth is that marriage is established by God and is between one man and one woman, not two people of the same gender (let alone multiple people of multiple genders) (Gen 2:24; Matt 19:5; Eph 5:31), but we're told we're on the "wrong side of history" and to point to biblical truth as truth is backward, foolish, and hateful, so we hold our tongues.

The truth is that God made human beings in binary gender form (Gen 1:27), but we're told that its not true, that science has been wrong all this time, that "male and female" are a cultural construct, and anyone that says otherwise should be censured ... or worse, so we are quiet.

The truth is that human beings are made in the image of God (Gen 1:27) and, as such, have value applied by God so that a person who intentionally kills a human being "by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image." (Gen 9:6) But that will never do. We've surrendered that truth to "My body, my choice" and "reproductive rights" language and need to be very, very quiet about defending the most vulnerable humans -- the unborn. "You woman-haters!"

The truth is Scripture calls on wives to submit to husbands "as to the Lord" and husbands to love their wives "as Christ loved the church" (Eph 5:22-33), but society so loudly protests it that the church questions it and we surely don't want to be accused of being bad people by our own kind, so we put our hands over our mouths while we proclaim that the Bible is wrong and feminists are right.

The truth is Jesus opposed divorce for any reason (Matt 19:3-6), but, oh, that will never do. We feel the need to add to His list of possibilities because people are problematic and holding ourselves to a biblical position can be perceived as mean-spirited and biased. "If we say Jesus is right, then they'll say, 'Well, why don't you practice that?' but if we say He's wrong, they'll say, 'They why do you follow Him?'" So we give no answer.

The truth is that people need Jesus, but we're often afraid to say so because "What will people think?"

Our society, to the inclusion of some of our own faith, is an emperor without clothes, parading around in absent magnificence. We, for a large part, are silent because, like the fabled emperor, his staff, and his people, we're scared of what others might think. Like the Pharisees, we're scared of the ramifications rather than committed to the Truth. We are not the child, unafraid of any threat, declaring the Truth as God sees it in His Word.